Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?

musicalsunlight

Yep, Jess is right. Defense of Marriage Act prohibits any federal benefits regardless of state law. Just like you can smoke pot legally in some places with a med.marijuana card, but feds can still arrest you.

jessicabessica

If you're asking about Goodridge (the MA Supreme Judicial Court decision), the Court discusses how marriage links up to citizenship and liberty.  There is no rationale for creating a second-class citizen that cannot "marry" a person of his or her own choosing--that is what was created in Vermont in a prior court decision, and that was something that MA was not accepting.  The decision is somewhat traditional/conservative in that it emphasizes that marriage is part of the quintessential human experience. 

The 2008 Cal case that was pre-Prop 8 also goes into the nomenclature as an issue of dignity and respect.  Also, what about the stigma for any kids that have same-sex parents not allowed to marry?  On a personal note, I heard a Mass legislator discuss his feelings about how his kids would feel when they realized his parents, unlike their friends parents, were for some reason not allowed to marry, and it was incredibly moving. 

professorscience

I think it's hard to make a secular argument against same-sex marriage.  I mean, from a biological standpoint, a homosexual couple can't reproduce and therefore can't perpetuate the species, but there are lots of heterosexual couples who can't do that either.

I sort of agree with OOT -- the church shouldn't be brought into civil matters, but they should also have a right to govern within their own walls, so to speak.  The Catholic church already does that when they judge that one or both members of a couple are not "free to marry."  I feel like all of these "worst-case scenarios" against homosexual marriage/unions/whatever are pretty unfounded.

caitriona87

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155


Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010

Abstract:     
In the article, we argue that as a moral reality, marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together, and renewed by acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction. We further argue that there are decisive principled as well as prudential reasons for the state to enshrine this understanding of marriage in its positive law, and to resist the call to recognize as marriages the sexual unions of same-sex partners.

Besides making this positive argument for our position and raising several objections to the view that same-sex unions should be recognized, we address what we consider the strongest philosophical objections to our view of the nature of marriage, as well as more pragmatic concerns about the point or consequences of implementing it as a policy.


Download at the link above

Snippylynn

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:287e169a-b5df-417e-a887-faa116df9c04">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : If you are not a Christian, then how to you know what God is?  Just sayin'
Posted by Ciardasully[/QUOTE]
Do Christians own God in some way? I must have missed that memo. <div>
</div><div>But, to answer your question, growing up, I was active in AWANA, sunday school, bible camps-- the whole shebang. And you know what I found? A lot of self-righteous people who hid behind a book to justify their ideology. </div><div>
</div><div>At the end of the day, every religion is about HUMANITY and how we should live our lives in service to others and their needs before our own. God is everywhere and in everything. You don't need to call yourself a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or anything else to know and believe that. RELIGION gets in the way of faith and knowing what is right. Religion is the realm of men. FAITH is the realm of god. And until we move past the point where we rely on religion to tell us how to act, we will never know god in the truest sense.</div><div>
</div><div>Shame on anyone who declares another persons happiness void because of religion. GOD is love and wants his children only to be happy. </div>

lalaith50

shame on YOU for judging ME.

Snippylynn

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:927f781c-21a7-47ce-b876-e8082c959842">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]shame on YOU for judging ME.
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]
You judged someone I love, very much, for equating her right to marry the partner she has been with for over a decade is the same as her wanting to marry her dog.  Do you even have the slightest empathy? Do you not realize that is a PERSON with feelings, wants, loves and desires of her own? How dare you trivialize her worth and her love in that way. <div>
</div><div>Once again, the best part of not claiming to be a Christian is that I, in no way, need to cloak myself in the mantle of "Christian kindness" or non-judgement. You judged yourself Lalaith, when you said that someone who loves a person of the same sex is no better than an animal.</div>

musicalsunlight

Yeah I've read that Harvard article. I'm ashamed to be associated with the legal profession that has people like that.

lalaith50

once again, you should work on your reading skills. This thread was not originally intended to be an argument, and like I already said on the first page, I was simply answering the question, not necessarily stating my own opinion.

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:6ebb918e-8443-4132-bc5a-c495bb3fe8ef">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]Yeah I've read that Harvard article. I'm ashamed to be associated with the legal profession that has people like that.
Posted by musicalsunlight[/QUOTE]

<div>Why?  I mean, I only read the excerpt that Caitriona posted, and I've never heard of that ruling (or maybe I did, but I certainly can't remember).  I'm not sure what the background of that decision is, but why are the writers not entitled to do their own research and form an opinion after the fact?</div><div>
</div><div>Or is it just that you think they're dumb?  Which I also totally get, because I find myself "ashamed" to be associated with people who think science can prove that things like evolution did not/are not occurring.  They're totally entitled to their wrong opinion, though.</div>

Snippylynn

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:c7787456-b2fe-4c80-b4af-df2bc4441c48">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]once again, you should work on your reading skills. This thread was not originally intended to be an argument, and like I already said on the first page, I was simply answering the question, not necessarily stating my own opinion.
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]
Do you think people really read that and didn't feel it was your own opinion? <div>
</div><div>I have no problem with my reading skills. You have a problem hearing what I'm saying.</div>

specialk84

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:c7787456-b2fe-4c80-b4af-df2bc4441c48">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]once again, you should work on your reading skills. This thread was not originally intended to be an argument, and like I already said on the first page, I was simply answering the question, not necessarily stating my own opinion.
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]

<div>I cannot think of a single intelligent, educated human being who thinks gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality or child molestation. </div>

specialk84

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:b4030339-36fd-4121-bdd7-fca150599d94">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]Alright, I have a question for the 'marriage is for having babies' people. What about a heterosexual who are <strong>fertile but do not want to have children?</strong> Should they be allowed to marry? Because if marriage is for babies, then the answer would be no.
Posted by cfaszews25[/QUOTE]

<div>Unmarry me.</div>

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:b4030339-36fd-4121-bdd7-fca150599d94">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]Alright, I have a question for the 'marriage is for having babies' people. What about a heterosexual who are fertile but do not want to have children? Should they be allowed to marry? Because if marriage is for babies, then the answer would be no.
Posted by cfaszews25[/QUOTE]

<div>Well, as most of us believe, the "contraceptive mentality" is a barrier to being fully married.  In fact, if one agrees in a Catholic ceremony to "accept children lovingly" and is lying, it could be grounds for an annulment.</div>

musicalsunlight

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:10bfbaf1-afda-42ec-8787-81290c72a2ea">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : Why?  I mean, I only read the excerpt that Caitriona posted, and I've never heard of that ruling (or maybe I did, but I certainly can't remember).  I'm not sure what the background of that decision is, but why are the writers not entitled to do their own research and form an opinion after the fact? Or is it just that you think they're dumb?  Which I also totally get, because I find myself "ashamed" to be associated with people who think science can prove that things like evolution did not/are not occurring.  They're totally entitled to their wrong opinion, though.
Posted by professorscience[/QUOTE]

They completely have the right to their opinion. I certainly don't think that they are dumb. They are writing for Harvard and do have research to back up with they are saying. I just think that their argument is fundamentally flawed and they don't really understand the point of allowing same sex marriage. The point isn't to make marriage or keep marriage traditional. The point is to allow our society to be progressive like the majority of the Western world has already become.

specialk84

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:8d19a8ae-b343-4e31-8976-12bcccd99089">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : Well, as most of us believe, the "contraceptive mentality" is a barrier to being fully married.  In fact, if one agrees in a Catholic ceremony to "accept children lovingly" and is lying, it could be grounds for an annulment.
Posted by professorscience[/QUOTE]

<div>What if they both say it? What if they change their minds? What if the woman has a major health issue, and getting pregnant would harm her?</div>

specialk84

Here's what I don't understand. I think it's perfectly fine for the Catholic Church to say, "We will not perform or bless same-sex unions. We don't support it, and we aren't going to encourage it." However, I don't understand why the Church wants to go out and prevent other people from getting married in other churches or in a secular setting. 

You (general you) can think their marriage isn't real all you want. You can refuse to perform the ceremony, bless the marriage, or admit that couple into your parish. You can do that. I just don't understand why you want to take your ideas on what constitutes a marriage and apply it to the rest of the population, especially when so many of them do not agree.

Snippylynn

Well, gues me and the H aren't married then since we hate kids.

Calypso1977

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:4fb93a36-c681-43fd-9389-bb2e2b40f222">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : Also hospital visitation and medical decision rights.
Posted by kgrawedding[/QUOTE]

anyone can have a health care proxy drawn up.  you dont need marriage to designate someone to make your health decisions.

also, marriage doesnt even guarantee that you have rights over your spouse.  look up the Terry Schiavo case.  her husband battled for years with her parents.  while he ultimately won, it was a very long, drawn out ugly battle.

professorscience

Let me reply to both of you without quoting:

CFAS, I totally agree with you.  If the Catholic church doesn't want to marry someone, that's fine.  They do that anyway.  Priests refuse to marry couples all the time.  It's always (in my understanding) out of love and with the hope that these couples will examine their conscience and right whatever wrong is occuring, but it happens.  A lot.

Special, it's not like the church goes around five, ten, fifteen years after a marriage occurs and does "checks."  I'm just saying it happens and if one or both of the people LIE during their religious ceremony, they're not really participating.  We believe that part of the vocation of marriage involves being fruitful, because that's what we were told to do.

Also, no one ever ever ever opposes or questions the validity of a marriage of a couple who cannot have children.  "Cannot" and "Will not" are different things.

I'm also not saying getting married and not wanting kids is a bad thing.  To an extent, at least.  I can't imagine not wanting children, but I'm not going to force it on you.

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:678eaabc-ef67-428c-a3c0-6d8b50ce0f9d">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]Well, gues me and the H aren't married then since we hate kids.
Posted by Snippylynn[/QUOTE]

<div>Well, assuming you didn't have a Catholic ceremony (or any in which you were asked if you would accept children), you likely didn't lie about anything in your vows.</div>

caitriona87

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:6ebb918e-8443-4132-bc5a-c495bb3fe8ef">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]Yeah I've read that Harvard article. I'm ashamed to be associated with the legal profession that has people like that.
Posted by musicalsunlight[/QUOTE]

people who.....? believe that marriage is an objective moral reality which we cannot redefine without consequence?

This is part of the problem with this discussion. One group has unquestioningly claimed the moral high ground for themselves and rely on the assumption that anyone who disagrees must be hateful and bigoted. That is not a solid place from which to have this discussion.

It's also not quite accurate to speak of who is "allowed" to marry. Currently everyone is "allowed" to marry according to a particular definition. What same-sex marriage proponents are actually looking for is to change the definition of marriage for everyone such that gender is no longer considered salient. It is not a ridiculous question to ask why we single out gender for being the irrelevant aspect of the equation. Why is gender irrelevant to what marriage is but permanence, exclusivity, two instead of three, are still considered relevant? Really all three of those qualities of marriage are tied to its being ordered toward childbearing (even if that childbearing never occurs due to preference or circumstance.)  Biologically there is a particular body system of homosapiens)  that only functions fully when a male and female cooperate as each sex only has half of the fully working system. This reality is also what allows the species (and therefore every nation, society, etc.) to continue existing. It's not bigotry to say that the relationship which accomplishes those ends merits societal support of a type that other relationships (whether romantic or platonic) do not.

It also bears mentioning that many gay people themselves do not support redefining marriage to include two men or two women, for a wide variety of reasons ranging from "conservative" (children deserve a mother and a father) to "liberal" (marriage is a heteronormative, oppressive structure that should be dismantled rather than embraced.) Are they bigots too?

jessicabessica

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:a1e65149-02ec-44f1-997d-4486e677c26d">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : They completely have the right to their opinion. I certainly don't think that they are dumb. They are writing for Harvard and do have research to back up with they are saying. I just think that their argument is fundamentally flawed and they don't really understand the point of allowing same sex marriage. The point isn't to make marriage or keep marriage traditional. The point is to allow our society to be progressive like the majority of the Western world has already become.
Posted by musicalsunlight[/QUOTE]

I think you're a lawyer or law student, right?  So you know that these journals--I think this is put out by the law school--are not peer-reviewed, but law students make the decision whether or not to publish.  Just an observation.  Also, at one point people performed and published research attempting to correlate how many marbles you could fit in a skull to intelligence to race.  Another observation.

Also, I don't usually post here, so I haven't seen it before, but professorscience, LOVE your sig picture.  /endthreadjack/

jessicabessica

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:b4aa9505-c18b-4ac7-8433-cf763e36587e">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : people who.....? believe that marriage is an objective moral reality which we cannot redefine without consequence? This is part of the problem with this discussion. One group has unquestioningly claimed the moral high ground for themselves and rely on the assumption that anyone who disagrees must be hateful and bigoted. That is not a solid place from which to have this discussion. It's also not quite accurate to speak of who is "allowed" to marry. <strong>Currently everyone is "allowed" to marry according to a particular definition</strong>. What same-sex marriage proponents are actually looking for is to change the definition of marriage for everyone such that gender is no longer considered salient. It is not a ridiculous question to ask why we single out gender for being the irrelevant aspect of the equation. Why is gender irrelevant to what marriage is but permanence, exclusivity, two instead of three, are still considered relevant? Really all three of those qualities of marriage are tied to its being ordered toward childbearing (even if that childbearing never occurs due to preference or circumstance.)  Biologically there is a particular body system of homosapiens)  that only functions fully when a male and female cooperate as each sex only has half of the fully working system. This reality is also what allows the species (and therefore every nation, society, etc.) to continue existing. It's not bigotry to say that the relationship which accomplishes those ends merits societal support of a type that other relationships (whether romantic or platonic) do not. It also bears mentioning that many gay people themselves do not support redefining marriage to include two men or two women, for a wide variety of reasons ranging from "conservative" (children deserve a mother and a father) to "liberal" (marriage is a heteronormative, oppressive structure that should be dismantled rather than embraced.) Are they bigots too?
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]

What definition is that?  You know that some states have constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman, right?

musicalsunlight

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:b4aa9505-c18b-4ac7-8433-cf763e36587e">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : people who.....? believe that marriage is an objective moral reality which we cannot redefine without consequence? This is part of the problem with this discussion. One group has unquestioningly claimed the moral high ground for themselves and rely on the assumption that anyone who disagrees must be hateful and bigoted. That is not a solid place from which to have this discussion. It's also not quite accurate to speak of who is "allowed" to marry. Currently everyone is "allowed" to marry according to a particular definition. What same-sex marriage proponents are actually looking for is to change the definition of marriage for everyone such that gender is no longer considered salient. It is not a ridiculous question to ask why we single out gender for being the irrelevant aspect of the equation. Why is gender irrelevant to what marriage is but permanence, exclusivity, two instead of three, are still considered relevant? Really all three of those qualities of marriage are tied to its being ordered toward childbearing (even if that childbearing never occurs due to preference or circumstance.)  Biologically there is a particular body system of homosapiens)  that only functions fully when a male and female cooperate as each sex only has half of the fully working system. This reality is also what allows the species (and therefore every nation, society, etc.) to continue existing. It's not bigotry to say that the relationship which accomplishes those ends merits societal support of a type that other relationships (whether romantic or platonic) do not. It also bears mentioning that many gay people themselves do not support redefining marriage to include two men or two women, for a wide variety of reasons ranging from "conservative" (children deserve a mother and a father) to "liberal" (marriage is a heteronormative, oppressive structure that should be dismantled rather than embraced.) Are they bigots too?
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]


Um, I never called anyone a bigot. I merely am sad to associate with a profession that wrote this because I so vehemently disagree with what they said. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I understand the argument being made in the article, as you have begun to spew back on the thread. I just fundamentally disagree. Honestly? I don't care if someone has 3 wives. I think its odd because I prefer monogamy, but whatever. So I don't really think it is the ONLY irrelevant factor. But the MAJORITY of people, gay or straight, prefer monogamy WITH HUMANS, which is why I don't really think that beastiality or polygamy are legitimate fears. If you want to throw science into it, we are biologically inclined to prefer monogamous relationships, gay or straight. 

I also get the point of reproduction. I am pretty sure the whole world is going to continue reproducing and hey, maybe even let gay people raise the kids that straight couples can't handle and give up.  

caitriona87

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:11db3892-793d-4d88-9995-b4c4fd3239c1">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : What definition is that?  You know that some states have constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman, right?
Posted by jessicabessica[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am aware. That's what I'm saying--there is no sexual attraction test to get married. Same-sex marriage would not "allow" gay people to get married. It would alter the definition of marriage such that gender was no longer a salient aspect of it.

musicalsunlight

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:0ef5fe2c-8d8a-426e-a32f-6a3025016d15">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : I think you're a lawyer or law student, right?  So you know that these journals--I think this is put out by the law school--are not peer-reviewed, but law students make the decision whether or not to publish.  Just an observation.  Also, at one point people performed and published research attempting to correlate how many marbles you could fit in a skull to intelligence to race.  Another observation. Also, I don't usually post here, so I haven't seen it before, but professorscience, LOVE your sig picture.  /endthreadjack/
Posted by jessicabessica[/QUOTE]



Yeah, I'm a 3L in law school. And yes, that is a very good point. This is not like a science journal where articles go through scrutinous review by other peers and professionals.

specialk84

Unless you're walking around insulting gay people or acting violent toward them, I'm not willing to call you a bigot. I accept some people are fundamentally opposed to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

What I don't get is the decision that one group's beliefs are somehow better than another group's, and the group with the "better" beliefs gets to impose it on the other group, treating them like second-class citizens. 

Gay marriage isn't for you? Fabulous. Don't marry a woman.

specialk84

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_secular-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:30ac7cdd-240c-43ea-9d18-77fb12005556Post:b14ad969-64ae-4c0a-a9f9-a3e39cbb7ab6">Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Secular Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage? : 1) This is mincing words. Same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. That is a fact. Or at least, a fact in many states. 2) So then, what about my previous comment ... Should heterosexual couples who do not plan on having children be allowed to marry? If the purpose of marriage is to have children, then anyone not having children shouldn't be married. They should just be in a commited relationship to each other, since they aren't perpetuating the species. 3) Do you have any facts to back up this statement? What is 'many gay people'?  <strong>In my personal experience, I have yet to meet a gay person who is againsts same-sex marriage. They want the same rights as everyone else.</strong>
Posted by cfaszews25[/QUOTE]

<div>I've met plenty a gay person who does not personally ever want to get married. I've met plenty of straight people who do not personally ever want to get married.</div><div>
</div><div>The gay folks usually want the option, though, at least in my experience working with the local GLBT groups.</div>

caitriona87

Just two quick examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05beliefs.html

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/


"What I don't get is the decision that one group's beliefs are somehow better than another group's, and the group with the "better" beliefs gets to impose it on the other group, treating them like second-class citizens."

But you consider your beliefs to be the true ones and mine the false ones. It doesn't take much to find stories of people who have been fired from jobs etc simply for holding the "wrong" view about marriage (that it requires a man and a woman.) Does the pro-SSM group have the right to impose its views on them?