Talk:Same-sex marriage archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

< talk:same-sex marriage

List of viewpoints

  1. the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.
    • The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one
      • the Old Testament considers it an abomination
        • The New Testament has very little to say about homosexuality.
        • Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
  2. We need to keep the Ten Commandments, as they help live a Christ-like life
    • The Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality.
    • What about Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
  3. Old Testament prohibitions can be ignored, because
    1. it says quite a few things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today.
    2. the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity
    3. only the New Testament really matters.
  4. marriage is a right
  5. homosexuals should have 'equal rights'
  6. same-sex "marriage" is simply a matter of giving equal rights to gays
  7. Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other
    • "very few want to marry each other" is a lie
    • I want to marry another man.
  8. the immediate intent of same-sex "marriage" agitation is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"
    • There are many reasons for fighting for gay marriage. There are over 1,000 rights that married heterosexual couples have, all of which are denied to same-sex couples because they can't legally marry.
  9. Same-sex "marriage" adopts the form of marriage for the supposed purpose of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality.
    • You are all right in saying the institution of marriage is falling apart. But, instead of actually trying to look at the problem and say, "Hm, what can we do better?", you all would rather blame it on a minority population because that's what is easy. Divorce rates are up to 50% or higher nowadays. Why is this? Not because of gay marriage, you idiots. It's a complete lack of respect for the institution of marriage.
  10. Nothing from the Old Testament is nullified unless it is nullified explicitly in the New Testament
  11. The New Testament is hostile to homosexuality.
    • Oh really, where?
    1. The Bible is clear on this
  12. Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts.
  13. giving 'equal legal rights' to male couples has no effect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony
    • Exactly!

Well there is also the viewpoint that, even if gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, Christians are instructed to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and more importantly "render unto Caesar (i.e. the government) that which is Caesar's (i.e. the provision of government-made rights)" -- Jesus didn't say "go ahead and stone the bitch", he prevented the old law from being carried out, and then used his witness alone to persuade the sinner, saying "go forth and sin no more".... he didn't say that she hadn't sinned, but demonstrated that the Christian course of action is not to have the law prevent people from sinning -- if the government (i.e. Caesar) wants to let gays be "married" and give them tax breaks and hospital visitation and such, that doesn't involve the Church, which ought not be tainted by the corruption that is all politics, anyway.... the Christian course of action is to tell the sinners of their sin, and if they refuse to hear, trust God to deal with it.... trying to get the government to interfere one way or the other is the same as denying God.... Pandeism 22:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

In this belated reply, I'd like to point out that marriage is more of a responsibility than a "right". It's something which society encourages because it is an institution which promotes social stability by protecting women and children.
I've also written an essay just know on the Mysterious male-female relationship. --Ed Poor Talk 08:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)

"The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong

"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good. No one can criticize what is good. A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good. Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is not the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The actual liberal rational:

  • Marriage, like all institutions of the law, should not be defined by one or any specefic religion, or religion all together.
  • The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. See also: separation of church and state
  • Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.
  • A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with yours, and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, you should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than sounding right if you ask me.


I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.Strata 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. Forthewin827 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --TomRobinson 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Is page protected?

B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't. Won4tide1 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Addition to Rationale

There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.

Essentially it is as follows:

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States.

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections.

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation.

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions.

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages.

There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman.

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman.

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners.

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character.

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

Adding mores links

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --GeneralGrievous 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)


Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --GeneralGrievous 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
I think that it must be proven that liberals are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage before we make accusations-- MJackson

Supporting Gay Marriage

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? Graham 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

  • From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do not seek to force religion to do anything, and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a better alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. Nateland 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.Maestro 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a power of attorney to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --Ed Poor Talk 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

This sentence is gramatically wrong...

"It is also referred to as "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. PaulH 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Tremendous pressure... needs revision

Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers! Gabe 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Sauce for you.

For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [1] Barikada 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....Kiss20 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. Barikada 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
What facts? Jinxmchue 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
What the study shows. Barikada 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. Jinxmchue 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)


Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? Barikada 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, no? Barikada 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A counterfeit counterfeit

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --GDewey 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --GeneralGrievous 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. Dadsnagem2 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had any defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which gay rights activists are using to destroy marriage.
We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --Ed Poor Talk 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. Wandering 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.
It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the gay rights movement and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.
The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As Richard Cohen pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a same-sex attachment disorder. And by the way, voting homosexuality out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.
Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --Ed Poor Talk 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

move page

Can this page be moved to Homosexual marriage, which is a better term for this -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Out of Date.

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

I have a question

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hedgy (talk) -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

  • Welcome, Hedgy. Marriage isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on Marriage states it plainly:

The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that God desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ronald Reagan and Dinesh D'Souza all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --AndrasK 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead public school students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."
Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The homosexual lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--Hedgy 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)


One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --Hsmom 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks ₮K! One more statement jumped out at me: Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005) How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with two sites, neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found this, which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --Hsmom 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)


I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. RSchlafly 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

  • You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. RSchlafly 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I just want to know.

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

  • It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
    • Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.
  • It hurts the institution of marriage.
    • If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.
  • It is unhealthy.
    • There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal deceit.
Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.
Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.
Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--Andy Schlafly 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
Those statements are why people get married.
3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
--Dacheatbot 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--EvanW 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.

DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. JacobB 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST) I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.
Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)
The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.
The Gay rights movement is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.
  1. If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
  2. Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.
However, this violates the incest rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.
Gay rights advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --Ed Poor Talk 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexual denial

Here's an example of propaganda:

  • Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the gay rights movement and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --Ed Poor Talk 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --TomRobinson 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

The Gay Rights movement is a sinful and disgusting movement, as described by the Bible. Separation of Church and State is a myth. God Bless. --[[User:Teapartyman}

"One man, one woman" God-given?

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. Yoritomo 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Sorry, I was generalizing from my own religion to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".
The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
  • Abraham, when childless, used Hagar to pass on the lineage
  • Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to Joseph
When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --Ed Poor Talk 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)
I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. AdeleM 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. Yoritomo 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.
Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--Andy Schlafly 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)
I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in deception, substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --Benp 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--Andy Schlafly 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Ditto. --Ed Poor Talk 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Just gonna point out that Adam and Eve didn't really set a standard with regards to marriage because they were the only ones there at the time, and everyone else was their descendents. They couldn't have engaged in polygamy because everyone else was related. If you can't do something, it isn't setting a standard not to. - JamesCA 16:24, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

"Interesting" law against Polygamy

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. JEMBenton 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. Yoritomo 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) JEMBenton 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

It's all about separation of church and state!

(or, why supporting gay marriage is a conservative position)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This is pretty plain and simple, it is unconstitutional to legislate from the basis of scripture or religious dogma. The fact of the matter is that marriage, as a legal construct, is a contract that grants certain special privileges and legal entitlements to the parties involved. Married couples in the United States, with or without children, enjoy benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, joint income tax filing, shared parental rights of natural or adopted children, next-of-kin status in the event of medical emergencies, and many other rights. These things are provided because it assumed that, once married, a couple becomes a family unit.

Denying these rights to two people who love each other, and are in a committed relationship, simply on the basis of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual creates an unnecessary legal distinction between two classes of people (more laws = bigger government). If two gay men spend their lives together, effectively as a family unit, it is ethically reprehensible that they cannot apply for the same legal protections as a straight couple with a similar arrangement.

Marriage is not specifically intended for couples intent on raising children. People who are sterile can still get married. Arguing that marriage is an institution for raising children then calls into question the validity of all of every marriage that has failed to produce children. The only argument against allowing two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, to legally marry is derived from religious tradition. While this religious tradition should be respected, it is not legal (per the first amendment to the US constitution) to legislate using religious tradition as a precedent.

Is that to say that churches opposed to gay marriages should be forced to perform them? No, because that is also unconstitutional. The church (or temple, or synagogue, or mosque), is free to decide it's own religious definition of marriage. However, the state definition of marriage must, by constitutional imperative, be defined in secular terms. To define that the parties involved be "one man and one woman", without secular justification or precedent, is to unnecessarily extend governmental regulation into citizens' private lives.

Opposing the unmitigated expansion of government regulation is one of the core values that defines the conservative movement; so is the protection of the constitution. Supporting gay marriage both promulgates minimal legislation and observes the letter of the first amendment to the constitution. Therefore, support of gay marriage should, in fact, be a conservative position. --RudrickBoucher 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Is it abberational lust or love?
Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]
The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81] Please see: Homosexuality Conservative 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Fine, but that's completely irrelevant to what he's saying, which is that conservatives should support gay marriage because the Constitution requires it. He's correct, but then conservatives should also OPPOSE gay marriage because the Bible forbids homosexuality, and the Bible is obviously correct too. The issue seems to be what is more important: the Constitution or the Bible. It's a tricky one. --FindlayT 19:10, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Were the founding fathers of America pro-homosexuality? In various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? Conservative 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Again, that's irrelevant. He's talking about the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. --FindlayT 19:18, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

If liberals interpretation of the Constitution is correct, then why was there a U.S Senate chaplain shortly after the U.S. Constitution?Conservative 19:21, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Are you incapable of sticking to the subject? The Establishment Clause forbids ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, and appointing a Chaplain to the Senate for those who want his services isn't establishing a religion. --FindlayT 19:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Does American law borrow from English common law and cite precedence from English common law? How did common law treat sodomy? Conservative 19:25, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

What's your problem? I'm not TALKING about common law, I'm talking about the CONSTITUTION. RudrickBoucher has brought up a challenging point about what conservatives should think, so can you either stick to the subject or go somewhere else? --FindlayT 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Have U.S Senate chaplains been paid for exclusively by believers or do all taxpayers have to contribute to their salaries? Conservative 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Even the liberals at Wikipedia disagree with you: "For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[43]"[2] Again, in various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? Conservative 19:36, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --FindlayT 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them? Why won't you answer a few simple questions? Is your case that weak? Conservative 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
British common law does have valid legal precedence. However, you seem to be arguing that observation of British common law should precede observance of the constitution. The British anti-sodomy statutes were both grounded in church doctrine (rendering them unconstitutional here) and all repealed in Britain during the 20th century. Furthermore, American laws take precedence over British common law, and American anti-sodomy statutes were all nullified (found unconstitutional) by the supreme court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, British common law only defines marriage as being between "two people".--RudrickBoucher 19:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
When determining the validity of a law in the United States, the constitution > federal law > state law > local law > British common law. It's that simple.--RudrickBoucher 19:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Richard, first sox, then shoes. Address my question and information rebutting your claim. Is it aberrational lust or love? (and please do address my two citations.) Conservative 19:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
It is love. Plain and simple. If you doubt that, I suggest you do my job. Tell a stranger that his life partner has died, that you witnessed it, and that he couldn't simply because their relationship is homosexual instead of heterosexual. --RudrickBoucher 01:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Economic Effects

I removed the "Economic Effects" section as I saw no supporting information or any causal effect in the legalization of gay marriage with the economic downturn. If someone can find some supporting information, by all means replace it and add the information. TalosRising 22:47, 11 May 2012 (EDT)