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: seperation 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.

Bias

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)

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)

What?

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)

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)

• I agree with you here, Graham. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:27, 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)

Move?

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)

Graphic

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 --  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)

Outing

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)

Issues

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)