• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Legal arguments against homosexual marriage

McBell

Unbound
Going to the Supreme Court now, here are summaries of arguments for marriage:

The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting Traditional Marriage
I disagree.
That is nothing more than a summary of the arguments against same sex marriage.

I did notice they do not have a single "argument" that does not also apply to opposite sex marriages.

So IMO, if court agrees with the above linked "arguments" they will have no choice but to ban all marriages.
 

roger1440

I do stuff
Going to the Supreme Court now, here are summaries of arguments for marriage:

The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting Traditional Marriage


The percentage of American’s who are against gay marriage is irrelevant. I’m reminded of what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote while sitting in the Birmingham jail in 1963.

“One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963)

An Unjust Law is No Law at All <– St. Augustine <– MLK Jr. | Words of the Sentient
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess this person never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
 

Wirey

Fartist
I keep telling you, gay marriage will lead to Zombie Penguin Attacks at Christmas! Once gay people get married, they'll have honeymoons. With all the hairy 50 year olds wearing speedos in Florida, straight people will be forced to take cruises instead of regular vacations in order not to gouge out their own eyes. In order to avoid getting pirated, they'll go to Antarctica, where eventually they'll meet penguins. Everyone knows straight men can't resist penguins, so interspecies sex will happen (what, those little waddling freaks will outrun us?). The mutant offspring of these unions will be carnivorous penguins with daddy issues and a thirst for revenge. Once it's cold enough in North America, say around Christmas, they'll learn to fly (probably an Airbus 300), come here, and eat our delicious brains. Gay marriage causes Christmas Zombie Penguin attacks, case closed.

What? It's as least as bright as the stuff the guy in the article in the OP was saying!
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
My understanding is the S.C. is going to rule for gay marriage as allowed under the terms of one to one person, thus maintaining the traditiinal view of one to one and age limits but the other could be "same sex". That it is already a done deal, making both sides happy.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I love the cognitive dissonance that allows a mind to hold the following at the same time:

Gays shouldn't get married because they can't naturally procreate

and

Gay marriage will cause hundreds of thousands of abortions
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I love the cognitive dissonance that allows a mind to hold the following at the same time:

Gays shouldn't get married because they can't naturally procreate

Indeed... marriages between senior citizens should be disallowed. Heterosexual married couples must sign affidavits that they will produce at least one child, then produce the child and the birth certificate to the proper Pro-creation Control Bureau. If not, their marriage will be automatically invalidated.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Indeed... marriages between senior citizens should be disallowed. Heterosexual married couples must sign affidavits that they will produce at least one child, then produce the child and the birth certificate to the proper Pro-creation Control Bureau. If not, their marriage will be automatically invalidated.

Actually, male senior citizens with this logic should still be able to be married, but post-menopausal women should be banned from marriage too since pro-creation with them is impossible. Female adults who are of child-bearing age should be the only ones allowed to get married.

But that would be just as bizarre as your scenario. Which anti-equality arguments typically are.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Going to the Supreme Court now, here are summaries of arguments for marriage:

The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting Traditional Marriage
Two things stand out.....

First...
The briefs are in....
Is it the lawyers or justices who must turn in their undies?
Are they commando in the courtroom?

Second...
In this one, the part about "....imposing same-sex marriage on the nation...." is just plain silly.
It's imposed upon no one.
Shotgun weddings might be an exception, but that's not a gay thing.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I disagree.
That is nothing more than a summary of the arguments against same sex marriage.

I did notice they do not have a single "argument" that does not also apply to opposite sex marriages.

So IMO, if court agrees with the above linked "arguments" they will have no choice but to ban all marriages.
Absolutely. The linked site, The Daily Signal, is owned by the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, so everything it says may exhibit possible bias.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
The percentage of American’s who are against gay marriage is irrelevant. I’m reminded of what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote while sitting in the Birmingham jail in 1963.

“One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963)

An Unjust Law is No Law at All <– St. Augustine <– MLK Jr. | Words of the Sentient

Norman: Hi roger1440, it is relevant to the people of this nation, this should be done by each state where the people vote and write to there legislative representatives. In some states, the people have already spoken. As explained in the amicus brief, the legalization of same-sex marriage across the country does far more than grant same-sex couples the right to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. By redefining what marriage has been for most of human history, the court will impede the ability of religious people to participate fully as equal citizens in American civic life.

We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.

Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.”

Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience.

Moreover, the special status of sexual orientation could, maintains the brief, “suppress and marginalize traditional religious views on sexuality and those who hold them, generating legal, bureaucratic, and social conflicts with a wide and unpredictable range of religious interests.” Essentially, religious beliefs in traditional sexual morality could come to be equated with racism.

The brief states: “The Constitution marks a wiser course by leaving the people free to decide the great marriage debate through their State democratic institutions. Allowing all citizens an equal voice in shaping their common destiny is the only way the diverse views of a free people can be respected on this matter of profound political, social, and religious importance. That is the only way this issue can be resolved without inflicting grave harm on millions of religious believers and their cherished beliefs and institutions.”

Having courts resolve these complex social issues is a far more troublesome path than having them resolved by the people themselves through the legislative processes in their own backyards. Courts can only rule on the cases before them. Consequently, their rulings provide no room for compromise. By definition, one party wins and the other loses. The result is often polarization, animosity and alienation of one side or another. What is truly needed is a process that allows for give and take, reasonable accommodation and mutual respect. By joining in the amicus brief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is arguing that “fairness for all” is much better accomplished in legislatures than in the courts.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Two things stand out.....

First...

Is it the lawyers or justices who must turn in their undies?
Are they commando in the courtroom?

Second...

In this one, the part about "....imposing same-sex marriage on the nation...." is just plain silly.
It's imposed upon no one.
Shotgun weddings might be an exception, but that's not a gay thing.

Norman: Hi Revoltingest, it surely is imposed on a majority of the people. One might think that family matters are entirely personal, detached from the surrounding society. Does one person’s family or marriage really affect anyone else’s? I say the answer is a resounding yes. None of us lives in isolation. A report on the state of marriage in America put it this way: “Marriage is not merely a private arrangement; it is also a complex social institution. Marriage fosters small cooperative unions — also known as stable families — that enable children to thrive, shore up communities, and help family members to succeed during good times and to weather the bad times.”

David Brooks of the New York Times goes further, explaining how maximizing personal freedom does not necessarily give people what they want. Rather, he argues, individuals are better served “when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice — commitments to family, God, craft and country.”

None of us is born a mere individual. We come to this world with a network of pre-existing relationships, bonds and obligations, both familial and civil. Eighteenth-century statesman Edmund Burke affirmed that society acts as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." As Orthodox rabbi Meir Soloveichik sees it, family works in much the same way: “Marriage is about continuity and transmission.” The hard, humble work of building and strengthening family relationships is worth undertaking, not only for ourselves but also for the common good.

If current trends continue, what will the family look like 10, 20 years down the road? What kind of future awaits our children, our young people, our neighborhoods and civic relationships? These are serious problems that need to be addressed — not when crisis boils over completely, but now. Projections are notoriously difficult for social scientists to make. The future is not set in stone; society falls into slumps and climbs back out of them. However, given the current trajectory the future looks pretty bleak for many American children.

Demographer Joel Kotkin sings a similarly somber tune: “It’s time for us to consider what an aging, increasingly child-free population, growing more slowly, would mean here. As younger Americans individually eschew families of their own, they are contributing to the ever-growing imbalance between older retirees—basically their parents—and working-age Americans … creating a culture marked by hyper-individualism and dependence on the state as the family unit erodes.” Calling family “truly indispensable,” Kotkin says that strengthening it is “a case we need to make as a society, rather than counting on nature to take its course.”

This discussion on family is much more than a numerical exercise; it’s about the lives and hopes of real people. These societal drifts need not be our destiny. Yet, as one commentator recently noted, such pervasive trends “can only be reversed by the slow accumulation of individual choices, which is how all social and cultural recoveries are ultimately made.”
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Norman: Hi Revoltingest, it surely is imposed on a majority of the people.
The beauty of it is that no one must marry anyone of the same sex.
The mere fact that others make that choice isn't an imposition.

One might think that family matters are entirely personal, detached from the surrounding society. Does one person’s family or marriage really affect anyone else’s? I say the answer is a resounding yes. None of us lives in isolation. A report on the state of marriage in America put it this way: “Marriage is not merely a private arrangement; it is also a complex social institution. Marriage fosters small cooperative unions — also known as stable families — that enable children to thrive, shore up communities, and help family members to succeed during good times and to weather the bad times.”
David Brooks of the New York Times goes further, explaining how maximizing personal freedom does not necessarily give people what they want. Rather, he argues, individuals are better served “when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice — commitments to family, God, craft and country.”
None of us is born a mere individual. We come to this world with a network of pre-existing relationships, bonds and obligations, both familial and civil. Eighteenth-century statesman Edmund Burke affirmed that society acts as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." As Orthodox rabbi Meir Soloveichik sees it, family works in much the same way: “Marriage is about continuity and transmission.” The hard, humble work of building and strengthening family relationships is worth undertaking, not only for ourselves but also for the common good.


If current trends continue, what will the family look like 10, 20 years down the road? What kind of future awaits our children, our young people, our neighborhoods and civic relationships? These are serious problems that need to be addressed — not when crisis boils over completely, but now. Projections are notoriously difficult for social scientists to make. The future is not set in stone; society falls into slumps and climbs back out of them. However, given the current trajectory the future looks pretty bleak for many American children.

Demographer Joel Kotkin sings a similarly somber tune: “It’s time for us to consider what an aging, increasingly child-free population, growing more slowly, would mean here. As younger Americans individually eschew families of their own, they are contributing to the ever-growing imbalance between older retirees—basically their parents—and working-age Americans … creating a culture marked by hyper-individualism and dependence on the state as the family unit erodes.” Calling family “truly indispensable,” Kotkin says that strengthening it is “a case we need to make as a society, rather than counting on nature to take its course.”

This discussion on family is much more than a numerical exercise; it’s about the lives and hopes of real people. These societal drifts need not be our destiny. Yet, as one commentator recently noted, such pervasive trends “can only be reversed by the slow accumulation of individual choices, which is how all social and cultural recoveries are ultimately made.”
I still don't see a cogent secular argument that there will be deleterious consequences from gay marriage.
(Note that I don't give weight to offense taken by those with religious objections.)
Lacking any real problems, I see no reason to deny gays the ability to marry each other.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Going to the Supreme Court now, here are summaries of arguments for marriage:

The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting Traditional Marriage

Norman: Hi Skull, Most Americans know that religious freedom is one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Frequently called the “first freedom,” freedom of religion is prominent in the American founding documents and gives rise to many other freedoms.

It is a fundamental human right — one that is now protected in the laws of many nations around the world and in global compacts like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Americans generally recognize and revere religious freedom as one of the unalienable freedoms they can claim.

The fact that religious freedom is public and that it involves more than mere belief does not, of course, mean that it overwhelms all other considerations in society. The purpose of a democracy is to accommodate the diverse interests of all its members. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are vital because they help sustain this system of peaceful coexistence, and they must be balanced against other considerations, such as the rights of others, the law and public safety. However, because these freedoms are so fundamental to human dignity, and because they contribute so much to society, they merit careful protection.

Such protection is the responsibility of all citizens who value their freedom and recognize that one’s own freedoms are only as secure as those of others. Protecting religious freedom also requires that it is understood fully and respected in its entirety. An inadequate understanding of religious freedom can be problematic if it leads, for example, to policy and laws that define it too narrowly and protect it too feebly. Ignorance of religious freedom can also, without care, allow for it to be slowly and subtly eroded, leaving this fundamental liberty exposed or compromised. A robust sense of religious freedom — an appreciation for its full meaning — is required for it to endure and to flourish. What is your thoughts on this?
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
And those arguments fail. Not surprising, really. I'm personally amazed the anti-equality campaign has survived as long as this if this is the strength of their arguments.

Norman: Hi Disgruntled Scotsman, There is much strength in the arguments, however I believe it should be left to the people and there legislators. This is just a summary of a talk in 2009 by Elder Dallin H. Oaks who made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

Although his address on religious freedom was not written in response to the Proposition 8 battle over same- sex marriage in California, Elder Oaks likened the incidents of outrage against those who prevailed in establishing marriage between a man and a woman to the “widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South.”

He said members of the Church should not be deterred or coerced into silence by threats. “We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice.”

Elder Oaks also said religious freedom is being jeopardized by claims of newly alleged human rights. As an example, he referred to a set of principles published by an international human rights group which calls for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity. Elder Oaks said, “This apparently proposes that governments require church practices to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines should be resisted by all believers.”

Noting that the students he was addressing were among the generation that would face continuing challenges to religious freedom, Elder Oaks offered five points of counsel:

Source:


http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/apostle-says-religious-freedom-is-being-threatened
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
I disagree.
That is nothing more than a summary of the arguments against same sex marriage.

I did notice they do not have a single "argument" that does not also apply to opposite sex marriages.

So IMO, if court agrees with the above linked "arguments" they will have no choice but to ban all marriages.

Norman: Hi Mestemia, Why do you think that the Supreme Court would have to as you stated "ban all marriages?:" What is the legal and political premise on this?
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
My understanding is the S.C. is going to rule for gay marriage as allowed under the terms of one to one person, thus maintaining the traditiinal view of one to one and age limits but the other could be "same sex". That it is already a done deal, making both sides happy.

Norman: Hi ShivaFan, I like your comment, that really is the only way, a give and take on both sides. When it ends up in the Court system like it has, there is only win or loose, the winner takes all. I don't think most people really understand this.
 
Top