Well, since I?m the catalyst for the discussion, I?ll hit on it quickly. I personally oppose gay marriage based on what I said earlier. The slope has long since been slipped, but it?s a further ride down society?s definition of truth as subjective, rather than objective. That?s my main beef.
Are you of the belief that allowing gay marriage opens the door for allowing polygamy or incestuous marriage?
Further, a family consisting of a father, mother and children is a cornerstone of social security (not Social Security). We are finally seeing backlash from the black community for slipping from such. Obama delivered an excellent speech over the weekend on the subject. Bill Cosby has been railing on it for years.
And homosexuals will be homosexuals whether you ignore them or grant them marriage. Based on most people's views of homosexuality, I don't think we will be seeing tons of fathers & mothers going out and getting hitched to someone else.
There was a comedian I heard recently, I don't remember his name, but he said something to the effect of "Now I have seen a lot of things, but I have never seen a group of militant homosexuals going around breaking up families."
The family argument holds no weight, IMO. If someone chooses to be gay (even though it is largely not a choice from what I can tell), they can be--gay couples are already together whether the government chooses to recognize it or not. The fact that it is recognized by the government isn't going to have a bunch of heterosexuals "converting" and abandoning family.
However, that?s not my argument. My argument is that it should be left to the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, and left to the states rather than the federal government. If the people want to legislate same-sex marriage, let them eat cake. The main issue I have is courts usurping the state legislature?s authority to make laws, the people?s authority to make laws via initiative and referendum, and the legislature?s authority to repeal laws passed by popular vote by creating rights out of thin air. The recent California decision overturned a 61% majority of California voters in favor of affirming that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. California same-sex couples already had the health care benefits, the hospital visitation, etc. The court took it one step further to overthrow the people?s will on cultural norms that have been established on the basis of tradition, precedent and social-science evidence.
The problem with California's same-sex unions was the matter of separate but equal, which the state supreme court found unconstitutional. The state supreme court justices have the right to change the laws if they are found unconstitutional. And the issue was that calling them same-sex unions was like saying, hey, you can have all our rights - we'll just call it something different... something less personal, very sterilized.
Often the same people who say "it's just a word" or "you have the rights already" are the same who get offended by people "redefining" the word marriage.
To me it sounds a lot like they're saying eww... get your gay away from my marriage
If you are for majority rules all the time, you have to remember that the majority was not always for desegregation of schools or breaking down Jim Crow laws... aren't you glad that state/federal supreme courts did?