Tell me what's wrong with gay marriage

[Anonymous]

I've yet to hear an argument why gay marriage should be illegal that I can't completely dismantle in one word - 'discrimination'.

Yet, the majority of the populace here in the states is opposed to gay marriage.  I have trouble believing that the majority doesn't have a rational reason.

So please, somebody, give me a rational reason for why gay marriage should be illegal and restore my faith in the american people.

[Jason Lee]

I made that post.

Anybody?

[lumpley]

My friend Ampersand quotes the results of a Pew Research Center poll.  Here are the reasons Americans who're opposed to same-sex marriage give:

A) 28% Morally wrong / a sin / the Bible says
B) 17% Against my religious beliefs
C) 16% Definition of marriage is a man & a woman
D) 12% It's just wrong / I just don't agree with it
E) 9% Homosexuality is not natural/normal
F) 4% Purpose of marriage is to have children
G) 2% Bad for children
H) 2% Opens the door to other immoral behavior
I) 1% Undermines traditional family
J) 1% Don't have stable, long-term relationships
K) 1% Causes economic/legal problems
L) 3% Other
M) 4% Don't know/Refused

Are any of those rational?  Nope.  

Sorry about your faith in the American people thing.

-Vincent

[joshua neff]

I have yet to hear an argument that isn't based on either religion (which should be irrelevant) or "but, it's not how things have been done in the past!" So, I'm of no help to you here. I can't think of any reason why tax-paying, consenting adults shouldn't have their marriage recognized.

[Christopher Weeks]

The only thing wrong with gay marriage is that it's not legal.

You have trouble believing that the majority doesn't have a rational reason?  Why?  Of course they don't have a rational reason.  I think they're just put off by change.

Chris

[Paul Watson]

*shrug* Beats me. I have yet to hear one single, good reason.

[ethan_greer]

I have trouble believing that the majority doesn't have a rational reason.

My advice would be to start believing it.

[montag]

this, is the best, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage I'm aware of:
http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
the basic point is, that marriage is to some extent a hassle, that it takes time and effort and dedication and that it does indeed function as a social norm which keeps people in line. By redefining marriage as a purely voluntary act of people in love (de-emphasising the commitment aspect) we are – according to this argument – about to loose (a) social cohesion and (b) an institution, which emphasises the role/value of commitment, which places commitment to another person right in the middle of our society, .. and thus naturally colours social reality.

I don't agree with this, my brief summary doesn't do it justice and I think the argument contains some assumptions which don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it's the only argument against gay marraige, whose point I can see and which I can't dismiss as 'discrimination'.

[Valamir]

There are actually some economic reasons to oppose it.  I can't say that I think they are big enough to matter, but since no one has yet proferred them I will do so.

A lot of the reluctance to gay marriages comes from the insurance industry.  Most employer insurance policies also cover the spouse, and many plans (auto insurance, life, etc) give discounts for married couples.  There is a measurable cost to expanding the definition of marriage.  I've heard numbers from the several hundred million into the billions.  All of which will be passed on the the customer base, which basically means existing policy holders will be subsidizing benefits for gay couples.  I have heard proposals that suggest gay couples should have to pay a higher premium to make up for it, so it is an issue that people are basing decisions on.

One interesting source of cost is the expense to reinvent all of the life expectancy based actuarial tables.  These tables are really extensive and really require a ton of number crunching and are almost always based on the expentency of a couple being a man and a woman.  A life insurance salesman of mine indicated that his company currently has no idea how to price a "last to die" policy for same sex couples.  There just isn't enough data to do anything but guess.  And guessing in the insurance business means additional risk.  And additional risk means higher premiums for everyone.

Now...I haven't seen number for what the cost of this might be from anyone other than the insurance companies themselves...so obviously the numbers are suspect.

But it is a reason that has been given that has nothing to do with religion or discrimination or fiddly definitions of marriage, and everything to do with what lies at the root of most controversial laws...money, how much it'll cost and who gets to pay for it.

[Andy Kitkowski]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a286




;-)

[Matt Wilson]

A lot of the reluctance to gay marriages comes from the insurance industry.  

Hey Ralph:

You can guess at my level of sympathy toward insurance companies. :-)

[clehrich]

Gay marriage is considered wrong out of pure bigotry.  All those reasons Vincent listed are, in fact, stock rationalizations for bigotry.  You don't see all that many people these days going around saying, "You know what?  I hate black people for no reason."  No, they say, "Well, of course, they're fine, but you know, they shouldn't be allowed to get into schools and stuff, because you know, they get all violent, and that unsettles the schools, and I know it's not their fault, it's those terrible neighborhoods, and...."  Guess what?  That's bigotry.  That's just a really polite way to lie to yourself about what amounts to: "Keep them darkies out of my kid's school!  I hate 'em!"  Similarly, all those cute rationalizations really boil down to, "I am against gay marriage because I don't think them fags deserve rights like other people, because they're sick and nasty."  Then clean it up for public consumption and it's, "Oh god, what about the children?"  Whine whine.  <slap>

Sorry, I'm a little cranky.

[Valamir]

Hey Ralph:

You can guess at my level of sympathy toward insurance companies. :-)

Probably about the same as mine.  The fucktards just tried to terminate my insurance today by giving me a notice yesterday on a $25 fee they levied that I didn't pay cause they never told me about despite their automated system telling me I had "no balance due"  Fuck 'em.

But, truth be told, I have about the same feeling towards marriage as an institution.  I've been with my girlfriend for over 10 years.  We are totally committed to a life time together and I see no need to get a "stamp of approval" from the government or some minister saying "we're married".  As far as I'm concerned we're married cause we say we are.

So...assuming the insurance companies are right about the added costs (who knows the fuckers will use any excuse to jack premiums), I'm sure you can understand why I would be a little reluctant to pay an extra $5-10 a month on my insurance in order to give a gay couple the right to enter into an institution that I find to be essentially worthless anyway.

In my mind the amount of effort spent fighting for a right that has no intrinsic value makes about as much sense as the amount of effort spent fighting against it.

[Jason Lee]

this, is the best, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage I'm aware of:
http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
the basic point is, that marriage is to some extent a hassle, that it takes time and effort and dedication and that it does indeed function as a social norm which keeps people in line. By redefining marriage as a purely voluntary act of people in love (de-emphasising the commitment aspect) we are – according to this argument – about to loose (a) social cohesion and (b) an institution, which emphasises the role/value of commitment, which places commitment to another person right in the middle of our society, .. and thus naturally colours social reality.

I don't agree with this, my brief summary doesn't do it justice and I think the argument contains some assumptions which don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it's the only argument against gay marriage, whose point I can see and which I can't dismiss as 'discrimination'.

Yeah, assumptions about the sexes which are completely false (that men are by and large incapable of love, etc) and assumptions about the effect on society.  I'm actually having trouble not dismissing it as discrimination, because of the discriminatory assumptions the argument is founded upon.  Plus, some funny little inconsistencies; like that gay people do not understand the straight world, despite living in a world that is 95% straight; and that marriage is sacred because its not something special.  I can think of a similar argument for why black children shouldn't be allowed to go to school with white children - basically, that integration is hard and I like things the way they are, so I'd rather not.

[Jason Lee]

A lot of the reluctance to gay marriages comes from the insurance industry.  Most employer insurance policies also cover the spouse, and many plans (auto insurance, life, etc) give discounts for married couples.  There is a measurable cost to expanding the definition of marriage.  I've heard numbers from the several hundred million into the billions.  All of which will be passed on the the customer base, which basically means existing policy holders will be subsidizing benefits for gay couples.  I have heard proposals that suggest gay couples should have to pay a higher premium to make up for it, so it is an issue that people are basing decisions on.

[snip]

Whoa, that's interesting.  I guess I can't say it's discrimination.  Though, I bet you can guess what I'd have to say about corporate interests deciding what is and is not a family.  

I actually doubt the validity of the monetary loss.  My employer allows medical/dental insurance for domestic partnerships, and neither my employer or insurance company has gone bust (or exploded in a pillar of holy flame for that matter).

So...assuming the insurance companies are right about the added costs (who knows the fuckers will use any excuse to jack premiums), I'm sure you can understand why I would be a little reluctant to pay an extra $5-10 a month on my insurance in order to give a gay couple the right to enter into an institution that I find to be essentially worthless anyway.

It makes quite a difference when dealing with inheritance (without wills) and adoption.  Worse yet, inheritance of guardianship of children.  Having to give your kid over to the state, right after losing a partner no less, because of a legal loophole is the ass.