Who opposes gay marrige?

I don’t want to know who supports it I want to know who is against it and why?

Also I want to know why not based on religion.

Answer #1

Here’s an article from Taki’s Magazine by Justin Raimondo in two sections:

“GAY MARRIAGE SUCKS!”

“The recent decision by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage has, once again, thrust this issue into the maelstrom of political debate, and, simultaneously, revived the sagging fortunes of groups on both sides.

On the liberal left, the gay marriage movement is stoking up its engines for a major push to legitimize–so they believe–homosexual relationships in a social as well as a civil sense, and make the final push for gay “equality.”

On the right, particularly the religious fundamentalist right, the scaremongering direct mail fundraisers are enjoying a major bonanza, frightening tens of thousands of little old ladies in Middle America to cough up $10, $20, and even $50 contributions to the Religious Right’s ongoing campaign to Save Marriage From Godless Queers.

Both sides are seriously deluded, albeit in different ways. Let’s start with the Godless Queers…

Marriage is all about children: otherwise, there is no real reason for it, and especially not in the modern world, where internet hook-ups, de facto polygamy, and rampant promiscuity are widely accepted. It is, in short, an economic institution, a financial framework for the bringing up of a new generation. Marriage is an agreement between two adults that they will, together, provide for the needs of their offspring, and, indeed, when the time comes, pass on their accumulated wealth.

This is not to say that childless marriages aren’t really marriages, or that all the emotional and psychological trappings of traditional marriage–monogamy, commitment, and, yes, love—are irrelevant. I am here talking about the civil institution of marriage, as it has evolved in the English-speaking world, and not the cultural phenomenon that has evolved over many millennia—something not created but rather co-opted by the State.

As Camille Paglia points out:

I think [gay marriage] is a flash point for antigay backlash…. That’s the problem: calling it a marriage. If you ask the working class guy on the street, ‘Do you believe in gay marriages?’ it makes him absolutely have a convulsion of revulsion. Marriage was traditionally meant for male and female. It was a bond for the raising of children, so it always had a procreative meaning too, and it has a long sacred tradition behind it. I hate any time that gay causes get mixed up with seeming to profane other people’s sacred tradition. The gay activist leadership has been totally clumsy about that. Rather than treating it in a serious way and saying ‘We respect the tradition of marriage,’ gay activism is associated with throwing balloons of blood at the steps of St. Patrick’s.

Pagilia is right. Marriage is not a civil institution but a religious-cultural tradition that the State has (so far) been forced to respect and recognize—and it is centered around procreation, which is not an issue most homosexuals have to deal with.

Which brings us to the central argument against gay marriage, which is that it is based on a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, one that just doesn’t fit the gay lifestyle. The whole idea of getting gays hitched is derivative of the central error of egalitarianism, the counterintuitive conception of human beings as being “equal” and, therefore, interchangeable—and therefore one-size-fits-all. Egalitarianism isn’t really a political ideology: it’s a religion, one quite capable of withstanding a sustained assault of clear evidence to the contrary.

I direct your attention to anecdotal yet telling evidence of this misconception by pointing out that, in the rush to the altar by many gay couples in California, the most prominent, and, I’ll bet, most numerous, were female couples. Women, of course, love the idea of marriage, and an old lesbian joke illustrates this penchant for connubial bliss:

What does a lesbian bring to a second date? —A moving van

The sequel to this knee-slapper, however, illustrates that the procreative principle works both ways: What does a lesbian bring to a third date? —A turkey baster ….

Lesbians can, and do, get pregnant: they raise children, thousands of whom are presently alive and kicking. In San Francisco, they make up a significant—and growing—part of the public school population. Lesbians, therefore, fit into the procreative model of marriage, even though they cannot reproduce without the passive participation of men who donate sperm. Gay men, on the other hand, are … men, and no man really wants to get married.

Promiscuity and its attendant attitudes go hand-in-hand with maleness: it’s our genetic and socially constructed legacy, imprinted on our very nature and invincible to the assaults of both politically correct feminists and puritans of the Right. Monogamy and maleness are opposites in a dichotomy: the idea of sexual fidelity is distinctively feminine, linked as it is with an overwhelming (and inherent) need for security and certainty – that is, the certainty that the father of her children will assist in their proper rearing. The collapse of this socio-sexual compact, which undergirds our civilization, is behind the inner city’s descent into barbarism, where roving bands of undisciplined fatherless males have been unleashed, wreaking havoc and filling the prisons.

Marriage, in the context of male homosexuality, isn’t just a contradiction: the very idea of two males getting “married” evokes such protest precisely because it parodies heterosexual unions. A parody, after all, is a take-off on the original, one that apes the form but denies or mocks its essence. This mockery is what the anti-gay marriage crowd bristles at—and rightly so.

Yet it isn’t just this threat of an antigay backlash, which Ms. Paglia rightly points to, that is the most objectionable aspect of the proposal to “legalize” gay marriage. The worst victims of the gay marriage proposal won’t be straights, in spite of the ridiculous cries that marriage will be “devalued,” and will therefore become less popular, if two queers are allowed to get hitched. The ones who will really be hurt by admission to the temple of Hera will be gay men.

With gay marriage comes the inevitable gay divorce—and, believe you me, it’s going to be ugly. If gay activists think that marriage is going to somehow legitimize homosexuality in the eyes of Middle America, then they have yet to imagine the new hit “reality tv” show, “Gay Divorce Court,” which will make the heterosexual version seem like a Sunday School picnic. Indeed, I predict that, given the nature of the male animal, the gay male divorce rate will soon outstrip the rate of new gay male marriages. Gay marriage—in the gay male community, that is—is prone to self-abolition.

This gay male aversion to marriage is prefigured in the rate of domestic partnerships—intended as a precursor of gay marriage—in urban gay ghettos. Even fewer will sign up for that trip to the altar, especially when it dawns on them that with the right to marry comes a few responsibilities, particularly of a financial nature.

This is where the propaganda of the right-wing anti-gay marriage movement goes completely off the rails: the alleged “threat” represented to marriage as an institution by the prospect of gay unions ranges from nil to nonexistent. The idea that gay people, given the opportunity, are going to rush to get married is a fantasy shared by both sides in this debate. But what about states where sexual infidelity is grounds for divorce? Lots of factors no one’s even considered will lead to the big fizzle of “gay marriage.”

Do gay guys really want to have half their incomes claimed by their spouses? With gay marriage comes gay alimony, and that is what is going to make “Gay Divorce Court” such a tawdry tale of twinks on the make and sugar daddies paying through the nose. Gay marriage is going to go out of style rather quickly as a whole series of high-profile divorce cases make their way through the courts.”

Answer #2

continued…

“The very phrase “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Homosexuality, after all, is really all about the avoidance of marriage – and the responsibility of raising a family. It is the embrace of sensuality for its own sake, as an instrument of pure pleasure rather than procreation. Do gay guys really want to give up what is most attractive – to males, at any rate – about their recreational activities, the tremendous sense of freedom it implies?

Today’s gay activists are embarked on what is truly a futile mission, to make homosexuality seem “natural.” But they really ought to take their cues from their predecessors among the ancients, who took the opposite tack. In ancient Greece, philosophers debated the merits and demerits of homosexual behavior–although “gayness” was a concept unknown to them, thank the gods–and the defenders of this practice were, then as now, confronted with the argument that homosexuality is “unnatural.”

Pausanias, in Plato’s Symposium, answers that homosexuality is the “heavenly love” precisely because it is divorced from earthly carnality and centered around an idealized conception of beauty. It is purely aesthetic, and not at all procreative, that is, completely unnatural and artificial. To Pausanias, and his classical Greek comrades, this made it superior to the crassness of “the meaner sort of men,” exclusive hetereosexuals, who lacked the “higher” capacity to appreciate beauty in all its forms, including the male form.

Far from arguing that homosexuality was the equivalent of heterosexuality, the ancient advocates of same-sex love emphasized the great gulf that separates the two. Rather than aping heterosexuals and relentlessly lobbying for the “right” to marry, Plato’s crowd sought to distance themselves from the mundane and underscore their singularity. Pausanias argues that the choice of younger men over available women is indicative of a superior moral quality, evidence of a purity that defies and transcends biology. Homosexual love, he averred, represents an improvement over nature – which is, after all, the signal characteristic of human civilization.

To the gay activists of the modern era, with their dogma of biological determinism – the “gay gene—and their ingrained egalitarianism, such an argument is inconceivable. For them, there is no choice involved: they fervently believe they are genetically determined to engage in homosexual acts. In this view, sexual orientation is like gender and race. In the context of the society in which we live, this means that it is—or ought to be—illegal to “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation, in the same way and for the same reasons it is now a hate crime to consider matters of race, religion, and gender in the realm of housing, employment, and socio-economic relations in general.

This orthodoxy sits atop a mountain of pseudo-science mixed with moralizing, one that asserts—without convincing scientific evidence—that sexual “orientation” is genetically determined. It is the Left-liberal version of Lysenkoism, in which ideology determines political conclusions in advance of the facts (except that Lysenko, and his Stalinist sponsors, were expressing the leftist orthodoxy of the day that men could be engineered through the power of the State.)

The irony is that while most organizations of the Left (and Right) are allergic to the very notion of inheritable differences, the gay rights lobby sticks to a dogmatic genetic determinism that is otherwise relegated to the outer bounds of political incorrectness.

Aside from the lack of scientific evidence, common sense weighs in against this kind of crude genetic reductionism when we’re talking about an area so rife with subtlety, nuance—and variety as human sexuality. After all, what about bisexuals – are they genetic freaks, or are they just making different choices at different times in their lives?

The Kinsey Report, which was hailed by liberals at the time of its release – and damned by conservatives—showed that the great majority of homosexual activity takes place between men who identify as primarily heterosexual: their “gay” activities are furthermore limited to certain periods in their lives. The category of exclusive homosexuals was in the low single digits—although, again, sexual behavior was shown to change over time – another powerful argument against the theory of sexual “orientation,” which insists on rigid allegiance to certain behaviors.

And in the end, genetics is merely a ploy. The entire gay rights movement is based on the most unattractive, indeed pathetic motive imaginable—the need for acceptance.

A true libertarian position on gay marriage is very simple: libertarians seek to prevent the incursion of the State into private affairs. This means that any libertarian worthy of the name must oppose “legalizing” the very real marriages that do exist in the gay community, albeit not in a form most “straights” would find either familiar or acceptable.

The State, after all, has already made a strenuous and largely successful effort to regulate and intervene in the natural life of families, as well as the relations between women and men—the advent of gay marriage would mean extending the reach of the State over the private lives of individuals. Surely no libertarian could agree to such a thing, and would certainly do everything to oppose it.

Yet all sorts of alleged “libertarians” and fellow travelers simply assume that support for gay marriage—and, indeed, for the homosexual lifestyle—is a central principle of libertarianism. It simply isn’t so.

Libertarianism is only a political and economic theory. It has nothing to say whatever about what “lifestyle” a person chooses or the subject of quantum physics: it isn’t an all-embracing moral-metaphysical system that purports to explain everything and has a prescription for living one’s life. Libertarians neither endorse nor damn homosexuals and homosexuality: we simply say that sexual activities between consenting adults are no business of the State – period.

That old leftist slogan, “the personal is the political,” expresses the supremely anti-libertarian instinct that today politicizes even the most intimate social interactions. The irony is that this serves, in turn, to de-sexualize the behavior it seeks to legitimize. As George Orwell put it: politics is merely sex gone sour. In the end, the campaign to “legitimize” homosexuality could very well end up reducing its appeal, and, in a kind of rough justice, reducing the number of homosexuals.

It used to be that the gay world was a kind of underground club, the sort with a big brawny doorman who looked you up and down real good before he let you in the door. Nowadays, just anyone can just waltz right in, without so much as a “by your leave.” It’s all part of a general leveling trend, the tendency toward ordinariness and uniformity that characterizes modern life.

Ostensible conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer, who jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon early on, make a point of emphasizing this ordinariness, pushing the meme that gays are just like straights – only their wedding cakes have same-sex figurines atop them.

In yet another irony, it looks like the gay “liberation” movement has turned into its opposite. Instead of rebelling against the bourgeois social order, and asserting and celebrating their “liberation” from legalistic and moral norms, gay activists seek to reinforce those norms by “broadening” them. What started out as a movement for “gay liberation” has turned into a campaign to make gay society as restrictive of sexuality (particularly male sexuality) as the straight world – and even more boring.

Is nothing sacred anymore? It used to be that the American State had invaded every other aspect of American life: there was hardly a nook or a cranny left unoccupied by our army of bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, and elected politicians. The gay subculture was once largely outside of this system, and therefore homosexuals enjoyed enormous freedom and flexibility in their personal lives, a happy condition that marriage – and any form of state intervention—invariably ends. Which is precisely why gay marriage will prove to be just as unpopular in the gay male community as it is in the heart of the Bible belt, albeit for wildly different reasons.”

Answer #3

Mandyloo, you’re right. Everything you said had a purpose and a meaning to it. I bet you everyone here, right now, reading this, wants peace in the world right? Look up the definition of that word. If you oppose on gay rights, then you are not peace. You want fighting in your life, because you are looked upon as a bully

Also, every human being has diverse feelings. It’s NATURAL. Like the color you enjoy wearing or the ice cream flavor you choose corresponds to the topic. So number one, stop being ignorant as hell. Number two, I hope someone judges you for the things you love, especially in your relationship.

Gay love is not a sin and those profound christens, you sinned. God loves everyone and here’s some quotes for all you “in depth christen lovers.”

“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling (1 Peter 4:8-9).”

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all you heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment.” (Matthew 22:36)

“And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul, that you may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:6)

Believe this because you already do.

Answer #4

it is not natural. I can’t stand them!!!

and anyway, how are you supposed to genetically pass on life and keep a family tree going generation after generation. I’m not being harsh ‘cause of personal reasons, but what ever they do, they do. because they’ll just be branded a gay, and live with shame for the rest of their life.

Answer #5

I didn’t know the human heart had a foreskin…

Answer #6

I am a Christian, and I think gay marriage and gay relationships are immoral and disgusting. God, who created the world, set standards and rules for His creation. Any same sex relationship is abominable in His sight and detrimental to society.

Answer #7

Punk rocker just made him/herself look very ignorant and childish indeed. This is the reason why people have a hard time grasping it. They are ignorant and judgemental and refuse to believe that two people can be in love and happy and be the same gender. Love is Love - no matter what sex you may be.

Answer #8

punkrocker seems to confusing “marriage” and “making out,” so I think we have a pretty clear notion of why they’re having a hard time grasping the particulars of the issue.

One has to wonder why punkrocker is spending so much time staring at people making out. You’re aware that your eyes close and your head swivels…right?

Answer #9

gays have the right to bbe miserable too haha have you seen the difference between a gay couple and a married couple big difference..

Answer #10

GOD forbid this!!!

Different meant to be each other! Like Girl and Boy! Man to Man = incurable Disease!!! Woman to Woman = Incurable disease!!!

Gays and Lesbian will be punish by God! They will burn to hell!!!

Love to Love ??? lols!!! gays will burn to hell!!!

Look in the book of every religion!

Answer #11

mandyloo is the only opinion I truly like. its pathetic what nerofox said.gays will not go to hell! god will not judge all by our sexual orientation but by what we have performed on earth.think of that for a second people.peace

Answer #12

Misceg… I came in here with one view, and after reading the essay you posted, now have another. Thanks for posting it, real food for thought there. The writer is also succint and humorous. Folks, I’d recommend it although it’s a long read, it will stay with you.

Answer #13

Any topic about homosexuality is going to cause drama. That’s when the religous nuts come out of the wood works and start judging people.

Answer #14

I dont know why people are against gay marriage but I do know whats been passed in the law and whats happened in other countries.

hate speech laws insighting that certain speech types are against the law like being against homosexuals is hatefull which is debatable lawsuits a gay couple who are married go to a church that church says gay marriage or homosexuality is immoral they sue using hate speech law as a reason to imply discrimination teaching that homosexuality is ok in school or that gay marriage is ok dennying parents to have a right to say that they dont want their kids to hear that

If anything I see the gap in the gay marriage equilty debate when fighting for equility then using that right to suppress others rights.

So therefore inconclussion someone would be against gay marriage because they fear their rights would be infringed.

Answer #15

rebelliousjuliet1991 Your one of those bible thumping christinan’s aren’t you. I’ts absurd to think that the bible is the whole truth and everything that God believe’s in. He didn’t even write it, man did. So how you do truly know that being gay is a sin? You don’t. It also says in the bible not to judge others. I’m pretty sure you calling gays disgusting makes you a sinner as well, since your so into the bible. Gay relationships have been around since the beginning of time, it’s not something that just popped up out of no where. If your God, really hates and rejects people who love each other, I’m glad I’m not a part of such an ignorant religion.

Answer #16

Sodom. That’s why many religious people oppose gay marriage.

Many Christians are of the opinion that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis because of rampant homosexual behavior among the citizens. Even though this is only one interpretation (and probably an incorrect one), the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has come to symbolize God’s wrath being poured out on a society that tolerates same-sex relationships in the minds of many fundies. So, they figure, if the US legalizes gay marriage, God will be very displeased with this formerly “Christian nation” and bring jugement upon Americans.

Answer #17

nickthetristar It is natural, there is nothing un-natural about someone loving another person. You are a homophobe and judgemental. Also, it’s is not a SHAME to be gay. It’s a SHAME that you are so ignorant and close-minded though. The only sick people out there are the one’s who condem other people for loving someone and loving themselves.

amblessed Again, I dont even know where to start with you. Completely judgemental and I pity you. You a close-minded, brainwashed religious freak. It’s sad that you live your life blinded by religion and you can’t except that two people can love each other and be the same sex.

Answer #18

Well I think the groups would be Christions Rightwing Free speech advocates Reason !.View it as immoral2. same 1.the other laws that passed that would enable it to be used against pastors and christions as a way to silence their speech The other stuff I put first is a lot of the non religious reasons someone would be against gay marriage 3.Hate speech laws that free speech advocates would view gay marriage as another step toward speech sensorship Well I hope this is a better answer

Answer #19

To Christians

The Bible forbids gay marriage, blah blah blah. Have you ever considered that other people might not share your religious views? I personally do not endorse gay marriage, but is there any need to condemn gays who do? If you dont like homosexuality, just make sure gays stay away from you. But dont invade on their privacy if they do not invade yours

Im a Christian btw, but I see that there’s a real need for more religious tolerance