Reader Comments on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

JOHN F:

You are not including in your list of pro's and cons the most important 
arguments against allowing gay marriage at this point in time.
 
1.  First of all, it is totally incorrect to assert that gay orientation is entirely 
"biological."   As I am sure you know, identical twins have exactly the same genes.  
Yet, when one identical twin grows up gay the other does not, at least half the time 
(and arguably much more than half the time).  The consensus in the scientific community 
is that gay orientation is triggered by a complex mix of genetic and environmental 
factors.  Your web site entries should reflect that.
 
2.  Given the above reality, we should expect that cultural factors can trigger the 
misfortune of gay orientation in an individual.  So, the cultural sea change of gay 
marriage, with its implicit endorsement of all gay sexual acts as fully sanctioned 
forms of marital love-making, will most likely steer many more kids into growing up 
gay.  This represents potential tragedy for both the kids themselves and their families.  
Any assertion that being gay oriented is "just as good" as being heterosexually oriented 
is pure rationalization and self-deception.  When nearly all parents would prefer that 
all their kids grow up "straight," would anyone argue that this is a matter of 
ignorance and bigotry?  So therefore they are all closed-minded and you are the only 
enlightened individual?
 
3.  The truly scary thing about gay marriage is that it is absolutely irreversible.  
Once, granted, that right cannot be rescinded, even if the social results are plainly 
catastrophic.  For example, what if the percentage of gays in the general population 
goes up by 50% or more, with tragic consequences for all or most of those additional 
folks who are stuck with being gay?  Or what if the number of gay suicides actually 
goes up because there are so many more gay folks out there?  How do you know that 
Canadians generally will not come to regret their sudden and highly questionable 
decision to allow gay marriage?  The answer is that you do not know, because nobody 
in the world knows.  Only time will tell, and we won't know the answer for a number of years.
 
4.  Given the above, the only sensible course is to postpone allowing gay marriage 
in the US until we know the answers.  That is, disallow it for now, knowing that 
we could still allow it at some future time.  Even a constitutional amendment that 
prohibits it can be overridden by a subsequent amendment.  Of course, exactly that 
mechanism was used at the US Federal level in the last century.
 
5.  So   . . .  you need to correct the misstatement that gay orientation is 
biologically based.  And you need add two points that oppose gay marriage:
 
a.  The cultural attitudes that underlie gay marriage are likely to result in a 
substantial increase in the number of kids who grow up gay.  This would amount 
to a profoundly sad development for most if not all of the additional youngsters 
who are so affected.
 
b.  We cannot know in advance the long-term effects that gay marriage will have in 
Canada.  Those results in Canada may well prove extremely harmful and extremely 
unpopular with Canadians, but gay marriage rights cannot be rescinded once they 
have been granted.  So, common sense dictates that we must postpone allowing gay 
marriage in the US until we know the long-term consequences of gay marriage in Canada.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES M from OREGON:

First, people have a mistaken view of the history of marriage. Until the 
late 18th century, about the same timing as the French and American 
Revolutions, love had absolutely nothing to do with marriage and even as 
late as the Victorian era (second half of 1800s) marrying for love was 
looked on as something only poor and ignorant people did. Marriage was a 
blood bond contract between two families to further political or financial 
goals. This was true for all classes except perhaps the very poor who had 
nothing to lose. The concept of marrying for love was roundly condemned from 
the pulpit as being the first of a slippery slope to the disintegration of 
the family and the ruination of marriage itself.

But I digress.

I am for the legalization of marriage for same sex couples. I will take each 
NO point separately.

1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.
Many religions do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. Many US citizens 
are not religious. Many US citizens are atheist. This is why basing a law or 
a right on whether or not something is a sin is unconstitutional. So if one 
wants to live in a country that bases its laws on protecting people against 
sin, may I suggest Italy, Spain or Saudi Arabia? If you think marrying 
someone of the same sex is a sin, don't do it. You have that right.

2. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of 
marriage.
What couple in their right minds allows someone else to define their 
marriage? Whoever in the world believes there is one definition of marriage 
other than a legal commitment into which two people enter? And yes I said 
legal, because it is legal for two atheists to get married. It is legal to 
get married by a judge and it is legal to get married by a person who got a 
license off the internet. Religion takes no place in these couples right to 
be married. Perhaps these marriages would not be recognized by some 
churches, but so what? Many churches do not recognize marriages other than 
those held within their own doctrine. My husband and I do not now nor will 
have children and we keep separate finances. Many people don't think this is 
a real marriage.

Taking religion out of it, a legal marriage is a legally binding contract 
between two consulting adults. Whether or not a particular union is blessed 
within a church is the right of that particular church's doctrines and the 
couple involved. And just in case someone starts screaming I am against 
those who enter their commitment by asking Gods blessing or vowing before 
God, au contraire. I am just saying in the U.S. we have the CHOICE to go 
either way. That is freedom. That is liberty.

And as far as people losing respect for marriage, how in the world can one 
say that same-sex couples don't respect marriage? If they did not honor and 
respect marriage they would not be fighting so hard for the right to do it. 
They would just fill out contracts for the protections and be done with it. 
But they want their commitments to be respected. They want what we have.  If 
one really wants to increase respect for marriage, make it harder for 
EVERYONE to get married and for EVERYONE to get divorced. Far too many 
people enter into marriage without thinking about it. 50% of heterosexual 
marriages end in divorce. What's up with that?

3. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our 
society.
I hate to tell you, but most traditional family values are pretty dead. 
What killed them?  Both parents working and spending little time with their 
kids. Kids need a LOT of time not just "quality time".  You can see it in 
crime statistics, declining health in children, increased teen suicide, 
lower academic results and on and on and on. We all see families where both 
parent work owning huge houses, multiple cars, boats and debt up the wazzoo 
and the parents spending 10 hours a week with the kids. That's strong family 
values just because the parents are heterosexual?  On the other end of the 
spectrum, for far too many it is a financial necessity but why could one 
income 50 years ago buy a lifestyle that takes 2 now? THIS is a family value 
issue.

4. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. 
having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next).
Now this one really gets my goat. As I mentioned above, without the 
religious aspect a marriage is a legal contract between consulting adults. 
In this country, to be a legally consulting adult one has to be human, at or 
above the age of consent, mentally competent and under no coercion to enter 
into the contract. One has to be a legally consenting adult to enter into 
ANY legally binding contract, period.  An animal is not a legally consenting 
adult. A lamp is not a legally consenting adult. A child is not a legally 
consenting adult. And a family member, i.e. son, daughter, sister or brother, is 
not a legally consenting adult because in incestuous relationships there is 
ALWAYS a level of coercion. Don't let anyone tell you differently.  As far 
as multiple wives, personally I don't have a problem with that either as 
long as all parties ARE LEGALLY CONSENTING ADULTS!!

In closing I would like to add this. The Constitution of the United States 
was intended by the founders of this country to do two things: LIMIT the 
power of the government over the citizens (in the main Constitution) and to 
ensure the inalienable rights of minority citizens from the tyranny of the 
majority (The Bill of Rights). Limit the power of the government, ensure 
minority rights. Where does denying the right to marry fall in these amazing 
documents? Nowhere.