I see NO good reason for BAN on gay marriages

[neoteric lefty]

First off, I will let it be known that 1) I am not gay, 2) I am not religious (religion and spirituality are 2 VERY different things, but thats a whole different topic) 3) I am not married myself (whew!) and 4) I support the ability of two consenting adults to join under the contract of marriage.

When a political topic comes to my doorstep, I, like most of us, already have some opinion on the matter. However, I try to put myself into the shoes of those on the other side so that I can understand their position and try not to demonize them if in a discussion. With the current debate on gay marriage, I have tried to see what is harmful about gay marriage to the rest of the country and/or culture. Here are a few pseudo-objections to gay marriage I could think of that those who oppose G.M. would bring up:

Health Reasons
Religious people bring up the opinion that a "gay" lifestyle is unhealthy and/or unsafe. I would assume they would say gay marriage would exacerbate the risks and problems. However, it has been shown that a healthy, monogamous relationship goes a long way in lowering the risk of STDs and promiscuous behavior. Marriage is pinnacle of monogamous relationships and allowing gay couples to marry would almost definitely lower the risks of these "risky" behaviors.

Also, unwanted pregnancies would be eliminated with gay couples since 1) a gay couple cannot conceive a child and 2) a lesbian couple would have to plan some sort of artificial method (insemination or finding a paternal donor). This means that gay and lesbian couples could only be parents by a direct choice to do so. This means adoption rates would go up (always a good thing), abortions would be almost nil (that almost makes the religious right happy), and gay couples who wanted children would be able to make the decision of whether or not they have the means to support and care for that child.

Cultural Reasons
Gay marriages would have no direct effect on anyone else's marriage. That is unless they made the conscious decision that gay marriage would affect them, which is their problem (much like people who say affirmative action is bad for this country just because they don't like it). Gay marriages would create stable committed relationships (not in all cases, of course) which will create stability in the surrounding community.

Government's Intervention
Pres. Bush wants a Constitutional Admendment that bans gay marriage. I thought in order to ban anything in America, there has to be a good reason to do so. We couldn't just ban Frosted Flakes just because we are a "Mini-wheats" crowd. We need a good reason. The only reason I can find that has any legs to walk on is that from religion. "Being gay is bad, therefore gay marriage is worse" is their argument. They cite scripture and religious teachings. However, we cannot make a law in the U.S. just because someone's religion says it is bad. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." says Amendment 1. Therefore, I see no way that laws can be made to ban something based on religion.

That is just my opinion.

[rucky]

1. In the California case, they'll have to show damages

I'd love to see them try to make that case.

emotional distress? sorry plaintiff, seems you already had that.

hmm, what other neuroses can we legislate?

[philosophie_en_rose]

2. Logical Reasons.

Even if they were right and gay people are all promiscuous, disease-ridden sinners that supposedly prey on married couples, how could a legally binding, monogamous relationship between two gay people possibly be a threat to heterosexual marriages?

[Bucky]

3. I liked John Stewart's point

This would be only the second time in our history that the constitution was used to restrict, rather then expand, the scope of human freedoms. The other time was Prohibition, which didn't turn out so good.

[neoteric lefty]

4. i missed that show

but great line by him. I'll have to remember that one when discussing this topic with someone.