Social Question

Highbrow's avatar

Why do gay people ask for marriage rights if in the end they won't even get kids ?

Asked by Highbrow (366 points ) January 5th, 2013

People of the LGBT community ask for their right to get married because marriage should be a civil right that is open to EVERY human being regardless of whether they can have children or not. I personally think it’s unfair that straight couples can get married even if they’re infertile, meanwhile gay couples cannot get married regardless of whether or not they want children. Just because people do or don’t want kids doesn’t mean they should or shouldn’t get married. Marriage is nothing but a legal documentation stating the matrimony between two individuals. But it’s also a civil right and should be offered to every human being regardless of their sexual orientation.
As for the question of genetics, I think influence is part of it but definitely not the whole thing. How would you explain kids who grew up being harassed, beaten, and even raped for being gay or lesbian but they still turned out gay when they grew up? If it was influence, then their negative experiences would have taught them otherwise.

What is your psychological reaction to that?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

53 Answers

SABOTEUR's avatar

Gay people adopt.

Marriage offers them certain legal protections they were denied previously.

Those answers are obvious.

Your initial question might have emphasized your objection to gay marriage instead of their “inability to have children”.

Just a suggestion.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Blackberry's avatar

You are aware straight people get married and voluntarily don’t have kids, right?

tom_g's avatar

Is there a question here?

zensky's avatar

Oh boy.

bookish1's avatar

Has the International Gay Agenda ever tried to nab you? Gotta watch out for them. Their brochures are so tempting.

Weren’t you the one posting all those dissertation-length questions stolen from personality quiz websites? Maybe you should go back to that.

chyna's avatar

Getting popcorn.

marinelife's avatar

I don’t know where you get off saying “Actually it has been scientifically proven to be impossible to be born gay/lesbian.” It has not been ‘proven’. Science is not there yet.

Why should whether you can have children be a litmus test for marriage? Also: gay couples can have children through adoption.

thebluewaffle's avatar

Gay and lesbians are destroying the sanctity of traditional marriage. Christian marriage is between two members of the opposite sex. I am completely atheist, but feel this ritual should not be changed in favour of something which is not genetically natural.

Get a civil partnership for all I care.

SavoirFaire's avatar

(1) Marriage is not about children. People were born before marriage existed.

(2) It has not been scientifically proven that one cannot be born gay or lesbian. Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence that homosexuality is biological in origin (though not necessarily genetic). The biological basis isn’t quite proven either, but the point is that the issue has not been settled.

(3) People who are attracted to members of their own sex and their allies do not ask for the right to marry. They have the right to marry and are demanding that the government recognize it.

(4) Civil marriage is a bit more than a piece of paper documenting a commitment. Marital status confers 1,138 rights, protections, and benefits to which non-married people do not have access. These range from mundane tax benefits to the right to visit your partner in the hospital.

CWOTUS's avatar

Oh, great. Now we’re trolling for trolls.

We’re gonna need a bigger popcorn.

ragingloli's avatar

Taxes, Hospital visiting rights and ability to make decisions for an incapacitated partner, inheriting from a deceased partner, and all that without having to expensively set up arrangements with expensive lawyers, agreements that can easily be overturned by malicious relatives anyway. Marriage is a lot more safe from that.

SABOTEUR's avatar

What is this “sanctity of traditional marriage” I hear mention of?

SABOTEUR's avatar

They had trolls in The Hobbit. Ghastly creatures, they were. Don’t know their position on gay marriage, though.

SABOTEUR's avatar

Oh yeah…I see little troll fires sprouting up all of a sudden. Poor little gay bashing beastie.

SavoirFaire's avatar

“When people talk about traditional values, they usually mean traditional myths about traditional values.”
—Randy Milholland

@thebluewaffle By “traditional marriage,” I assume you mean an arrangement in which one man sells his daughter to another man for mutual benefit? Or perhaps you mean an arrangement by which two people commit themselves to one another for the purposes of bilateral domestic service in a private ceremony with no governmental or religious oversight? Or perhaps you mean an arrangement by which the leader of a group of people distributes women among the men, typically retaining two or three for himself? Or perhaps you mean an arrangement in which a set of brothers all attach themselves to a single woman so as to not divide up a family estate?

Traditionally, that is what marriage has been. Moreover, neither the church nor the state was involved until the 16th century. But marriage has evolved over time. Indeed, it is a relatively new practice for two people who love one another to decide they wish to spend the rest of their lives together and formalize this under the auspices of a civilly recognized institution. Such is the norm now, however, and there is no legitimate reason for excluding gays and lesbians. Marriage is not a Christian rite. It existed before Christianity, and it will exist after it. Civil unions, meanwhile, do not confer the same rights, protections, and benefits as civil marriage. Besides, “separate but equal” just doesn’t cut it.

tom_g's avatar

@thebluewaffle: “I am completely atheist, but feel this ritual should not be changed in favour of something which is not genetically natural.”

Aaaah. The mythical non-religious anti-gay marriage person appears. I smell the mangled logic of US “Libertarianism” (“Get a civil partnership for all I care.”).

sigh.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

I honestly can’t tell if it’s the hangover or OP’s poor trolling skills that’s making this question an insufferable read. And what’s with all these questions with homophobic agendas lately? Grow the fuck up.

RandomGirl's avatar

@SavoirFaire: “Marriage is not about children. People were born before marriage existed.”
Before legal marriage existed, yes, but the first union between man and wife took place before any children were born. Just thought I’d point that out.

ragingloli's avatar

Yeah, right, because they did not just grab a random woman in the cave. They screwed whoever they wanted and “marriage” or whatever you want to call this “union” came later.
And by the way, it was man and wives. plural. because polygamy was the norm.

tom_g's avatar

@RandomGirl: “Before legal marriage existed, yes, but the first union between man and wife took place before any children were born. Just thought I’d point that out.”

I read this 64 times, getting more and more confused each time. I’m not reading this a 65th time. What does this mean exactly? (I’m slow today.)

RandomGirl's avatar

@tom_g: Have you ever read the Genesis account? That’s what I’m referring to. I though people would pick up on that. Maybe I’m just kind of slow today, too.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

what does sega genesis have to do with anything?

ragingloli's avatar

protip: the genesis myth is just that, a myth. it never happened.

tom_g's avatar

@RandomGirl – I thought we were talking about real stuff.

RandomGirl's avatar

Yeah, I had a feeling that would happen… I’ll step out of the thread now. I know I won’t get anywhere.

ragingloli's avatar

I will be going to egypt to await the return of the ancient aliens who will land with their space ships on top of the pyramids.

tom_g's avatar

@tom_g: “Yeah, I had a feeling that would happen… I’ll step out of the thread now. I know I won’t get anywhere.”

Sorry. But here’s how it works: We’re discussing real laws in a real country that affect real people, and the real history of marriage. Suddenly, you duck in and point out something that just so happens to be a story in a book that conflicts with everything we currently understand to be reality. It confused me and seemed a bit out of place.
But please don’t leave just because we can be a bit rude occasionally. Come back and stick to the real stuff. The more the merrier.

RandomGirl's avatar

@tom_g Sorry, but I have this knee-jerk reaction that when people call me ignorant or unrealistic, I realize that I’m wasting my time on people who won’t listen. I’ve done research. I’ve done a lot of soul-searching and nit-picking. It all comes down to this one thing for me: You have two choices: Believe that a whole bunch of nothing just randomly decided to explode and form atoms, which eventually managed to arrange themselves into molecules, and after millions and millions of years, these few molecules managed to collide in such a way to create a live cell, eventually evolving into thinking, speaking, rationalizing people, or you can believe that God made all the amazing, intricate, beautiful, things we see around us, from the humble dirt in which we grow plants to the billions and billions of stars and galaxies in the universe. Both choices take a bit of faith, but one takes more than the other.

Maybe it’s just that I don’t have as much faith as the rest of you, but I choose to believe that God made this universe. For that reason, I take the Bible literally. It’s a real account of real events that actually matter.

By the way, science can’t prove anything. Even the most long-standing, accepted scientific law can be disproved, if new information were to surface. It’s not very likely, say, in the case of gravity, but remember: Evolution is just a theory. It’s not a law, even.

livelaughlove21's avatar

ACTUALLY, science has proven no such thing.

@RandomGirl A supernatural being in the sky is much more realistic, you’re right. However, I’m not sure you know the meaning of the word “theory” in science. And the Bible is literal? Wow, haven’t heard that one in awhile.

Regardless, if marriage is a Christian institution, why not prohibit marriage for everyone else, not just gay people?

ucme's avatar

Because it’s their right!
How the fuck is anyone supposed to prove that newborn babies can’t be gay, if it’s a boy & they play Judy Garland songs & the baba cries…“uh-huh, he’s clearly straight!”
I mean come on!!

SadieMartinPaul's avatar

We’re being trolled. Please don’t take the bait and respond.

tom_g's avatar

@RandomGirl – Your post reads like a satirical piece shining a light on scientific illiteracy in the US. But I will redirect you to my point (and frankly, the point of this thread)...

You don’t have to bring any kind of beliefs into this discussion. You’re not at church. You’re in a forum that may contain people of various religions, sects, etc. Our goal is to discuss the fate of our fellow human beings in this country. Jumping away from a discussion of civil rights and equality and leaping into bible verse isn’t going to help us (fluther members or citizens as a whole) find common ground and understanding.

So what do we know? We know that some people want to keep same-sex couples from obtaining the same rights as opposite-sex couples. We solved this problem here in Massachusetts back in 2004. Can we do this for the rest of the country?

ucme's avatar

I ain’t taking no bait, any excuse to have a giggle, that’s me.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Oh, well if it’s scientifically proven, then it must be okay for you to stay ignorant. Good job.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@RandomGirl One cannot “just point out” something disputed. We happen to disagree about the history of mankind. Even if your claim about history were true, however, it would be irrelevant. The crux of my point is that we do not need marriage in order to get children. I assume you would agree with that, yes?

Moving on, then, I would like to make a few points about this post. The first is that you commit a very basic false dilemma fallacy. There are more choices than “nothingness randomly exploded” (which no one believes, as yours is a straw man version of one possible atheistic cosmogeny) and a particularly Abrahamic version of theism. It seems there is quite a bit more research for you to do before you can make an informed decision.

Second, believing in God—or even in a creator God—does not immediately entail that the Bible is both accurate and literally true. For one thing, there are theistic religions other than Christianity. For another, Christianity (and the Bible) could be true without being literally true. One early proponent of this view might be familiar to you: Jesus of Nazareth, who spoke in parables that must be interpreted. If you take them literally, you will miss the point.

Third, I fear you may be equivocating on the word “proof.” Science operates on the epistemological notion of fallibilism, which is to say that it never rules out the possibility that future information may overturn current theory. That is not to say that science cannot prove anything, however, unless we have an overly robust notion of “proof” under which only 100% certainty counts. I am not 100% certain that I am not a figment of Cthulhu’s dark imagination, but no reasonable person would think that meeting me in person was not adequate proof that I exist.

Fourth, the “evolution is just a theory” gambit just doesn’t work. For one thing, it confuses the scientific usage of the word theory with the colloquial usage thereof. In the scientific sense, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is not a guess, a prediction, or a supposition. A scientific theory collects a set of facts together and explains them. Evolution is a theory in this sense, and it is one of the best confirmed theories we have.

SavoirFaire's avatar

“The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation.

“So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.”

—H.J. Muller, “One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough”

Shippy's avatar

Really your question is full of contradictions? But I will go with one train of thought.

Imagine this: Imagine you fell in love, you and your love bought a house, together. You shared dreams, you built a life, you gathered debt and also gathered memories and things. When either of you got sick the other cared, when you hurt they cried.

You shared recipes together, ideas, dreams and hopes. You had careers, extended families that came over for Christmas dinner, or your birthday. You had pets and chores to do. You started to grow old together, then maybe your love left and you were heart broken. Or maybe they died.

And you when you told people how sad you felt they said “Oh you were gay” then “Did this relationship even exist?” “Why are you sad?”.

That’s why.

tinyfaery's avatar

The day these questions stop occurring will be a wonderful day for the LGBTQ community. I guess today is not that day.

Really, these questions truly sadden me.

jca's avatar

Did all the trolls migrate here from the New Year’s Eve party?

28lorelei's avatar

Agree with tinyfaery. And besides, shouldn’t a person be able to marry the love of their life, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation?

tups's avatar

let’s dance

Kardamom's avatar

Can you pause this for a minute? I have to go to the bathroom.

While I’m up, does anyone want any nachos or pudding?

Kardamom's avatar

@RandomGirl I’m curious, you said you believe in the literal translation of the Bible. If so, do you think that slavery is OK? How about stoning people to death? Or do you just take the nifty stuff and forget about all of the yucky stuff?

Also, you are aware that the Bible that you read has been translated and interpreted multiple times before it ever came to be written in English, and even the current English (American) versions are quite different than the original King James Bible with regards to the actual language used. So which Bible and which version do you refer to as the literal version.

Now, did you order the nachos or the pudding? I also got some hummus and some jalapeno poppers for anyone who wants some.

jca's avatar

@Kardamom: I’m going to have some chips and dip, please, or veggies and dip, if you have any. Also I’ll take a Diet Coke. Thanks.

Kardamom's avatar

@jca Do you want literal diet coke or that coke zero stuff? I also have diet pepsi for those of you who think that those two products are similar enough. So the straight people can have the diet coke, but the gay people can only have the diet pepsi and they shouldn’t expect to have the other, they just shouldn’t. I can’t give you a real good answer as to why, but I just know they shouldn’t get to have it. LOL

I have Ruffles with Ridges and Fresh Onion Dip and I also have Blue Corn Tortilla Chips with Guajillo Salsa Which one do you think we should allow the gays?

wundayatta's avatar

A) Gay people do have kids. Clearly there is a need for a discussion of birds and bees here. Meet me in the evolutionary biology lab, please.

B) Gay people are no different from anyone else who wants marriage. There are hundreds or thousands of reasons why people want to be married. Clearly, there is a need for a discussion of the sociology of marriage. Please meet me in the sociology classroom.

C) Kids are harassed because people can be mean. We need to do more to stopy bullying in the playground. For a discussion about the sociology of childhood education, please meet me in the education lab.

D) Negative reinforcement is not an effective education technique. For a lesson about the philosophy of education, please meet me in the education department lecture hall.

My psychological reaction? Well, I guess I’m astonished at the ignorance in these questions. There are so many misconceptions about the way the world works, that it is impossible to know where to start. Hence the apparent need for an education. Hence wondering why the OP didn’t get an education and how she missed out on things that most people learn by fifth grade.

Also, it makes me feel kind of hopeless to have to deal with this kind of ignorance. I wonder if the people who ask these kinds of questions are trolls and are just trying to create a hullaballoo, or if they are genuinely as ignorant as they affect to be. Or worse, if they deliberately have been ignoring their educational opportunities in order to follow cultural and religious beliefs. It kind of makes me sick and sad, and yet, I know they are a minority that is growing smaller and smaller. So perhaps many of them are learning and moving on to more interesting issues.

SavoirFaire's avatar

For any latecomers to this thread: Please note that the OP was severely edited, removing many of the more controversial elements to which the first 20 or so answers were responding.

For everyone making various accusations against the OP: It’s worth keeping in mind that English is not @Highbrow‘s native language. While both the original and edited versions of the question details reveal misapprehensions worth addressing, the edited version suggests that @Highbrow is essentially sympathetic to same-sex marriage.

SABOTEUR's avatar

Hmmmm…I feel about [ ] small right about now. Sincerest apologies @Highbrow for misunderstanding your question.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Well, it’s nice to totally rework questions once you realize nobody supports what you’re saying (imagine how much longer fluther would take if we all did this) but why wasn’t the question itself (aka the thing people actually see when browsing) reworded?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@SABOTEUR To be fair, you were the very first person to respond. The original version was far less clear and far more inflammatory.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Indeed.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther