The Banning of Gay Marriage: A Slippery Slope?

by Ben Hoffman

In another post, I described the big government disposition and inclination of Republicans. One of the examples was their desire to tell people who can and who can’t get married based on sexual preference. Since there is nothing illegal about what gay people do, banning them from getting married has started us down a slippery slope.

If the government can ban gay marriage, what’s next? The banning of marriage by a man and a woman of different ethnic groups and races? Or maybe the government doesn’t like short guys marrying tall girls. Or how about couples of different religions? Or even different political ideologies? Should they be able to get married? Should our government really be making those decisions?

Just because we’ve started down this slippery slope doesn’t mean we can’t put the brakes on and correct our course.

Advertisements

43 Comments to “The Banning of Gay Marriage: A Slippery Slope?”

  1. Nice turnabout. It’s always amazed me people who decry the evils of government involvement in all things not only tolerate but DEMAND federal regulation of a religious institution.

    Obviously, there is ample consumer demand for gay marriage. Shouldn’t we let the free market work?

    Jason
    4inchestotheleft.wordpress.com

  2. Ben, you have this one right. Republicans are wrong here to ban marriage. Civil liberties ought to be extended to everyone by the government.

    On the other hand, if you wanna join a private club that doesn’t want to have gay married members, by all means, go form your club. But the government should not be in that business.

    On the other hand, while it is incongruous that republicans want federal protection in this case, it is funny that liberals chose this argument to push the federal government away. A very interesting ideological “about face” on both parties account.

    • Republicans see it as the protection of marriage and gays see it as equal rights. The problem I have is gays aren’t hurting anyone by getting married but Republicans are hurting gays by wanting it banned.

      That’s why the government should stay out of it.

  3. Personally, I am all for it – letting gays/lesbians/transgendered – get married. I personally think it is something that should really be a state issue as to whether they want to call it a marriage or what not.

    I personally am all for churches/other religious institutions stepping away from giving out a marriage license and moving to a system more in line with certain South American countries – civil and religious weddings (if you want one). I personally would rather all of them just get called civil unions that way people don’t get hung up on the word “marriage” in the religious right. Currently, the disconnect costs gays a fortune in legal costs to get the same legal protection that I, as a heterosexual married male, got through my license that cost all of like 30 or 50 bucks.

  4. Thomas Paine said it best, and I will continue to quote him until the day I die. “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression;for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself”.

    I am spitting nails this morning I am so mad. Maine voted to repeal gay marriage – but at the same time they voted to allow the legal distribution of medical marijuana. ::shakes head:: Not that I mind marijuana, but the hypocrisy in all of this is disgusting. Drugs over equality – makes perfect sense.

  5. You are talking apples and oranges here. Men and women getting married is vastly different from two men or two women getting married. Marriage is, at its roots, designed to propagate the species. Two men or two women cannot propagate anything except the lie that this kind of relationship has the same validity as a hetero.
    In every other example you cite–tall/short, black/white, religious, political–propagation is possible.
    The whole issue is not about love, it is not about rights, the reason homosexuals want to be married is for public and governmental validation of their lifestyle choice.

    • It’s not a choice. Ask any homosexual who is truthful, and they will tell you that they didn’t choose to be who they are.

      • A common misconception. It’s like any person who does things that are outside of society’s “acceptable behavior” list. “It’s not my fault” “The devil made me do it” and “I was born this way” all fall into the same pot of denial.

        It is a choice, plain and simple. I know of several “gay” people who changed their minds and are happy in hetero relationships after many years in homo relationships.

      • LOL…gay people who decided not to be gay? The people you know are homosexuals in turmoil, who are lying to themselves about who they are, who are trying vainly to change in order to fit into a culture and religion that condemns them.

        When people like you insist that homosexuality is a choice, you force gays and lesbians into an impossible situation. The rates of depression and suicide among homosexuals is much higher than among heterosexuals, a tragic consequence of living in a society that doesn’t accept them for who they are.

        I’m guessing that the “former gays” you know are Christian. Why on earth would they feel safe to be honest with you and other intolerant people? They have more incentive to lie in order to remain accepted, yes, even going so far as to engage in a heterosexual relationship. They might even believe their own lie, but it’s still a lie.

    • Ok Dave – based on your “apples and oranges” comment and the fact that you cite propagation as a possibility being the only thing that makes a marriage valid. So are all marriages that are engaged in where someone uses a condom/other means of birth control invalid? Are those people just concerned about rights and validation of their lifestyle choice to hump like bunnies without fear of children and STDs?

      Please tell me how you rationalize that.

      It is about rights and most gays will be the first to admit it. So if you have a hang up on this on the basis of it being about love or the use of the word marriage. Either way, you are depriving someone of a “right”. Why is it that the rest of the populace gets this same benefit from a legal standpoint and taxation standpoint yet it is perfectly okay to hose over another portion of the population?

      • Gays have the same rights as straights. They can marry any member of the opposite sex, just like straights. They just don’t want to.

      • Your response here Dave is so weak that I cannot honestly continue debate on this issue. I would assume you probably, along with myself as an economic conservative, probably advocate choice and the free market. So on the one hand most conservatives advocate choice – yet when it comes to social issues you seek to restrict as much as possible. I personally find that to be a walking contradiction that I observe amongst social/economic conservatives hence my Libertarian voting record,

        So if homosexuality was a choice across the board (despite a good bit of scientific evidence to prove otherwise) – you seek to restrict choice?

    • [Marriage is, at its roots, designed to propagate the species.]

      So with that logic, if an opposite sex married couple can’t conceive, should the marriage be annulled?

    • Hi Dave. We’ve had this conversation before. Last time you said:

      Marriage has always been legally defined from the dawn of civilization as being between a man and woman for the purpose of continuing the species.

      And I said:

      That’s just incorrect – sex is what perpetuates the species, not marriage.

      In fact, marriage from the dawn of civilization has been an economic contract, especially in the millenia when women were property. Families didn’t pay dowries for procreation. People married for multiple reasons and societies legalized these contracts for multiple reasons. Mostly having to do with land, money, property, security and status.

      You make babies with sex. You make partnersips with marriage.

  6. You are operating under the misconception that there is a definite distinction between gays and straights. It is laughable to assume that once someone defines themselves as gay that is a life-long affiliation. There are differences between people to be sure; like being african-american or male for that matter. Homosexuals are not a distinct class. You cannot find a biological distinction. There simply is not one. Therefore, homosexuality is only different in behavior, and that–as my teachers always told me in childhood–is a choice.

    • [Therefore, homosexuality is only different in behavior, and that–as my teachers always told me in childhood–is a choice.]

      What the hell kind of school did you go to? lol!

      • Why a very good school where a child was admonished to behave properly. Schools ensured children behaved appropriately and set standards. They always reminded us that our behavior was our choice and if we chose to misbehave we would have to deal with the consequences of that choice. This set a good standard for developing self control and allowed us to learn.
        If this is so vastly different from your educational experience, I think we can see where the problem lies.

      • Boy, that belongs in the “Republicans are the party of big government” thread. You think the government (a.k.a. public schools) should be teaching our children moral values. That’s pretty scary.

    • The 9-year old across the street, third of four kids in a great family is clearly gay. So tell it to him.

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    “If the government can ban gay marriage, what’s next? The banning of marriage by a man and a woman of different ethnic groups and races?”

    Tell me, does logic ever scream when you torture it like this? You act as if same sex marriage has been around for ages and a bunch of kenucle draggin conservatives woke up one day and decided to take away an established right. You Democrats are the ones who like to attack long established rights, like the first two amendments of the United States Constitution. But I digress.

    Also comparing the banning of gay marriage to banning interracial marriage is stretching logic like Gumby. So seriously tell me where do you draw the line in defining marriage? Or give me examples of what you would disapprove of as a legal marriage. Or don’t you have any standards?

    • Gay marriage hasn’t been around for ages, but homosexual relationships have. Don’t pretend that homosexuality is a modern phenomenon, or that it’s even restricted to human beings. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time, in many animal species, including ours. It’s a biological fact.

  8. Wikipedia is far from a reliable source.

  9. I do not believe gay marriage is a democrat or republican issue. There are homosexuals in both parties. The problem society has with gay marriage is the fear of the unknown. Mainly from the fear of us being different than heterosexual people. It is hard for most heterosexual people to conceive how a man can love another man. They just can’t quite wrap their head around it because it’s abnormal to them and goes against everything they know to be true. The severe religious right then establishes additional fear in people with incorrect facts through sermons, radio, and television ads. The misconception that if homosexuals are allowed to walk down the street freely holding hands is going to expose children to homosexuality and cause them to convert is laughable. While some people are flat bigots, unwilling to change their opinion no matter what facts are placed in front of them, a majority of society is coming to terms with it and public opinion is shifting. We as a people must be open to understanding what we don’t understand.

    When people claim to know a “former” homosexual, its not really “former”, rather they are 1 of 2 things. They are bi-sexual, which is a person who is attracted to both men and women. Or it is a homosexual who is so pressured by their religion and families that they force themselves into a psychological state “pretending” to be straight, though almost all “converted” homosexuals still have same sex attractions. For everyone who says homosexuality is a choice I would like you to take a look at this medical slideshow http://www.teachthefacts.org/ForumDocs/WertschSlideShow.pdf
    particularly pages 21, 22, 27,28, and 29. Though, if you are indeed an open minded individual, not brain washed by your religion, I would encourage you to review it all. It has some very interesting facts.

    The notion I read above about same sex marriage not being a rights issue and it being a propagation issue is once again flawed by your fear of the unknown or uncommon. By allowing homosexuals to get married there is NO threat to you, your church, your family or society. There are enough straight people producing kids to keep the human race going. Marriage is a union between two people in love. I happen to love a man and so do millions of other homosexual men. It is a basic civil right issue. The conviction of us not being a minority is inapt. A minority group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. We are a minority group because we are different than the majority when it comes to sexual orientation. The fact that a majority can take away a minority’s rights is mind-boggling. Again, I reference you to the link in the previous paragraph. If that does not satisfy you, there are a lot more medical studies published that backup facts that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

  10. Issy,

    “a majority of society is coming to terms with it and public opinion is shifting. We as a people must be open to understanding what we don’t understand.”

    So what happened in Maine? Why does the only way for gay marriage to become law, is to have it inflicted by politicians and judges? If the majority want it, why can’t it win on a referendum?

  11. Uh oh, do I smell another one of those marathon threads being born?

  12. Your style is really unique in comparison to other folks I have read stuff from.

    Thank you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this blog.

  13. Thanks designed for sharing such a fastidious idea,
    post is fastidious, thats why i have read it completely

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: