I'm sure that if you ask people who oppose it you'd get a wide variety of reasons. Some may even use religion as an excuse for why they are against it. Truth to be told, I'm sure there are people who were raised to think it is wrong and gross and they will never be convinced otherwise. Sad but true.

Dorydorito wrote:On the topic of gay marriage, in WA state we just passed everything but the marriage.  I was reading the comments from those opposing civil unions on a local news website and they all seem to be religiously based.
Is religion the only reason one would oppose gay marriage? Or is it the "ick" factor?
Please educate me because I'm really having a hard time understanding why anyone would be opposed.  
Jenny

 
Jenny, I'm with you, I just don't get it.
 
I think the religious aspect is a big part of it, which makes me once again realize how divisive religion is as an institution.  One's religion should not dictate one's morals. 
 
I also think that a lot of people fear those who are different than them.  Different isn't always bad, as a matter of fact, usually different is good.
 
I wish people would stop hiding behind archaic rules.

I think religion has alot to do with it. But I still don't get where it is our right to say who can and who can not get married. If you are religious then you should know you are not to judge the judgement will come and let God deciede who has done wrong.

Some people find moral objectiom to homosexuality. This can be religiously based but that is not always the case.
 
People vote their morals. People vote their beliefs. People vote their religion.
 
Playing with words and definitions to get the legal process through, it just baffles my mind. You call it by another name and suddenly it is okay with people. What?! Either you are okay with giving legal rights to homosexuals or you are not. End of story. Messing around with what word to call it does nothing to change what rights under our government are granted.
 
I do understand the religious/moral objection. Granting legal recognition to many seems to be saying that society looks at what is a moral wrong and makes it a moral right. Again, to some. I can see where these people stand on this and I can respect that they do not wish to see their society giving legal recognition to what they deem morally wrong.
 
But there is fault in that logic to me. Because, to me, morals are something I strive for in my own life and I do not need the government to tell me what is morally good and bad. That is not anything I would ever want my government involved in in fact.
 
But, we do govern morals everyday. Prostitution? Weed? Abortion? Heck, even this whole medical bill being written and rewritten has a moral base.
 
So it is a morality issue within the legal process. As it stands right now we are at the crossroads with it. There is a pretty close split in the country. But soon that close split towards keeping it from becoming legal will shift to making it legal. I am certain of this, I just know it.
 
Mary
 

I have no idea.
 
I also have no idea why this is a voter issue? Since when did we vote if people could be married? I know a lot of marriages I think should be invalid. When do I get to vote on those?

mommy 2 K and G wrote:I have no idea.
 
I also have no idea why this is a voter issue? Since when did we vote if people could be married? I know a lot of marriages I think should be invalid. When do I get to vote on those?

 
ITA 1000000%

buddy-love wrote:Some people find moral objectiom to homosexuality. This can be religiously based but that is not always the case.
 
People vote their morals. People vote their beliefs. People vote their religion.
 
Playing with words and definitions to get the legal process through, it just baffles my mind. You call it by another name and suddenly it is okay with people. What?! Either you are okay with giving legal rights to homosexuals or you are not. End of story. Messing around with what word to call it does nothing to change what rights under our government are granted.
 
I do understand the religious/moral objection. Granting legal recognition to many seems to be saying that society looks at what is a moral wrong and makes it a moral right. Again, to some. I can see where these people stand on this and I can respect that they do not wish to see their society giving legal recognition to what they deem morally wrong.
 
But there is fault in that logic to me. Because, to me, morals are something I strive for in my own life and I do not need the government to tell me what is morally good and bad. That is not anything I would ever want my government involved in in fact.
 
But, we do govern morals everyday. Prostitution? Weed? Abortion? Heck, even this whole medical bill being written and rewritten has a moral base.
 
So it is a morality issue within the legal process. As it stands right now we are at the crossroads with it. There is a pretty close split in the country. But soon that close split towards keeping it from becoming legal will shift to making it legal. I am certain of this, I just know it.
 
Mary
 

 
ITA

I was appalled at the radio ads the opposition was running.  They were so openly discriminatory that I hoped that reasonable people would hear them and decide to vote FOR the measure because the ads were so bad.  

I really think it is inappropriate to vote on civil rights issues.

We all vote as to what we find acceptable societal norms. We vote for increased school taxes because we feel that the it isn't acceptable for schools to fall short in education of our children. Or we vote against school taxes because we believe that they aren't using their funds the way they should and therefore whether it affects children or not we're not going to support misappropriations of monies. We vote against abortion because we believe that the baby inside the mother is alive from the moment the egg meets with the sperm. We vote for abortion because we believe that the woman should be able to choose whether or not her body should incubate the fetus inside of her.Our votes are based upon our beliefs.

Our votes are based upon our beliefs and those beliefs come from somewhere. Some of those beliefs come from our religious faith and some of those beliefs come from somewhere outside of religion. Our beliefs come from our life experience or what we've seen others experience. Negating a vote b/c you don't agree with their religious beliefs isn't acceptable in the sense that ALL of our votes are votes based upon our own beliefs. Even when one might say "Well abortion isn't okay for me...but it is for them..." the BELIEF that the abortion is acceptable under instances is in itself a belief.

I don't know where I stand on gay marriage. Honestly, I believe marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. That God meant for a man to leave his parents and that he and his wife were to become of one flesh. That said, I also am not sure I am the one to mandate such things as long as they don't mandate it to be forced upon through all faiths (even those who might not believe in it). Divorce happens all the time. Marriage happens without the beliefs that I have all the time. I have friends who are homosexual and I don't believe I should be making their choice for them. You can love and love and love and love someone and not agree with their choices.

That said, I don't care for the idea that  people who vote based upon religious beliefs are less important or should be negated. That somehow they are blinded. Those same beliefs one holds to be true come from somewhere and shouldn't be negated b/c someone else doesn't see the weight in it that someone else might.

For my father, it's some kind of ingrained ick factor. He's was born in 1960. I don't understand it, because he's not relgious, he just has some sort of negative response whenever he sees anything about it on the news.
I have no idea if he voted yes or no on Referendum 71. I like to think it's possible that despite his personal feelings, he'd still vote in favor of civil unions. To be honest though, I'll never ask him because it'd break my heart to know if he didn't. I feel completely opposite to him on this issue as I don't have any kind of negative feelings about homosexuality and am not bothered by same-sex displays of affection. It is not against my religion either.

It's funny.  The anti-referendum folks clearly decided it wasn't worth it to run ads in Seattle -- I didn't see a single one, and I saw an absolute ton of pro-71 ads (a friend of mine works for LAMBDA and is based here, and told me that pro-71 folks mostly ran Seattle ads because it's counterintuitive to vote for a referendum that approves an existing law).  I had to go online to see the ads, and I was appalled.  Also, what's with heterosexual couples and leaf piles?  Riddle me that.

Gretchen_Waves_Hi wrote:That said, I don't care for the idea that  people who vote based upon religious beliefs are less important or should be negated. That somehow they are blinded. Those same beliefs one holds to be true come from somewhere and shouldn't be negated b/c someone else doesn't see the weight in it that someone else might.

 
Gretchen, I hope you didn't get that from me.  I do not feel that those votes should be negated or are less important.
 
I have an issue with people who vote a certain way because "my pastor told me too.  he said I'd go to hell if I didn't."  Those types of manipulations done by "big religion" because they're afraid of those who are different from them.  Religion (NOT faith) to me seems more of a way to control people than it should be.
 
You vote the way you do because of your FAITH.  But your vote if it goes against Gay marriage is not coming from hatred.  Imploring people to vote a certain way by threatening eternal damnation or instilling fear (the gays will take over) is wrong.  If people were left to their own devices, their own choices I imagine more people would think the way you do, that while you strongly believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, that as long as its not thrust on you in your religious setting that there is no harm done. 
 
why deny people rights based on your (general you) own fears?  or even worse, the fear of others.

It's currently 31 to 0 regarding gay marriage.  Every state that it's been put to a popular vote has decided that they do not want gay marriage.

The five states that have legalized it, have done so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

You can't blame 'right wingers' for it....because some of the states that it's been put to vote in have been pretty left leaning...

The problem, I think, is that the people advocating SSM have failed to show how gay marriage will BENEFIT society. 

Everything is done in the negative:  Gays won't hurt traditional marriage....etc.

It's a bad position to take.

It's like trying to wash the bad taste out of your mouth with something not 'quite' as foul.  (It's an analogy, I'm not saying that SSM is foul)

You can't win when you are arguing the defensive. 

I think trying to tackle 'marriage' is a bad idea...I think they should go for Civil Unions, and then advance.  Right now, they get nothing....and it's happened 31 times.

I.Am.Who.I.am wrote: 
Gretchen, I hope you didn't get that from me.  I do not feel that those votes should be negated or are less important.

 
My reaction is more a reaction to the general belief (not you individually) that because one makes a vote or a decision based upon their own beliefs through their faith it is "stupid" or "brainwashing". That somehow those who make votes based on their faith/religion do it in this lemming fashion. KWIM?

I.Am.Who.I.am wrote: 
I have an issue with people who vote a certain way because "my pastor told me too.

 
I agree that anyone who makes a vote based upon someone else's beliefs and not examining their own isn't making a "quality" choice. That said, I suppose on

I.Am.Who.I.am wrote: You vote the way you do because of your FAITH.  But your vote if it goes against Gay marriage is not coming from hatred.  Imploring people to vote a certain way by threatening eternal damnation or instilling fear (the gays will take over) is wrong. 

 
I agree with that. Feeding on anyone's fears is never appropriate. I definitely think that there is a very clear difference in those who teach what they believe to be true out of the love of the Word and love of God then those who teach out of hatred/control/power.

Dee-Cajungaltx wrote:It's currently 31 to 0 regarding gay marriage.  Every state that it's been put to a popular vote has decided that they do not want gay marriage.
The five states that have legalized it, have done so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.
You can't blame 'right wingers' for it....because some of the states that it's been put to vote in have been pretty left leaning...
The problem, I think, is that the people advocating SSM have failed to show how gay marriage will BENEFIT society. 
Everything is done in the negative:  Gays won't hurt traditional marriage....etc.
It's a bad position to take.
It's like trying to wash the bad taste out of your mouth with something not 'quite' as foul.  (It's an analogy, I'm not saying that SSM is foul)
You can't win when you are arguing the defensive. 
I think trying to tackle 'marriage' is a bad idea...I think they should go for Civil Unions, and then advance.  Right now, they get nothing....and it's happened 31 times.

 
One word: Equality
 
Separate but equal didn't work in the 60's and it won't work now.
 
I truly do not understand the opposition to this.  It saddens me that people can only believe that their way is the right way.

One word: Equality
 
Separate but equal didn't work in the 60's and it won't work now.
 
I truly do not understand the opposition to this.  It saddens me that people can only believe that their way is the right way

==============================================================
As much as advocates of SSM would like to make it - this is not just about an equality
issue. 

This was a posting on another site about a case in Montana - where a gay couple adopted (one of the women in the 'couple') a child and then they split up.
"religion continues to teach the traditional Christian belief that homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant we will continue to suffer discrimination. No "law" will make that go away. We need to fight the "source" of our discrimination and Religion needs to grow up and end those lies about us, or suffer the consequences."
The objection is to gay marriage for some - is more than just about 'gay marriage', I think.  Some people think it's unnatural, and some people think it's immoral.
Most Americans don't think SSM is unnatural because they haven't been "properly" educated.  And most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals.
They have principled moral objections.

Good arguments can be made about the unnatural nature of homosexuality.  A principled and intelligent argument based on natural law can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, prejudice, or hatred.
There have good reasons to think that homosexuality is immoral.  Even if every right wing Christian is mistaken on that fact-- I don't think they are, but even if they were-- at least it can be said they aren't making their positions against homosexuality based on some bizarre, irrational, unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudiced against a skin color.
And of course...there is the  'YOU can think that, but you have NO right to force YOUR views on them'...but every law we have forces SOMEONE's moral view on someone else.It's how our laws are made.
But think about it - for some, it's not about equal rights.  It's about whether or not someone has the right to even hold their point of view.
People against gay marriage are condemned for making a moral distinction here.
They are ignorant, prejudice and homophobic for having a moral belief against gay marriage....or whatever label wants to be applied.
Someone - I forget which discussion - brought up the fact that gay people currently have the same rights as every other American right now.  They can get married, just like you or I can.  They are prohibited from getting married to certain people, just like you or I are.

This is a Gallup poll done 5/27/2009...where support is dropping/flat lining for SSM:


 
These are the ' 10 LEAST religious' states

And their status on SSM:
Connecticut - legislated
Nevada - nothing allowing/opposing
Rhode Island - nothing allowing/apposing
Oregon - passed ban on SSM
Washington - just voted against SSM
Alaska - banned SSM
Massachusetts - legislated SSM
Maine -just voted against
New Hampshire - Legislated SSM
Vermont - legislated SSM
I realize you don't agree with those who are against SSM - but you can't blame it on just the right wing wacko's....it's unfair, and honestly....advocates of SSM won't win as long as they don't realize what they are fighting.

Actually, it's not really a right or left issue (although conservative religious groups and Republicans are less supportive of gay marriage than Democrats or people who are not conservative religously). 
 
It's an old people issue.  Crass to say, yes, but that's the reason gay marriage is just a matter of time.  Dead people, you don't have to fight.

deborahdeborah wrote:ctually, it's not really a right or left issue (although conservative religious groups and Republicans are less supportive of gay marriage than Democrats or people who are not conservative religously). 
 
It's an old people issue.  Crass to say, yes, but that's the reason gay marriage is just a matter of time.  Dead people, you don't have to fight.

  
I don't believe its entirely an 'old people' issue.
30-49 is still a 17% difference against SSM.
And darn it, I'm 36... that's not 'old people' .... *grin*

 


I really think that the advocates FOR SSM are failing to properly discuss WHY SSM would BENEFIT our society.

They need to focus on why it would benefit America ...look at this:



6 year difference....2 presidents...an entire culture switch government wise... but there is only a 3% gain in thinking society would be BETTER for allowing SSM.

They need to show the benefit to SOCIETY for SSM.

Dee-Cajungaltx wrote:

ctually, it's not really a right or left issue (although conservative religious groups and Republicans are less supportive of gay marriage than Democrats or people who are not conservative religously). 
 
It's an old people issue.  Crass to say, yes, but that's the reason gay marriage is just a matter of time.  Dead people, you don't have to fight.

   
I don't believe its entirely an 'old people' issue.
30-49 is still a 17% difference against SSM.
And darn it, I'm 36... that's not 'old people' .... *grin*
 

I really think that the advocates FOR SSM are failing to properly discuss WHY SSM would BENEFIT our society.
They need to focus on why it would benefit America ...look at this:

6 year difference....2 presidents...an entire culture switch government wise... but there is only a 3% gain in thinking society would be BETTER for allowing SSM.
They need to show the benefit to SOCIETY for SSM.

 

Wow Dee you really make a person think lol!  I basically chalked it up to an old people thing too.  Thanks for the very well researched and thought out posts on this topic.
Becky

Dee-Cajungaltx wrote:

ctually, it's not really a right or left issue (although conservative religious groups and Republicans are less supportive of gay marriage than Democrats or people who are not conservative religously). 
 
It's an old people issue.  Crass to say, yes, but that's the reason gay marriage is just a matter of time.  Dead people, you don't have to fight.

   
I don't believe its entirely an 'old people' issue.
30-49 is still a 17% difference against SSM.
And darn it, I'm 36... that's not 'old people' .... *grin*
 

I really think that the advocates FOR SSM are failing to properly discuss WHY SSM would BENEFIT our society.
They need to focus on why it would benefit America ...look at this:

6 year difference....2 presidents...an entire culture switch government wise... but there is only a 3% gain in thinking society would be BETTER for allowing SSM.
They need to show the benefit to SOCIETY for SSM.

 
In 2002, it was still constitutional to incarcerate people for having sex with people of the same sex.  There was no such thing as a civil union for same-sex partners in the United States until 2000.  The fact that the Supreme Court reversed its position on gay sex; the fact that a decent number of states have antidiscrimination policies for gay citizens and recognize civil unions; the fact that any states have gay marraige; it's tremendous and frankly unprecedented progress since I've been an adult, mostly since I've been in my 30s.  I am hard pressed to think of many movements that have achieved so much, so fast.  Don't tell me that the gay rights movement isn't doing enought to "convince" people; look at how much ground has been made up, and how far it had to come in such a short time.
 
Stats god Nate Silver has estimated based on polling trends that anti-gay-marriage voters are eroding by 2% per year, and that based on those trends all states will have populations that would not vote against gay marriage by the mid -2020s.  The generation of people who are coming up and will be making decisions going forward is pro-gay-marriage, and gay marriage, we're going to have.  That is the direction in which this country is headed, and I don't think anyone seriously doubts that.  If people want history to hunt them down and have their grandchildren ask, so why did you want to deny people equal rights, I suppose that's their right and choice. 

I think some is religon based, and others is just plain ole being scared of that which is differant.
Personaly I do not see WHY we should be voting on Civil RIghts. A right, is a right , is a right, and if sect of people have a right, so should EVERYONE...Not long ago interacial marriages were illegal, with the supporters of it staying that way basing it off of what they had been taught or found in the bible, or because they were scared.
I think its really sad that in this day and age..when we can look back to something such as that..that people would still deny others, that which they have been givin freely. I often wonder, if the United States  brutal past as taught our generation and those growing up now, anything at all.

I think it is a same we have to even vote on this topic. Not sure who mentioned it but when it comes to voting it is not always black and white, a few years ago in Florida they had it worded so if you approved of it you vote no and if you did not you vote yes - it was written that way on purpose and it did not pass.

I have no idea when gays will be finally given the rights they deserve, but I know it has to happen some day (it happened for everyone else women, blacks etc) what I am scared of is who will be next to have their rights violated.
Peppy

TBPH, I think homosexuality is gross. But I also think eating ketchup on your eggs is gross, and yet I still place a bottle of it on the table when we have eggs because my DH loves it. I don't have to like something for someone to have a right to do it themselves if they feel differently. People need to get a grip. My religion forbids gay activities, so I refrain from them. Anyone not affiliated with my religion can do whatever they want with no judgement from me.  Being gay isn't hurting anyone, so there's no reason to ban their rights. It's dispicable.

deborahdeborah wrote:It's funny.  The anti-referendum folks clearly decided it wasn't worth it to run ads in Seattle -- I didn't see a single one, and I saw an absolute ton of pro-71 ads (a friend of mine works for LAMBDA and is based here, and told me that pro-71 folks mostly ran Seattle ads because it's counterintuitive to vote for a referendum that approves an existing law).  I had to go online to see the ads, and I was appalled.  Also, what's with heterosexual couples and leaf piles?  Riddle me that.

 
I had what looked to be a teenage boy deliver a flyer to vote against it or whatever because it was against god. had a picture of a man and a woman with "this is how god intended for it to be". I thought it was pretty sorry and cowardly to send in a child to deliver it. Had it been a grown adult I would have been a big smart a$$, A kid I had to bite my lip.