Why Gay Marriage isn't a Civil Right

Why Gay Marriage isn't a Civil Right

There are 12 comments on the www.opposingviews.com story from Oct 1, 2012, titled Why Gay Marriage isn't a Civil Right. In it, www.opposingviews.com reports that:

Topix editor note: a fine example of irrational arguements against marriage equality.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.opposingviews.com.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#1 Oct 1, 2012
"...what do people actually mean when they say that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue?"

Equal = Equal

'...no one believes siblings should be able to marry each other or adults should be able to marry 14-year-olds..."

"Therefore... not every imaginable relationship should be called a marriage"

"But that's different," you say. "There are actually good reasons those people can't get married."

"...But once you have conceded that not every imaginable relationship should be called a marriage"

Not every conceivable relationship should be called marriage... no concession...

"... people do have a constitutional right to get married."

"That isn't to say that same-sex couples aren't entitled to go to the legislature and make the case that their relationships deserve to be included under the definition of the term marriage. That is precisely what they've done..."

"...making the case as a matter of policy is very different than claiming entitlement."

We are all entitled to the equality we are granted by the US Constitution.

"So ... now that we have clarified that this is not a civil rights issue... there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex relationships[?]"

"Every kindergartener can tell you that those relationships are different because kindergartners know the difference between men and women."

"...innate differences between the genders. That's why there are industries... joking..."

reason=gender roles

I get it...

"Fathers can do their absolute best with the purest of motives, but they can never be their child's mother."

Good parents are worthy parents whether they're male or female, gay or straight.

"... to believe that a relationship involving people of the same sex is no different..."

Means we believe gender roles are not a valid reason for why individuals ought to be denied an equal right to marriage

"the majority of those who say they support same-sex marriage don't agree with the logic of same-sex marriage."

Utter BS

"The fact that the vast majority of the planet believes those things to be true is why logic dictates that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

LOL! I wish I could ask, "If a vast majority in the South thought slavery was right right and good, does that mean logic dictates slavery was okay?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2 Oct 1, 2012
That Mr. Backholm is the "executive director" of anything is stunning.

His argument is chock-full of logical fallacies, false premises, and unsupportable nonsense that it's laughable.

But to zero in on just one, his argument:

"To clarify, people do have a constitutional right to get married. But the idea that people have a constitutional right to declare any relationship they might find themselves involved in a marriage is both legally unsupportable and silly."

He moves from a supportable position (the Supreme Court has on over a dozen occasions recognized civil marriage as a civil right) to a non sequitur and a straw-man argument.

No one is arguing for a right to declare "any relationship" a marriage.

No one.

Accepting his argument that civil marriage is a constitutional right, limitations on that right can only be justified by a compelling governmental interest, one narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

What Mr. Backholm and his anti-gay colleagues have utterly failed to do is provide a compelling governmental reason to restrict marriage solely on the basis of the gender of the partners. Merely observing that same-sex partners are "different" from opposite-sex partners provides absolutely no justification for denying the former the right to obtain a civil marriage.

He fails to even make a reasonable attempt to articulate such a rationale.

I nominate him to make the anti-gay argument before the Supreme Court.

(BTW, Mr. Backholm... the "right" in question is NOT a right to "same-sex marriage". No such legal construct exists. The right in question is the right to obtain a CIVIL MARRIAGE.)
Gay in Bethlehem

Long Branch, NJ

#3 Oct 1, 2012
it's crazy that these people simultaneously stereotype gay men as ultra-effeminate and YET... not capable of providing a mother's love..

I just don't understand what they are referring to. Do they imagine that if our kids are bullied, that we'll be as callous as some straight dads?..

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#4 Oct 1, 2012
Frankly, I'd wish these anti-gay marriage folks would get their argument straight......and denying the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples will NOT open the door for those people who insist that they have the right to marry multiple people or their siblings.......both would be in direct violation of the States marital requirements!!!

Personally, the fight for multiple spouses and marrying blood relatives is a fight that if those folks want to do it.....then they need to make their argument for it........I wish them luck!!!
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#5 Oct 2, 2012
Jerald wrote:
That Mr. Backholm is the "executive director" of anything is stunning.
His argument is chock-full of logical fallacies, false premises, and unsupportable nonsense that it's laughable.
But to zero in on just one, his argument:
"To clarify, people do have a constitutional right to get married. But the idea that people have a constitutional right to declare any relationship they might find themselves involved in a marriage is both legally unsupportable and silly."
He moves from a supportable position (the Supreme Court has on over a dozen occasions recognized civil marriage as a civil right) to a non sequitur and a straw-man argument.
No one is arguing for a right to declare "any relationship" a marriage.
No one.
Accepting his argument that civil marriage is a constitutional right, limitations on that right can only be justified by a compelling governmental interest, one narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
What Mr. Backholm and his anti-gay colleagues have utterly failed to do is provide a compelling governmental reason to restrict marriage solely on the basis of the gender of the partners. Merely observing that same-sex partners are "different" from opposite-sex partners provides absolutely no justification for denying the former the right to obtain a civil marriage.
He fails to even make a reasonable attempt to articulate such a rationale.
I nominate him to make the anti-gay argument before the Supreme Court.
(BTW, Mr. Backholm... the "right" in question is NOT a right to "same-sex marriage". No such legal construct exists. The right in question is the right to obtain a CIVIL MARRIAGE.)
The reason he can't articulate being he has nothing of validity to articulate for.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#6 Oct 2, 2012
I take issue with this statement: "While there are a few genuinely crazy people in the world, virtually no one believes siblings should be able to marry each other or adults should be able to marry 14-year-olds."

It IS LEGAL for an adult to marry a 14 year old in the U.S. About half the states ALLOW THIS. And ALL STATES LEGALLY RECOGINZE the marriages if 14 year olds and adults. In fact, not too long ago, there was an NYPD officer, about 33 years old, if I remember correctly, who did exactly this. There was howling in the press for awhile about it, but it died out quickly when more people realized it was perfectly legal.

Now wether it is morl and\or smart are other questions entirely.

BUT IT IS LEGAL !

Now if "...virtually no one believes.... adults should be able to marry 14-year-olds," then EVERY STATE WOULD BAN IT ! So obviously, since nearly half the states allow it, a LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE think it is ok.

For the record, I PERSONALY THINK IT IS NOT OK FOR AN ADULT TO MARRY A 14 YEAR OLD CHILD. But it IS LEGAL.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#7 Oct 2, 2012
What I love is when he says "So ... now that we have clarified that this is not a civil rights issue..." when he didn't actually provide an argument as to why SSM was not a civil rights issue.

"I'm gonna sneak this in...maybe no one will notice!"

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#8 Oct 2, 2012
Just Think wrote:
What I love is when he says "So ... now that we have clarified that this is not a civil rights issue..." when he didn't actually provide an argument as to why SSM was not a civil rights issue.
"I'm gonna sneak this in...maybe no one will notice!"
I thought that part was funny because he was voicing his opinion about it, but didn't really prove why it isn't a Civil Rights issue!!!

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#9 Oct 2, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
"...what do people actually mean when they say that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue?"
Equal = Equal
'...no one believes siblings should be able to marry each other or adults should be able to marry 14-year-olds..."
"Therefore... not every imaginable relationship should be called a marriage"
"But that's different," you say. "There are actually good reasons those people can't get married."
"...But once you have conceded that not every imaginable relationship should be called a marriage"
Not every conceivable relationship should be called marriage... no concession...
"... people do have a constitutional right to get married."
"That isn't to say that same-sex couples aren't entitled to go to the legislature and make the case that their relationships deserve to be included under the definition of the term marriage. That is precisely what they've done..."
"...making the case as a matter of policy is very different than claiming entitlement."
We are all entitled to the equality we are granted by the US Constitution.
"So ... now that we have clarified that this is not a civil rights issue... there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex relationships[?]"
"Every kindergartener can tell you that those relationships are different because kindergartners know the difference between men and women."
"...innate differences between the genders. That's why there are industries... joking..."
reason=gender roles
I get it...
"Fathers can do their absolute best with the purest of motives, but they can never be their child's mother."
Good parents are worthy parents whether they're male or female, gay or straight.
"... to believe that a relationship involving people of the same sex is no different..."
Means we believe gender roles are not a valid reason for why individuals ought to be denied an equal right to marriage
"the majority of those who say they support same-sex marriage don't agree with the logic of same-sex marriage."
Utter BS
"The fact that the vast majority of the planet believes those things to be true is why logic dictates that marriage should be between a man and a woman."
LOL! I wish I could ask, "If a vast majority in the South thought slavery was right right and good, does that mean logic dictates slavery was okay?
Now, if only they'd bring people like the author of this article to the courts to oppose same-sex marriage...the U.S. would have same-sex marriage right now.

One of my favorite of his quotes are:
"Every kindergartener can tell you that those relationships are different because kindergartners know the difference between men and women."

This is dumb, just plain dumb. If you ask a kindergartener what the difference is between one straight couple and another, the kid will find something else that's different. You can always spot differences in couples, some are ugly, some are beautiful, some are short, some are tall. By the way he's using this arguement, he's also suing gay people shouldn't be able to be couples...because they're "different."
You can't apply a general argument like that to only one thing.

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

#10 Oct 2, 2012
His whole argument fails unless he establishes that marriage equality is not a civil right. His same logic was used to oppose the "mixing of the races" before the Supreme Court decision on Loving v Virginia. After he fails to establish his first premise, the rest of his argument is bigoted fluff. Unfortunately, this BS will sell to a large percentage of the population.
CHAS

Dillon, CO

#11 Oct 2, 2012
A poor argument is more than enough for haters.

Since: Jan 08

Sriracha, Thailand

#12 Oct 2, 2012
Republicans will believe ANYTHING they think supports their beliefs no matter how illogical, factually wrong, or just plain stupid.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ireland same-sex marriage 3 min Fa-Foxy 150
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 3 min Frankie Rizzo 100
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 min Blackburn 33,219
News Divisive anti-gay marriage bill falls in Texas ... 7 min Belle Sexton 2
News 2015 Santa Cruz Pride grand marshals, special h... 21 min The Truth Hurts 1
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 26 min Termiraider 3,784
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 29 min NorCal Native 742
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr lides 21,627
Are the mods fair and balanced? 1 hr NorCal Native 859
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 2 hr NorCal Native 5,647
News Obama to 5-Year-Old Gay Marriage Advocate: 'Cou... 8 hr nhjeff 46
More from around the web