How do you make the case for same sex marriage?

[Puddleglum]

The government performs marriages in the UK. There is separation of Church and state in Scotland.

[TaraJo]

If marriage, at heart, is a religious ceremony, why does the government perform marriages? There should be a separation between church and state and that separation can't exist if people are performing religious ceremonies to gain state rights.

We are in different countries. There's no separation of State and Church in my country. My church is called the Established Church because it's the state church.

I'll give you that; My argument is based on United States law. If I were in the UK, I would have to tweak that part of the argument. However, I'm making the argument as it applies to American law and we do have separation of church and state.

[zappa1258]

My sister is gay and married. She has 2 sons and they have a normal life like any other family. I must admit it was hard to get use to at first but after awhile I seen how happy and healthy their relationship was. I hope they last a long time. They had lived together for 10 years before they got married. I am very proud of her and her partner. Her sons have no problem and are normal happy boys, they play sports and like girls. It is just stupid to say them boys will be gay too. Either you are born that way or not. She is a better woman than any small minded person who would say different.

[Tino]

Everyone knows I'm a student, right? If you didn't know before, you know now.

Well, I'm taking a speech class and part of that is that I'm going to have to make a persuasive speech. So, I'm going to make a speech for something I already believe in: same sex marriage.

Thing is, from my perspective, same sex marriage is a no brainer. When you're queer, it's kinda hard to question your own rights. However, if I'm going to make an effective, persuasive speech, I would need to address the concerns of people who aren't already queer who are specifically homophobic.

Any suggestions on what those concerns are and how to address them?

TaraJo,

From your post, and the responses so far, it sounds like someone would have to be a complete idiot to see any issues with gay marriage. So into the breach I go, firmly grabbing the third-rail of atheist politics, in a sincere effort to be of help with your speech.

First, my own view is that gays should be able to get "married." And most Americans, 63%, support same-sex unions. The question I have, and that I think your speech could address, is the best way to achieve that outcome.

I think you need to begin with a healthy respect for the institution of marriage. I won't go into the reasons why but check google for secular sources, such as http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...f-marriage. I have interacted with one gay-marriage proponent who seemed to have near contempt for marriage, saying "what's the big deal, the divorce rate is 50% anyway." (FYI, see this article for info on why the first-time divorce rate today is more like 30% http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myt...rce/all/1/). My view is either respect the institution or don't pursue it.

If you accept the importance of the institution, then recognize that when it changes, it needs to be done with care and forethought. Therefore I think the important question is what is the best way to change marriage to make it available to gays? There are at least 3 options on the table:

1. Implement same-sex civil unions and create legislation requiring that civil unions be given the same legal status as the legal status given to marriage.

2. Change "marriage" today to permit same-sex marriages.

3. Create a new institution for gay marriage, which I will call "garriage", and create legislation requiring that garriages be given the same legal status as the legal status given to marriage.

Now for whatever reason the support for option 2 is 38% vs. 63% who support the more general idea of same-sex civil unions. And for whatever reason, option 2 is the approach that they gay community is pursuing, which will require changing the most minds.

I think the smarter strategies are 1 and 3. They create separation from the institution of marriage, which addresses every religious or institutional-harm objection that could be raised about attempting to change marriage. The objection I have been given to options 1 and 3 is based on the "separate but equal" concept that was used to justify racial segregation in the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling in the US. I don't find this argument to be compelling. Plessy vs. Ferguson concerned facilities, such as schools, which are intrinsically different if separate. But separateness, when applied to an idea such as a legal status, doesn't come with a built-in differentness. And the difference quality is already commonly addressed today in that from a legal perspective, marriages with a religious endorsement are treated no differently than those with no religious endorsement.

Anyway, that's my input. I'll be overjoyed if it is helpful to you. And if it's too late to be of use, at least I've got it off my chest.

[Minimalist]

We are in different countries. There's no separation of State and Church in my country. My church is called the Established Church because it's the state church.

And oddly, founded by a horny old fuck who divorced or killed wives at will.

So much for the "sanctity" of marriage.

[Puddleglum]

And oddly, founded by a horny old fuck who divorced or killed wives at will.

No it wasn't. Why do people always keep repeating the idea that the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII?

(and just saying 'duh cos he did' doesn't make it so)

[Waratah]

Just wanted to let you know that Australia's Bill for same sex marriage was lost 98 - 42. In Australia there is 62% for Marriage Equality. Our Prime Minister Voted against it and she is an athiest.(makes me sick)
It's a right all adults deserve to have. The ability to marry the one you love. Fucking simple

[The Magic Pudding]

"How do you make the case for same sex marriage?"

I'm of a kind of non a religious person who asks why deny another human solace, comfort, pleasure, company...

If another human gains solace, comfort, pleasure, company denying others the same, my eyes are going to go squinty.

[TaraJo]

TaraJo,

From your post, and the responses so far, it sounds like someone would have to be a complete idiot to see any issues with gay marriage. So into the breach I go, firmly grabbing the third-rail of atheist politics, in a sincere effort to be of help with your speech.

First, my own view is that gays should be able to get "married." And most Americans, 63%, support same-sex unions. The question I have, and that I think your speech could address, is the best way to achieve that outcome.

I think you need to begin with a healthy respect for the institution of marriage. I won't go into the reasons why but check google for secular sources, such as http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...f-marriage. I have interacted with one gay-marriage proponent who seemed to have near contempt for marriage, saying "what's the big deal, the divorce rate is 50% anyway." (FYI, see this article for info on why the first-time divorce rate today is more like 30% http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myt...rce/all/1/). My view is either respect the institution or don't pursue it.

If you accept the importance of the institution, then recognize that when it changes, it needs to be done with care and forethought. Therefore I think the important question is what is the best way to change marriage to make it available to gays? There are at least 3 options on the table:

1. Implement same-sex civil unions and create legislation requiring that civil unions be given the same legal status as the legal status given to marriage.

2. Change "marriage" today to permit same-sex marriages.

3. Create a new institution for gay marriage, which I will call "garriage", and create legislation requiring that garriages be given the same legal status as the legal status given to marriage.

Now for whatever reason the support for option 2 is 38% vs. 63% who support the more general idea of same-sex civil unions. And for whatever reason, option 2 is the approach that they gay community is pursuing, which will require changing the most minds.

I think the smarter strategies are 1 and 3. They create separation from the institution of marriage, which addresses every religious or institutional-harm objection that could be raised about attempting to change marriage. The objection I have been given to options 1 and 3 is based on the "separate but equal" concept that was used to justify racial segregation in the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling in the US. I don't find this argument to be compelling. Plessy vs. Ferguson concerned facilities, such as schools, which are intrinsically different if separate. But separateness, when applied to an idea such as a legal status, doesn't come with a built-in differentness. And the difference quality is already commonly addressed today in that from a legal perspective, marriages with a religious endorsement are treated no differently than those with no religious endorsement.

Anyway, that's my input. I'll be overjoyed if it is helpful to you. And if it's too late to be of use, at least I've got it off my chest.

That's an interesting take on it. I may have to try to include that in my speech; I just worry that what I already have will be too much to put into a 6 minute speech.

I still like my third idea a little better, though: as far as the state is concerned, marriage doesn't exist. All legal rights fall under the category of 'civil unions' and that goes for straight couples as well as gay couples. If your church or your family or your whatever wants to call it marriage, you can. If you belong to some new age, wiccan religion and you want to call it a binding ceremony, you're welcome to call it that. Either way, any marriage performed by a church is called a civil union by the state. That way churches that don't want to celebrate gay marriages (or interracial, or interfaith) marriages don't have to call them marriages if they don't want to and don't have to perform them if they choose not to. Better yet, this furthers something we're already supposed to have in the US: separation of church and state. Churches do marriages, state does civil unions.