Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Anti-gay groups asked to prove how gay marriage threatens traditional unions

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The argument that gay marriage (or civil partnerships) undermine straight marriage is not so much standing logic on its head as getting it to do a tap dance with its hands while balancing on the back of a killer whale.

    If marriage were all about procreation it would rule out anyone who couldn’t or wouldn’t have children.

    Marriage, whether gay or straight, links sexual love with commitments and responsibilities, something I should have thought intelligent conservatives would welcome, and there are a few of them around.

    If I were a married hetero, I would welcome gay people who wanted similar things from their relationships as allies, not spit in their faces as these idiots seem to want to do.

    (Similar to the drivel being peddled by Melanie Phillips in another report).

  2. Robert, ex-pat Brit 15 Oct 2009, 1:42pm

    This case is frivolous and should be thrown out. Of course the same-sex marriage haters won’t be able to produce one shred of evidence as to how our marrying undermines the foundation of marriage. They can’t use the polygamy or incest mantra, two of the things they claim same-sex marriage will lead to. In the seven countries that allow us to marry, there has not been once case of it. Amazing isn’t it, that islam permits polygamy but they’re not blaming gays for that, nor did straights blame gays when polygamy was practiced in the state of Utah within the Mormon cult.

    I predict they will have a hard time defending their claims and the judge will throw out the case.

  3. The Halcyon 15 Oct 2009, 1:50pm

    Robert, I think you mean that the case should be heard (we want the case to go ahead as its on “our” behalf). It’s the ban that needs to be overturned.

    I think Judge Vaughan Walker is very shrewd asking this basic but as yet unanswered question and if it wasn’t too late, should be nominated for a Stonewall award. As far as I know, no religious group has been asked to legally define why formal same-sex unions are a barrier to procreation.

  4. I’m sure the ever strange NARTH will come up with something – albeit laughable!

  5. Halcyon

    I think the “Procreationist” argument (if you can dignify it as such) is that since a same sex couple cannot reproduce (at least not with current technology), then gay relationships don’t deserve the same standing as those that can.

    Of course as the article mentions, they then always wriggle to avoid “banning” marriage for old or infertile straight couples.

    It is also to my mind a rather sordid argument. It is saying that love, companionship, support (emotional or financial), loyalty, faithfulness count for zilch – since gay couples are just as capable of these.

    It’s also saying that gay people don’t need role models. And then the self same types accuse us of just been selfish hedonists who couldn’t give a toss about wider society.

  6. The losing side in the January hearing will probably appeal. And the case will probably end up in the High Court. The High Court is likely to ask the same absolutely fundamental questions (about evidence of the harm to straight marriage caused by gay marriage; and about evidence of the harm to children caused by same-sex parenting). The hapless counsel for Protect Marriage will have to come up with some persuasive evidence and arguments. The High Court had, apparently, upheld the ban on gay marriage earlier. So it will be interesting to see if it changes its mind. As often happens, the outcome could hinge on which of the opposing movements can fund the most vociferous lobbying power.

  7. The argument is probably that it was an inherent part of Christian marriage doctrine that procreation (along with mutual society and comfort and the avoidance of sin if I recall the 1662 Prayer Book marriage service aright)was a vital component of marriage.

    But the Churches on the whole don’t think that anymore and marry those who can’t have babies, so why is this still being argued by the Right wing? God know and she ain’t telling!

  8. Simon Murphy 15 Oct 2009, 2:39pm

    Are opponents of same-sex marriage equality also opposed to divorce?

    If not then they are bigotted hypocrites

  9. “In bizarre scenes, Cooper was forced to admit he did not know.”

    That says it all. It was brilliant of the judge to ask this question as it clearly shows that the arguments that Protect Marriage use are just bigotry with no basis in logic.

  10. It would be a very bad idea to nominate Judge Walker for a Stonewall award as someone suggested. He’s meant to be impartial in this matter.
    Those who insist opposite-sex marriage should have preferential treatment based on the straight couple’s potential ability to procreate should suggest different sets of rights for couples with and without children (whatever the gender of the members of these couples). If it’s really about children, then make it about children. As it stands, their argument is devoid of any logical basis and is bound to be shown as such.

  11. If it is only about procreation then F/F same sex couples can marry, as they could always receive a small donation from a friendly guy to have a child.

    Also, what about people who have completed their family and decide to go for the more permanent forms of contraception such as vasectomy or sterilisation? Should they also then file for divorce? Mayby some bright young entrepreneur could offer it as a package deal like they do with IVF holidays?

  12. I actually enjoy reading all the crap NARTH comes up with, and iv seen the episode of silencing christians
    I don’t know what planet these people live on but it is sure fun to watch them spout this crap

    They claim the surveys numbers are fudged to make being a gay family with kids more appealing to people
    They treat it like a disease you can catch
    5 years from now they will be encouraging vaccines to pregnant women to prevent their kids being gay

  13. Thankyou Judge John Walker for finally demanding an answer to this question.
    It’s about time someone in authority took these bigots to task and strung them up by their own weasel logic.
    As Valerio said, if it’s all about procreation then infertile couples and celebate couples should also have their marriages anulled by the same logic.
    And the notion that if we get married, straight people will suddenly turn gay or divorce en-masse is blatant bullcrap.

  14. Bishop Ioan 15 Oct 2009, 4:28pm

    I doubt that the counsel for the folks defending Prop H8 will be able to come up with even one way in which straight marriage is or will be harmed by marriage equality. If this goes to the Supreme Court, these people will just be making bigger fools of themselves than they already are. I applaud Judge Walker for asking the question as that would be a big part of either striking or upholding Prop H8. Of course, the whole thing is unconstitutional anyway.

    Tigra I get so tired of Christian fundies constantly whining “persecution” any time something doesn’t go their way or someone criticises them. I’m glad that someone has decided to stand up to them (Olson-Boies).

  15. If you read religious forums, you’ll realise this question has been asked before. When anti-gay groups have no answers to questions and are lost at a cross road, they appeal to the argument of “Natural Law” to ultimately justify their discrimination against gay people. They claim “Natural Law” as the “basis” of life itself, men and civilisation, of which the legislative and judicial bodies are part of, and homosexuality is clearly not a part of how they interpret the theories and philosophical thinkings of “Natural Law”.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

    So don’t hold your breath, but if the judges are patient, prepare yourselves to a good philosophical battle. Anti-gay groups would have preferred we were inexistent, so they wouldn’t have to think about us. Be assured that it’s possible to use the argument of “Natural Law” against anti-gay groups as well. What is takes is very intelligent, well prepared, clever with thoughts and words, and persuasive lawyers to do this work.

    .

  16. “The argument that gay marriage (or civil partnerships) undermine straight marriage is not so much standing logic on its head as getting it to do a tap dance with its hands while balancing on the back of a killer whale.”
    couldn’t put it any better myself.

  17. Har Davids 15 Oct 2009, 8:41pm

    This is great, those bigots being asked to explain what their problem really is. Maybe they should check the archives; about half a century ago their (grand-)parents tried to stop racial equality, which was even unconstitutional. All they and their descendants can come up with is “it just ain’t natural”.

  18. Robert, ex-pat Brit 15 Oct 2009, 9:04pm

    Halcyon, yes, quite, my error.

    Blondie….with respect, civil partnerships aren’t marriages according to our government and the marriage causes act of 1973. Some may like to refer to them as such but in reality, they are not. Legal same-sex marriages performed outside the UK are also not recognised as marriages in the U.K.

  19. Well I was just quoting so I can’t really speak for the persom who wrote the initial comment but personally, I try not to imply they are the same, I wouldn’t even if we got everything equal but the names because it is ridiculous segregating (sp?) us from straight couples, we deserve the right of a marriage not just some second best to please some people who actually aren’t pleased with the idea anyway.

  20. all the gay children of the anti gay religious people will get gay married an bring shame upon their parents.

    all the anti gay people seem to have gay kids. go figure.

  21. This could well end up in the Supreme Court, but that might actually do us more harm than good as a victory is by no means guaranteed in that highly political institution and a defeat could take generations to overturn

    Overturning Prop 8 is probably better back in the ballot box, tactically, thought I wholeheartedly support the sentiment behind the case and the Judge’s line of questions and find it totally illogical in a republic that a majority vote can restrict the rights of a minority

  22. This is why the anti-gay groups’ arguments can’t stand on their own feet. They’re not based on evidence or fact of any strength whatsoever. So these people end up having to appeal to the lowest common denominator…people’s prejudice.

  23. Robert, ex-pat Brit 16 Oct 2009, 1:25pm

    Blondie, I’m glad you concur. The thing is, same sex marriage is growing, not civil partnerships, civil unions or domestic partnerships. Seven countries now allow us to marry and possibly an eighth, Denmark is mulling it over and we’ll see more states in America get on board, already five with one in the balance and New York state to vote on it next year (its already passed the state assembly). I don’t think the UK will ever be part of that progressive trend, sadly.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all