Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by AmrikazNightmar3
I never understood marriage, gay or otherwise. If you love someone, love them, why involve the government?

My 2 pennies.....

Gays don't give a crap about getting married and our government could care less about those fudge packers getting married. It's all about filing of income taxes as married or filing as two single people...

Curiously astute.
I would have left out the obviously retarded term, fudge packers tho...kinda revealing
Lol

Not really.

Most gays want LEGAL marriage for medical - insurance - inheritance - pensions.

Also the Tax breaks - - - which is a point used because all people can understand that point.

is that why you married, or want to marry, your same sex partner? I'm only assuming this because, obviously, its impossible for you to make a blanket statement about "gays" unless you are one and are using your own feelings as motive.

Sometimes I really think the only thing that will take these christians off their high horses is if somebody comes along again and makes another "Final Solution"

However evil that sounds, it is equally as evil as you telling people what to do just because you "believe" something, sounds like sin to me, and you must be punished!

reply to post by goos3


Morality is derived from logical conclusions based on experience. Religious people do not have the exclusivity of it. Otherwise, there would only be atheists in prison

Murder is wrong because it ends a life.

Rape is wrong because it hurts.

Gay marriage isn't wrong because it neither ends a life or hurts anybody. In fact, if homosexuality had a gene, it would be better that you do not force them to reproduce.

Judging people is wrong... It'll create conflicts. And only God can judge and it is written in the Bible. Don't make a Lucifer of yourself.

reply to post by David291


Yeah, I scrolled down a bit further just after I posted that and read it

Hey, I understand where your coming from and see how if you love someone you would want to make that connection. But at the end of the day God wants to have a relationship with you and he has a plan for you, so to marry the same sex and.....consemate you would be putting distance between you and him- and his love is fr greater than any woman or man. Search for God and spend time with him, if you still want to marry the same sex after chilling with him then I applaud you. And forget that it's a "religious law" not to. just focus on him and he'll straight up tell you

Much Love

reply to post by Jrocbaby


I agree with you to a degree- some people do become religious and focus on religious law, but that's what Jesus came to stop. The reason christians should preach is to prevent people from doing things that would put space between the guy who created us, and this is purely because chilling with him is so insanely good

It's not about judging, it's about loving

Much love

I have nothing against gay marriage. but the arguement is, the two together cannot create a family, which is the origin of marriage.

I mean, you can call it whatever you want.. but two male brids, won't lay any eggs. well, that hatch..

If you have a civil union, why would gays WANT to be marry under the Bible? Who wants to be a part of something that hates you?

reply to post by Myendica


Huh? Marriage is a union of 2. Who is talking about procreation? When people start saying "Man and Women", as opposed to a "union of 2 people", well, thats stupid. I guess that means your a closed minded, backwards, antique person.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Logical? ok how about this.... Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. You can't change its meaning just because you want to.You can not change the word "fishing" to mean "the act of taking a gun into the woods and shooting at a deer".

If you gay rights people want to call it a civil union go for it, but untill you do I am against it.

That is as simple as I can make it.

the only logical reason i can think of is because the majority of americans are christian or from a christian background, and christianity expressly forbids homosexual behaviour. due to this background, most think of marriage as a religious ceremony. however, if it was solely a religious ceremony, then the gov would have no laws or rules regarding it. for example, baptism is purely religious. you get no gov benefits from being baptised.

to me, the only solution is to have the gov stop marrying people. everyone gets a civil union. now, this civil union can be performed in a church, and be called marriage, but a civil union done at the court house is just a civil union. this way the religious get their way, and the gays get their benefits. not to mention (stupid phrase, cause you mention it right after), there are churches that would gladly marry gay couples. my solution removes the whole debate from the gov and places it on the religions.

to me, it all comes down to the good of society. most religious laws and rules were created for this purpose. if two people want to enter into a legal contract with one another, so be it. their lives and property. as for the "slippery slope" that might occur, look at them. the adult-child argument is automatically void. same with human-animal. polygamy is the only thing that i can see to become an issue in the future should gay marriage become legal. (many countries still have polygamy, so i dont have a problem with it)

btw, marriage is not a christian concept, but a multi-cultural concept. it basically is a way to unify familys, stabilized society, and clearify bloodlines and inheritance. in a patriarchal society, where bloodline and lineage is important, it must be made clear that this woman can only mate with this man. it helps to insure that the womans offspring is his. (you always know the mother of a child, but not always the father). again, it comes down to societal stability.

now the idea of marriage for procreation is almost right. the purpose is not so you can procreate, but that if you do procreate the child will be acknowledged and taken care off. however, if you think that procreation is the purpose and validate marriage, then what about those that are sterile? they cant procreate so is their marriage void (according to the catholic church it is, but thats another story)

reply to post by jetflock


The bible hates a lot of things. I mean, do you eat shellfish? Wear clothes with more than one blend of material? Shave? Curse? Gossip? Eat pork? The list goes on

Originally posted by jetflock

Huh? Marriage is a union of 2. Who is talking about procreation? When people start saying "Man and Women", as opposed to a "union of 2 people", well, thats stupid. I guess that means your a closed minded, backwards, antique person.

edit on 22-5-2011 by jetflock because: (no reason given)

uh... dont be calling me names,., you new age hippy no job seeking slacker hillbilly non procreating cancer..


yea doesnt feel good.

I said I have nothing against gay marriage. I have attended a few. Though, for those who care.. that is their arguement, and it is LOGICAL. Marriage is about procreating.. not a union.

Originally posted by AmazedByU
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Logical? ok how about this.... Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. You can't change its meaning just because you want to.You can not change the word "fishing" to mean "the act of taking a gun into the woods and shooting at a deer".

If you gay rights people want to call it a civil union go for it, but untill you do I am against it.

That is as simple as I can make it.

Can't change definition of words? Really? You know that happens all the time right? The word Gay itself used to mean colourful.

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by jetflock

Huh? Marriage is a union of 2. Who is talking about procreation? When people start saying "Man and Women", as opposed to a "union of 2 people", well, thats stupid. I guess that means your a closed minded, backwards, antique person.

edit on 22-5-2011 by jetflock because: (no reason given)

uh... dont be calling me names,., you new age hippy no job seeking slacker hillbilly non procreating cancer..


yea doesnt feel good.

I said I have nothing against gay marriage. I have attended a few. Though, for those who care.. that is their arguement, and it is LOGICAL. Marriage is about procreating.. not a union.

Last I checked the vows didn't include anything about baring children, and infertile people can marry.

Define Logical...

One could say because its weird/wrong which is a logical statement/argument. All based on the fact its human nature to survive and to survive you have to keep your genes going and as of right now man/man or woman/woman can't...well at least not naturally.

But other than that I don't see a problem with it. Either way why would they want to get married. Whats the average life span of marriage now like 2-5 years? They have the upside of not losing money when it all comes crashing down. Now that's logical.

reply to post by technical difficulties


To answer your question, no, there is no logical, or in the US, legal argument against gay marriage. The US Constitution in fact guarantees that if the law has a provision called 'marriage', then gay people must be protected by those laws as much as straight people.

The myth that 'marriage' is a religious institution, especially a Christian one, is just that - a total myth. My marriage is as valid as any in the world, and it has no religious component at all.

The argument that because gay people cannot reproduce then gay marriage is not allowed is also bogus... as if we need more freaking humans clogging up the place.

No, the only arguments against the law recognizing gay marriage are based on religion, intolerance, hate and the underlying emotion of all of those: fear.

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

 

Actually while i may find that attractice I still find it wrong and unnatrual

But objectively there is nothing wrong or unnatural about two men or two women kissing each other, because the interaction is occurring naturally while remaining in a state of objective neutrality. You subjectively apply the adjectives of wrong and unnatural to the action of them kissing because you disagree with it, but I, along with the two people kissing, subjectively apply the adjectives of right and natural to the action of them kissing because we agree with it.

But it's fine if you find it wrong and unnatural. That's your opinion. The only problem that I can see coming from your opinion is when your opinion interferes with the couple's ability to interact with each other in the way they choose to.

So as long as your opinion and the opinions of other people who are against homosexuality remain just that... opinions, without affecting homosexuals whatsoever, then everything is copacetic.

Originally posted by arriana

Last I checked the vows didn't include anything about baring children, and infertile people can marry.

haha.. well, a lot of things we do these days dont hold to their origins. Once again, I have no care. but you people are blind to the obvious elephant in the room when it comes to this ":union"

once again.. go get married. what do I care. don't argue with me just because I supplied the logical arguement the OP asked for. if people get m arried without an intention to have a family, those people are selfish. but I really don't care for any of your opinions..

feel free to talk more # on my now that I'm leaving this lynching

Originally posted by Testsubject3
Define Logical...

One could say because its weird/wrong which is a logical statement/argument. All based on the fact its human nature to survive and to survive you have to keep your genes going and as of right now man/man or woman/woman can't...well at least not naturally.

But other than that I don't see a problem with it.

Oh so we can kill 50,000,000 babies with abortion, 15,000 a day from a lack of basic clean water/food, and we have 8 BILLION people, and you are worried about your species dying?

You sir have not defined logical

Besides, 1 gay couple that does not produce, IS SO MUCH BETTER, than a straight couple with 10 kids, and we know how often that happens in every town in the country

reply to post by technical difficulties


I do not have an issue with same sex relaitionships, unfortunately when we talk about marriage, religeon and belief are thrown into the mix. Same sex marriage will never be accepted by the majority of religeous people due to the doctrine of the bible.

"Marriage is a ceremony carried out in Church, witnessed before "God".

I won't go down the line of Noahs Ark - Two by Two, male and female otherwise we may have been missing a species somewere along the line.

By the way I am in no way religeous

I don't see the big deal, if you want to show commitment have a civil service