Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Just for the record, I am NOT married in the eyes of God but I do have a legal certificate of MARRIAGE.
It is not a certificate of a legal union.
Also, for the record, I am straight.

reply to post by Myendica


Heterosexual couples selfishly get married without the intent of starting a family. Consider young hot blondes who marry rich old men. Or consider drunk men in Vegas marrying a drunk stripper.

Heck, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of marriage with the intent of starting a family, that action is selfish as well because they -want- to get married and -want- to start a family. People really don't need to get married to start a family, and people don't even need to start families. It isn't as if the world is hurting on people. I think the population is plenty full.

Originally posted by ThatGuy121
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

why should i, a non-jew, be subject to the rules of the jewish god? i have my own gods, and they dont care who i sleep with or spend my life with.

while i respect your idea that you have the only god, or the one true god, why do you force those rules on me? i wouldnt dream of forcing the rules of honorable death according to my faith on you, so why not give me the same respect?

Originally posted by troubleshooter
This is a biological and not a religious issue.

Marriage originally meant the joining of male and female sex organs.

Same sex couples can't do that...
...so it can't be 'marriage'.

These replies get weirder as their 'marriage opposition' logic runs thin...
"Marriage originally meant the joining of male and female sex organs.".... Really !!! Now my dogs can get married but the two guys who have established a spiritual bond and wish to incorporate that love as a witness to their shared beliefs can't !? We are gathered here today to join Mr and Mrs Rufffff.
Btw... pet weddings do take place. Cute pics in link.

www.google.com.au... 80

There is no logical argument against gay marriage.
2nd line.

I have no problem with civil unions and I think that they should have all the same rights as traditional marriages do. however its obvious that a couple composed of a male and a female is not the same as a couple composed of male and male or female and female, therefore I would think that some fine details would have to be different, much in a way that insurance for a four door family sedan is different from a v8 sports car. The dynamics of the union, the financial outlook, etc etc are just different therefore I would think that specific details like % of tax breaks would be adjusted accordingly.

Like I said I think Civil unions should have all the same rights as a traditional marriage. However, I'm against making gay marriage a synonym with traditional marriage. If you are one of those that think civil unions with all the rights of a traditional marriage is good and don't feel the need to make gay marriage and traditional marriage one and the same then we agree with everything and the rest of my post wont be of your interest.

when people discuss gay marriage there are two very distinct issues, one is the legal aspect discussion where people talk about rights and the other one is when people talk about making gay "marriages" socially mainstream and the same, not equivalent, but the exact same as a traditional marriage. My problem is with people that want to make gay marriage to be socially considered the same as a traditional marriage, and for this I have some logical arguments against it.

Making gay "marriage" and traditional marriage socially the same will harm people. Therefore, using logic, it is a bad thing. There is no doubt logically to say that something that harms people is bad, now the question is how would making gay "marriage" socially the same as traditional marriage harm people.

1. people who consider marriage a holy union will be forced to admit that it is not holy. therefore causing the sacred aspect of marriage to disappear and diluting the importance of marriage. in our current situation were only half the marriages succeed it would mean even worse successful marriage turnouts and more broken homes. We all know that broken homes are the breeding grounds of criminals

2. it will create chaos in the religious community followed by organization splits and animosity. Although many members will sure like to see chaos in the religious community, it is important to understand that religion is there for a reason and a healthy society needs some form of religion (I'm not religious at all but I do see the value it has for society) and of course I not talking about extremists

3. keeping the family blood alive will be a problem. many of you wont realize this but passing on your genes and having your family tree conserved is crucial for a healthy long lasting family. This is not just about your immediate family (ex. two dads and one son) but about cousins, uncles, grandparents etc. all those relationships would be diluted and eventually lost. who would you be more willing to help, someone with 1/4 your blood or and adopted member of your extended family? this will result in the eventual end of a family tree and the ones harmed would be those who hoped to maintain their family tree alive.

4. if kids grow in a social environment were there is no distinction between gay "marriage" and traditional marriage it will one more thing parents will have to worry about. now days parents worry about many things and adding one more worry is not helping families at all. why would parents be worried about this? because they want to keep their family tree alive and they want their kids to have their own real offspring. I'm don't have kids yet and I'm not even married but I would eventually want to see my real blood related grandkids. Point 3 explains why my desire to see my own blood related grandkids is logical.

there are a couple of other points but I dont want to make this post any longer than what it is now so I will stop here.

I would like to finish with one question myself. This question is not directed to people discussing legal rights, it is aimed at people trying to socially fusing the meaning of marriage with gay "marriage"

why do you feel the need to impose your will onto the rest and change the mainstream standard to fit your needs? why is not a civil union with all the legal benefits enough?
if homosexuals truly believed that there is nothing wrong being a homosexual and they didnt feel ashamed about it then they would not be trying to change the social image

reply to post by LexiconV


That type of logic runs even thinner since it involves falsely, yet specifically identifying marriage with sex, and sex with procreation.

If that's the case, then that logic also supports the notion that people can only have sex if they are married, supports the notion that marriage is somehow biological, and supports the notion that sex is only meant for the purpose of procreating. Which means no more sex for pleasure anymore... which would ignore the auxiliary biological function of sex being pleasurable. And if sex wasn't meant to be pleasurable, then biologically, there would be another more efficient way for people to reproduce without the pleasurable sensation that accompanies the physical act.

Ok i am going to make this easy... now i dont care what anyones opinion is or if people dont get married to have kids or blah blah blah... the only one true scientific fact that proves this wrong is that for a species to naturally evolve and grow they must be able to reproduce. whether A sexually or sexually. sexually of course requiring species of the opposite sex mating in some form. without this simple fact... we would slowly die as a species. NOW i understand that the number of heterosexual people greatly out number the homosexual and so it really is nt going to effect the population . Regardless it is unatural and therefore not right. but since it doesnt really effect our population in any mass way... i dont give a # let them marry all they want. SO THERE DEBATE IS OFFICIALLY OVER STFU ALREADY!!!!

reply to post by technical difficulties


Here is my logical argument:
Marriage is an institution of religion. Gay's can be religious but if they're acknowledging the existence of a higher power, then they are acknowledging a certain order to the universe. If a person feels as though they are a woman trapped in a man's body or a man trapped in a woman's body then they need to accept the role they have been cast instead of fighting it and rebelling against creation. Gay's are actively rebelling against the "higher power" that makes the rules. And the rule is: A man and a woman. Now, I understand that there are monkeys and other animals that do gay stuff but, they do not marry. Again, marriage is a religious thing.
Now, I do not understand why we would need to get permission or a license for marriage from the state since it is none of their business. They need to keep their hands out of our pockets and their eyes and ears out of our homes. I always hear "separation of church and state" when the church is trying to affect the state but, when the state is trying to affect the church, it is never mentioned. (except when they want to restrict religious practices.)
Since the state is allowed to enact a religious union between two people, then they are allowed to determine who can and cannot to be joined in "holy" matrimony.
After removing the ten commandments from court houses and taking god out of the pledge of allegiance and disallowing prayer in school and turning Christmas into "holiday", they're taking the "holy" out of "holy matrimony"
It is also important to note that Homosexuality was promoted in Greek antiquity as a form of Eugenic Population Control. Today it is being promoted for... Probably the same thing.
Whatever the case may be, with all my personal flaws, I stand with Jesus. I will defer to His decision.

Have a nice gay
-Bogus Hype

reply to post by quietlearner


traditional marriage is polygamy. even if you use the bible, 4000 years of polygamy vs 2000 of monogamy.

marriage in a church is holy. marriage at the court house isnt. yet both get the same benefits. lets do the same for the gays. they get married in a church, then its holy. at a court house, not so much.

while bloodline is important, it is secondary to family. ask an orphan.

suggesting that gay marriage will lead to homosexual children or identity problems with kids just doesnt hold water. sexual preference is innate, like which hand you write with.

reply to post by Jman0329


How can something that occurs naturally be unnatural? And why do you correlate something that is deemed unnatural with not being right? Computers aren't natural, but I enjoy using them. So to me computers are right. And that's an example of how something unnatural is right.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Here's my argument. I'm not gay.

Now that's logical. Oh, you meant in general!

Never mind.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Double post. What's up with that?

Im not religious, and Im not against gay marriage but you wanted one...

Marriage is a religious fabrication that has been adopted by the state. Religions are what have pushed monogamy on a naturally polygamous species. That said, some religions (christianity comes to mind) are against homosexuality. So, it is kind of an oxymoron to argue for gay 'marriage' when 'marriage' is a creation of religion, and religion is openly against homosexuals.

Originally posted by MisterMan
There is no logical argument against gay marriage.
2nd line.

I felt compelled to quote this because for the most part it's true.
2nd line.

reply to post by Jrocbaby


You may say so all you want, that is after all your right. And i will not oppose your opinion for a second. Rest assured i will not go to the media and say your occult does not want me to get married. I just go to another occult who accepts me.

If you STILL did not understand the issue: religion is totally voluntary. They don't accept something? Then don't be a member in it. There are religions that accept gays. Try join one of them if the christian way is not your chocolate 'train.

Marriage is a religious ceremony preformed by a leader of that religion such as a priest. If ones religion dictates that homosexuality is a sin then the members of said religion should not have it dictated to them that they must change thousands of years of tradition to fit in with what is a comparatively new liberal view that homosexuality is acceptable. Why is it that we are allowing the rights of one group in society, in this case homosexuals to surpass that of another group, religious people? Just like we have the right to express our sexuality we also have a right to practice our religion and on the issue of marriage the two clash.

Most religious people are not homophobic; however their religion may consider homosexuality a sin much in the same way as adultery or murder and as such cannot condone the practice with in their religious order. For this reason a priest performing a marriage is effectively going against the word of God and is condoning sin, in the view of the Church. For this reason a priest cannot perform a homosexual marriage. This is not homophobic it is just adhering to ones religion, religious people on the whole have no problem with homosexuals the only objection really comes to light when the homosexuals try to use their right to equality to surpass our right practice our religion freely .

This is not homophobic, it upsets me when people accuse religious people of being homophobic, and it is an accusation that spouts from ignorance I believe. People assume that a secularisation of society is a good thing, however it is destroying religious institutions that are on the whole a force of good and attempting to force an external change on the church is an abomination of all religion.

Homosexuals should accept that aspects of their lifestyle are not compatible with the practices and teachings of religion. These are traditions that are thousands of years old, once we start to change them to embrace what is seen as a sin then where does it stop. The problem is that the Church says homosexuality is a sin, and as such homosexual marriage cannot be preformed.

On the other hand, if the OP was to ask if we I have a argument against civil partnerships then answer would have to be no as this type of partnership is not a marriage it is only the legal component. There is not religious binding; the two partners are not announced as being bound together by the holly sprit. As such there cannot really be any religious argument against a civil partnership, which incidentally is often misrepresented as being “marriage” however the two are very different as in marriage the partnership is recognised in Gods eyes and in the eyes of man however in a civil partnership the partnership is only recognised in the eyes of man.

In short, marriage is a religious ceremony and if ones religion dictates that this ceremony is not compatible with the lifestyle of homosexuals then it is not for other men to dictate to others how to practice their religion. However there is no logical objection form a religious perspective against the civil partnership of homosexual partners.

Originally posted by Myendica
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..

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

Doh... No more eggs with your bacon for breakfast Christians. that would be cannibalistic and you better toss that bacon out too if you're going to keep being pedantic about the Old Testament rules... and the shell fish, the prawns and all those aphrodisiac oysters.
You can kiss goodbye to your Thanks Giving dinner too...all you birdies.

Next....

reply to post by Jman0329


to punch holes in your "scientific fact" there are many example of homosexual behaviour in animals. therefore, homosexual behaviour is normal, if not widespread.

there are far more breeding couples than non-breeding couples so homosexual behaviour has little effect on species survival.

quite a few animals breed for life. would this not be considered marriage?

reply to post by thepainweaver


Specific religions are against homosexuals, not all of them are. And even still, words and languages change over time. So why can't the concept and definition of marriage change over time as well?