Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

reply to post by JR MacBeth


There really isn't any evidence to support the point that you were trying to make. Everything you said was mostly anecdotal and supposition.

Realistically, it's more accurate to say that there is something to fear in couples having children because the world population is growing quite expansively. So maybe what the world needs is more homosexuals.

If two dudes want to live together and have anal, whatever, just don't talk about it in public and I'm fine with it. I don't understand why a penis is attractive to another man, but I'm assuming from his point of view he cannot understand why a vagina is attractive to men, you know? I have one problem with gay marriage, it's weird. That's the only reason I have, it makes me uncomfortable to imagine two (or more) dudes getting it on. But from his point of view he probably sees sex with a woman as uncomfortable and awkward as well. As long as they keep their gay love making to themselves, I'm completely fine with two dudes getting married. If two females want to get married, that's chill with me. I enjoy double standards, and come on, what guy doesn't think that's hot. Are there any ladies here that think two dudes getting it on is attractive? I'm just curious.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Garfee
I'm pretty certain the OP requested logical debate with reason and to leave out religion. Religion and logic are like oil and water and if you reply, you should be educated enough to include a logical reason.

Is not religion at the heart of this issue? Since marriage is closely connected to religion, you could not have a conversion without analytically examining the practice.

No. There is a huge difference between a legally recognized partnership between two people that love each other and wish to spend their lives together and 'holy matrimony'.

Interesting. 'Holy matrimony' versus 'Civil Marriage'.

Can a person get married without a religion, but also have it signed, sealed, and delivered by God?

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by mkkkay

 

I would say yes homosexuality is indeed poor for procreation but in fact it is a LAW of nature that homosexuality is part and parcel of life on this planet...a=there is homosexuality in all species that have two genders and therefore it agrees with the laws of nature just not with you definition of morality...seems most people cant grasp that simple logic

It's a way to weed out the weak, all the gay in nature will not reproduce and that is fine with me
thats the only reason i have for being ok with it.
but thats just my opinion gays will weed each other out, by not reproducing them selfs

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

There really isn't any evidence to support the point that you were trying to make. Everything you said was mostly anecdotal and supposition.

Realistically, it's more accurate to say that there is something to fear in couples having children because the world population is growing quite expansively. So maybe what the world needs is more homosexuals.

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

Sounds like you really are arbitrary!

Well, if history means nothing to you, I suppose it explains why it's so often repeated.

JR

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

There really isn't any evidence to support the point that you were trying to make. Everything you said was mostly anecdotal and supposition.

Realistically, it's more accurate to say that there is something to fear in couples having children because the world population is growing quite expansively. So maybe what the world needs is more homosexuals.

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

Sounds like you really are arbitrary!

Well, if history means nothing to you, I suppose it explains why it's so often repeated.

JR

Mind explaining that extremely obtuse statement?

The only logical one I can thin of is that a gay marriage is not a right in a religious institution. However, for the marriage to be recognized by the state is a different matter and there is no reason a justice of the peace can't be allowed to...oh wait, marriage contracts are SHAM in the first place!

Originally posted by Garfee
I'm astounded at how many replies include referece to religion in some way or providing an opinion without reason.


If you have an opinion you should know why do you and how it was formed.

I'm pretty certain the OP requested logical debate with reason and to leave out religion. Religion and logic are like oil and water and if you reply, you should be educated enough to include a logical reason.

you spend an awful lot of time in these type threads defending something so "right"??? I don't imagine that nature would ever instill such a feeling of rejection for it in the normal if it was "right," or "natural". Also, if it was "ok" your persuation wouldn't have to work so hard to get people to say, "you're ok." How about thinking of the times you have been truly offended and recognize that others are capable of the same honest emotion by the sight of public same sex couplings and not judge them for their "feelings." After all they were born that way, according to the gay mantra, "we are born that way" and we should just respect their feelings.

reply to post by CaDreamer

Mind explaining that extremely obtuse statement?

Directed at me?

Actually, just about everything will seem "obtuse", unless you read the posts involved (previous page).

Just some friendly advice!

JR

A question to those saying it is wrong because they can't have/make kids... Wouldn't that suggest that there should be as big a problem with people who simply can't procreate getting married? Say someone has a vasectomy for instance. They aren't making babies, so they can't get married?


Also, to those saying that it is rough on the kids... if people weren't brought up to be small minded, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place, would it? Kids would not have to be ashamed of anything, if other people would grow up and mind their own lives.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

The only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the straight couple's ability to conceive a child. But how does the ability to have children make marriage more meaningful? And why does the ability to have children even matter when it involves marriage? I guess those two things are what I don't understand.

the ability to have children does make marriage more meaningful. you are passing you genes, keeping the family bloodline, in a way making yourself immortal I guess? can we agree that having your own child as opposed to adopting one is different? why do adopted people look for their biological parents? blood relation is definitely important, I really dont get why you dont understand this.
with that said why wouldn't marriage and the ability to have children not be connected. if you get married and have a kid, who shares the same blood as you and your partner, isn't that a wonderful thing? I know many married couples when in deep love desire to "become one" having a kid, wouldn't their dream live with the kid?
Is this really something that needs explaining?
at the end of the day we can close our eyes and chant its the same all we want
but the differences are just out in plain sight
like i said i think civil rights should be legalized with all the right of a marriage
but saying this is the same as a marriage is just delusional

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

There really isn't any evidence to support the point that you were trying to make. Everything you said was mostly anecdotal and supposition.

Realistically, it's more accurate to say that there is something to fear in couples having children because the world population is growing quite expansively. So maybe what the world needs is more homosexuals.

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

Sounds like you really are arbitrary!

Well, if history means nothing to you, I suppose it explains why it's so often repeated.

JR

History means a lot to me. I think that humans could take a lesson from history. But do I agree that homosexuality destroys societies and civilizations? Not in a million years. That claim sounds preposterous to me.

I think societies crumble and fall because people can't work together to find a common ground.

Interesting. 'Holy matrimony' versus 'Civil Marriage'.

Can a person get married without a religion, but also have it signed, sealed, and delivered by God?

It happens thousands of times a day, all over the world. I haven't been to a wedding in a church since I was a child.

I don't think god is relevant in the debate.

I am a little ACDC...er i mean ADD,

so forgive me for just jumping in here and not reading the whole thread...on the internet....and saying this even though it may have been stated.


The GOV wants babies, babies grow up to be tax payers.

Thee end.

Originally posted by Helious
Yes, there sure is. "Marriage" is a ritual derived from Christian origins between a man and a women. There is no authority derived from the state other than what that religion allows the state to perform in it's stead.

Wow. And where do you derive that interesting information from? The concept of marriage pre-dates Christianity by several CENTURIES.

What is REALLY disconcerting is how many people starred your post.

reply to post by Turkenstein


I'm flattered that you have follwed some of my posts. I'm assuming that you also spend some time considering this subject yourself.

The subject is important to me because I am gay. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what your post means though. There is nothing I have written in this thread which would lead anyone to assume I had taken a side, only that I am often frustrated with a lack of educated opinion and logical debate.

Would you care to clarify your post for me?

It doesn't have so much to do with the idea of marriage itself. From what I gather anti-gay marriage arguers have a certain point of view of how the world should be and they want to force everyone to follow their ideal I.e. Man and Woman marrying having children white picket fence and maybe a dog. Man goes to work, kids do well in school, wife holds bake sales and has dinner ready when the husband comes home church on Sunday Bowling league on Thursday or Tuesday etc. Basically your 1950's typical nuclear family.
Homosexual marriage obviously goes against this. Homosexuality in their eyes obviously goes against this and they are very anti-homosexual. To them the institution of Homosexuality is an abomination of nature and must be stamped out at all costs. Gay marriage is only one small fight in the war against gays.

Now in the states they can't openly go out and physically end homosexuality. They would be prosecuted as if the victim was not gay.

Think of it like this. Remove the word gay for say....black and what do you have now? You have one group of people labeling another group of people and using hate as a weapon. I'm not going to call it racism due to a few things. There is no gene that differentiates between someone having dark or light skin.

It's nothing more than hate and fear that drives the anti-gay marriage arguments.

Because the older generations that do all the voting have a long tradition of marginalizing others to maintain their own status

Originally posted by The Great Day

The GOV wants babies, babies grow up to be tax payers.

Thee end.

It' true. But of course gay coupes tend to have a far higher level of disposable income tan their 'straight' counterparts, which is also taxed.

Also, it is not 'the gov' trying to limit 'gay marriage', it's Christian fanatics.