Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Originally posted by Phenomium
It's simple......the puzzle pieces do not fit together correctly and there is no possibility of procreation naturally as nature (for unbelievers) or GOD (for us Christians) has dictated for the proliferation of mankind.

I am so so so incredibly sick and annoyed with hearing the procreation crap.

Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni - - - Leonardo da Vinci - - - - just to name 2 known gay men who contributed their talents to our world.

FACT: there are more things to contribute to this world then more people.

Companionship - Love - Understanding - Emotional Desires - and much more - - - - are just as much a part of a relationship as sex. Homo or Hetero.

Marriage being a religious rite is just plain bull. You can't file on your taxes as being married, without well... being married. Just because it's origin is based in the church means nothing. It is a legal process. It legally affects a couple's tax return.

You want leniancy, get married. Though, it's not your choice who you love. So, hah.

If I am free to make my own choices, to own and control my own life, and homosexuality is so wrong, why is it that the government constantly makes me feel like my ass hurts. Like when I file those taxes, and all of a sudden they give it to European and multinational elites.

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by ProRipp
If your building something, you use nuts and bolts ?
If you try to build something with bolts and bolts, or nuts and nuts, everything falls apart !
A bit like SOCIETY really ?


Peace

What are you talking about? The topic is to provide a logical reason against gay marriage. You forgot logic in your reply. And gay marriage was forgotten too.

I have some news for you Honey, YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY ON THIS SUBJECT. Other people's answers do NOT have to pass your muster. If someone said that to them it is wrong, they need not further explain their perceptions to you for validation. Give it a rest.

I have some NEWS FOR YOU HONEY: in debate, if you make a stupid and unsupported statement, the other side has the right to challenge unsupported assumptions.

If you don't like it, you are on the wrong website; this is a place for the clash of ideas, not ignorant and unsupported fiat statements.

NOTE: for anyone who has no clue what true debate is - it is NOT name-calling, it is not a "fight", it IS a structured argument between two opposing views on a topic. Colleges sponsor Debate Teams.

For those who know what debate is; believe it or not, I have had to explain this before to several people.

PS: I'm a Virginian; your nick Ben does a disservice to my state.

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by ProRipp
If your building something, you use nuts and bolts ?
If you try to build something with bolts and bolts, or nuts and nuts, everything falls apart !
A bit like SOCIETY really ?


Peace

What are you talking about? The topic is to provide a logical reason against gay marriage. You forgot logic in your reply. And gay marriage was forgotten too.

I have some news for you Honey, YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY ON THIS SUBJECT. Other people's answers do NOT have to pass your muster. If someone said that to them it is wrong, they need not further explain their perceptions to you for validation. Give it a rest.

I never claimed authority, I was pointing out the post was off topic. But whatever, you are no authority on how when and to whom I post, so take your own advice and give yourself a rest from policing how I post, OK? Thanks, HONEY.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Hello, hello, Hello and what do we have here?

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Originally posted by JR MacBethI have no problem with your taking it that way, but adding your own sensationalist flair doesn't necessarily help get to the bottom of the matter.

How did what I say have sensationalist flair to it? I basically reiterated what you posted and said I didn't really agree with it.

Originally posted by JR MacBethI certainly stand by my minimalist supposition, that history provides some indications that homosexuality is a risk-factor when it comes to the breakdowns of the societies I mentioned.

.

What evidence is there that homosexuality was the reason for such deterioration/decay?

Gosh I hate to cite the Bible as "evidence" because it isn't, but for these purposes, it will do. Read the Biblical account of Soddom and Gemmorah. That was the first supposedly recorded account of homosexuality and promiscuity causing the moral decay of society.

How is marriage religious? I was married, and it had to do with legalities, not religion. One does not need a church wedding to be married.

My prediction first page is holding true. No logical opposition in thread.

Originally posted by goos3

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by goos3
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

One reason, its wrong.

That is not a reason. Provide us WHY it is wrong, then you have a reason.

Example:

Argument against Murder?
- It's Wrong.

Argument against rape?
- It's Wrong.

Argument against gay marriage?
- It's Wrong.

You don't need more of a reason than, IT'S WRONG.
It's called Morals, everyone has them.

Some people have different morals. You cannot take a stand on morals because it's not common to everyone. Regarding murder, you're taking away someone's right to life. Regarding rape, you're taking away someone's right to choose who they have sex with. Saying it's immoral is like saying it's wrong... Just because you said so... If you don't agree with it, fine, but don't hide behind morality. It's a weak argument and factually incorrect. If it's against YOUR morals, totally cool. Don't get a gay marriage, problem solved. But you know what I call it when someone says you can't do something that doesn't hurt someone else? Oppression...

reply to post by shanerz


The simple answer is, because you are NOT free to make your own choices and control your own life. Hasn't that been obvious to you?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
How is marriage religious? I was married, and it had to do with legalities, not religion. One does not need a church wedding to be married.

Yes.

I think posters need to specify "LEGAL" Marriage - - when discussing this topic.

See below: doesn't exactly sound like the Marriage Business was about two people being in Love and sealing themselves to each other with the Glory of God's blessing.

Early Marriage Contracts

For centuries, marriages were private contracts between two families that may or may not have had the bridegroom or bride's consent. Marriage was not only for procreation, but for also building financial, social and, in some cases, political alliances. When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.

Read more: The History of Marriage Licenses | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

reply to post by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso

Gosh I hate to cite the Bible as "evidence" because it isn't, but for these purposes, it will do. Read the Biblical account of Soddom and Gemmorah. That was the first supposedly recorded account of homosexuality and promiscuity causing the moral decay of society.

Yeah, I mentioned that one in my original post on this thread, but I think that anytime some people see the Bible referred to, they automatically go into reject-mode.

Actually, I think the stories in the Bible should be considered as "evidence" of some nature anyway. It is part of our cultural inheritance, like other ancient works, and "can" contain many things to consider.

It's ignorant to ignore our history, and potentially reject pearls of wisdom that might help us avert the repetition of unpleasant things of our past. But, seemingly, it's also human nature to seldom learn from experience. It's our incredible hubris, continually rising within us, generation after generation. Perhaps we are doomed to perpetual repetition.

JR

The actual logical argument used in the minds by the anti-side is "We don't like gay people and we don't want them to be happy, so therefore we will prevent them from getting married to one another."

If you take the first as a given, banning gays from marrying is a logical, though misanthropic, conclusion.

I seem to remember in them 'Old Days', that the anti-homosexual agitators were complaining about how their "lifestyle" was so abnormal, unstable, selfish, dissipative, etc etc. Fast forward, and now---shock---its apparent that gays are about as average and normal as everyone else and some want to be stable and married just like the breeders. And yet the same crowd is really upset by this too. Therefore my logical conclusion is that they just don't like gays no matter what the gays do, and want to punish them just because, and in order to clearly separate themselves from the gays.

In truth, gay marriage has been around for thousands of years. The problem is that the wife didn't know about it at the beginning.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


You do not get my point, it is not your place to validate or invalidate other peoples feelings and/or opinions. You have been actively negatively judging and summarily invalidating the comments of people whose opinions you disagree with. Who made you the authority on what is logical or illogical?

I was not policing how you post, why did you even say something so utterly ridiculous? I made a comment to you based on the many comments I saw from you basically dismissing all of the posts that you didn't like. Policing? Such an extreme description, and totally misapplied in this case. I make one comment and I am "policing". Lib-Tard much?

If Bible stories are evidence...then Spider-Man stories should be considered evidence in 2,000 years. Hey...he practiced his gospel in NYC, and that place actually exists! He even helped save people on 9/11, and history will teach that 9/11 actually did happen.

Originally posted by intelinside451
Deep down I feel there is nothing wrong with it and I would have no problem supporting gay marriages. I just don't like to see it. I guess I'm a bit homophobic. It disturbs me deep down when I see 2 men kissing. I believe society in general is not ready to see gay couples in public in mass amounts.

One of the more honest posts I've read on the subject. I salute you and respect you honesty and opinion. THIS is how opinion posts should be. No attacks and just an explanation of his opinions.

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

You do not get my point, it is not your place to validate or invalidate other peoples feelings and/or opinions. You have been actively negatively judging and summarily invalidating the comments of people whose opinions you disagree with. Who made you the authority on what is logical or illogical?

I was not policing how you post, why did you even say something so utterly ridiculous? I made a comment to you based on the many comments I saw from you basically dismissing all of the posts that you didn't like. Policing? Such an extreme description, and totally misapplied in this case. I make one comment and I am "policing". Lib-Tard much?

Again quoted for namecalling.

You do not get my point, nor do you get how to debate.

Saying something is wrong is not an answer, providing the why it is wrong IS an answer.

People can post it is wrong, but it is not IMO a valid answer because it is no answer at all. One must provide the why, or in other words, THE LOGIC behind the blanket statement of its wrong in order for their answer or reply to be taken as valid. THAT was my point, thank you for taking it as an opportunity to call me names. I have dismissed nothing, I have asked for clarification, and it has yet to come forth.

my logic is different from you. that's why this will be a never-ending debate. the way i see things is that nature has provided us a way to reproduce. while certain animals can reproduce from same sex or even from a single unit, we humans are not.

we have transgressed beyond bounds.

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
Gosh I hate to cite the Bible as "evidence" because it isn't, but for these purposes, it will do. Read the Biblical account of Soddom and Gemmorah. That was the first supposedly recorded account of homosexuality and promiscuity causing the moral decay of society.

Homosexuality and the Bible
by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."

www.soulforce.org...

I don't have any opposition to a gay marriage.
But I still think its wrong.

If two people truely love each other, then what is the big deal about getting married. Two people can be just as loving and faithful to each other in wedlock or out, isn't that the most important thing? All I can see is that being married gives you is the legal right to claim spouse entitlements from the government.
And yes there are some of you are going to scream "we deserve equal rights", well what equal rights do you want?
As an individual, aren't you entitled to exactly the same rights as another unmarried person, gay or not?

If two people really want to be together they will be, even if they can't be legally married.

Originally posted by ProRipp
If your building something, you use nuts and bolts ?
If you try to build something with bolts and bolts, or nuts and nuts, everything falls apart !
A bit like SOCIETY really ?


Peace

People aren't bolts, or nuts.

This views people as baby producing tools that should only be utilized a certain way. Very cold, we're human beings, not tools.

People also confuse the religious ceremony of marriage and the LEGAL PRACTICE of marriage, they ARE NOT the same thing. You can get "married" in a church, or whatever, but this, legally, means NOTHING. You can get married by the state (marriage certificate), but this has no bearing on the religious ceremony what so ever. The only difference is that the legal marriage license grants certain powers to spouses that the religious ceremony does not.

In my opinion, who you love is an expression of free-speech, which is protected in the constitution.