Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Homedawg
I asked why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?..Homosexual isnt a disrespectful term....as for terms...gays call each other fag and queer all day long....yet when I use the term Mo,a shortened version of homosexual,you seize upon my use of it to deny answering a simple question....so here it is again,in PC terms....why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?..

I don't think that is quite true - - - that you just plainly asked a question.

However - - - I am on the phone with the Internet company right now - - because of some issues. (on hold at the moment)

That is FACT why I have not yet responded to your last post.

This isnt a simple question?"so here it is again,in PC terms....why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?.. "

reply to post by technical difficulties


My wife and I were discussing this a few days ago, talking about how Elton John and companion had adopted a child, and would the child turn out to be gay. I had to say no, and here is the reason. Take a normal married couple, man and woman. They have a son. the son can see the affection between his parents, and once even peeks into their bedroom while they are doing the nasty. He knows what is going on. then it turns out he is gay. As you can see, the parentage had not one thing to do with his decision, or his sexual preference. I have several gay friends, I work on their computer equipment on occasion. Both tell me that had regular man/woman parents. To me this is the only real argument, and since this argument is moot, why not? I don't thing the gay people really want a "marriage," as is defined mostly by the church, and is naught but a contract between man, woman, and State, what they want is when my wife and I have, a Civil Union, bound by legal contract, between us, cutting out the State. If we two decide to no longer be together in a state of marriage, we both must do exactly what the contract states we will do.

why should any group demand equal rights while enjoying special treatment and protections?.. "

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Thanks shanerz, appreciate your response.

...

1. You didn't prove their argument was illogical, you only proved that what each of us considers "wrong" may be subjective. Logically, your use of the term "actually wrong" implies that you might believe in something absolute in this regard. Self defeating.

I see what you're saying here.

2. You actually agree with those who hold this view, in your words, "Sure, we could make up a new term for it." Your further point about current prohibitions isn't germane to definitions.

No, actually I dont. I thought we were talking about why it actually is illegal. In any case:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

en.wikipedia.org...

1.

a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

dictionary.reference.com...

So the definition of marriage already encapsulates the notion of same gender marriage.

3. I agree with the info you provided, but obviously, you didn't even attempt a logical rebuttal to GetReadyAlready's assertion, probably because it is "logical" after all, making the assumptions that he did.

I wasn't attempting to rebute it. As logical as his assertion may be, it would be absolutely illogical to base the entirety of of the legality issue on this single notion, given that I offered a counterexample that logically fufills the same outcome. And even going beyond Orphans in America, we can acquire more little soldiers and consumers in the form of the unfortunate children in other countries.

Illogical, no. I just believe I have a more beneficial solution that agrees with same gender marriage.

More logical, hmm?

4. Gays in America? The current economic situation? Procreation??

No offense, but big Fail on that one, sorry. You might read my post a few pages back which reached back thousands of years in history.

The issue at hand seemed to pan out to be about America. But I guess that doesnt matter when it isn't germane to a given arguement.

You said it yourself:

America, and Americans, are not the world.

Just because other nations failed in the past, doesnt mean this nation will with the current variables.

Thanks for your input though.

You're welcome. Thanks.

Originally posted by Homedawg
why should any group demand equal rights while enjoying special treatment and protections?.. "

Just wondering where the logic is?

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Originally posted by jfj123
So far nobody has posted any logical argument against gay marriage.

There have been hate filled rants but no logical argument...not one.

So those who are still against marriage must only not want gay marriage because their small minds
can't allow other consenting adults to live as they wish.

sad really.

Come on now, you're smarter than that. No logical arguments, eh?

Seems like someone repeats that on every page.

Say it enough, and it will be true!

Actually it is true.
Nobody has posted any logical arguments against gay marriage.
Name 1.

You are correct yet others on here have moved the question to a higher level...that of equal rights...and my question still stands in regard to that statement

Originally posted by Homedawg
You are correct yet others on here have moved the question to a higher level...that of equal rights...and my question still stands in regard to that statement

I haven't moved the question anywhere.

It is about Equal Rights.

(still on hold - - - Ugh!)

I'm not sure what "special status" homosexuals have...

reply to post by LazerTron


it's called high suicide rates... daily discrimination... etc etc
now that's some special treatment

reply to post by jfj123

Nobody has posted any logical arguments against gay marriage.
Name 1.

You're not a reader I guess, but how about four logical arguments, instead of just one?

Check back a couple pages, page 28 (you posted on that page too BTW). I made a post with the general intention of distilling the principle arguments raised in the thread, that actually answer the OP's question, up to that point. It seemed only right, considering that on almost every page, a pro-gay marriage post is made that blurts out, "no logical arguments!!" Could be there are some, we would first have to consider it as a possibility of course.

Well, if you feel up to it, read those four, and come back and let us know where the flaws in their logic might be. You will probably make short work of them!

JR

reply to post by shanerz

...the definition of marriage already encapsulates the notion of same gender marriage.

Shanerz, entries in a dictionary miss the point.

I suppose I could up the ante here, and remind you that forty-one of the fifty states in the US "define" marriage as between a man and a woman? And no, I'm not saying America is the world, just an example!

Obviously, you could show them your book, but again, you miss the point.

Here was my example again, offered because I feel I understand the point those who use this argument are trying to make: If we took a term like "circle", and some of us decided that the word was perhaps not "inclusive" enough (or whatever other reason you might choose), and further, those people felt that the word "circle" should from now on also encompass what was formerly known as a "square", couldn't we better serve our crusade for precision, by simply choosing another term? In this example, we could retain the word "circle", and "square", and get our point across rather admirably by using the already more inclusive term, "shape".

The logic is in fact irrefutable, in my opinion. When a person brings this "definitional" argument up, of course one side can shout all the louder that it is "illogical!!" or "hate-filled!", but it might be neither, of course.

So far, society at-large echoes this logic, and a generic term like "same-sex unions", is more generally used, when speaking of that specific thing. However, it is becoming more "popular" to mix these concepts, so of course we see people using the term "marriage" today to include the same-sex union, so your dictionary entry appropriately reflects the fact.

I suppose I ride the middle-ground a bit too much, I'm not terribly sensationalist, and could care less about the current popular mental straight-jacket, known as political correctness. I'm just calling a spade, a spade.

And I'm pretty sure that I can even whisper such a thing, and it would remain truer than a thousand shouts.

JR

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
1. God said so / It's just wrong. A version of the "unnatural" argument.

So you're arguing that god said its wrong. Interesting. Where exactly did god exclaim this? I haven't seen him/her on the news. If you're referring to the bible, do you suggest that just because it's in the bible, it's logical and should be followed?

2. Definitional argument: The word "marriage" should not be subject to change / a new word needs to be introduced for the new concept of gay "marriage".

Marriage is a non-religious word that suggests two people be bound by a set of agreed upon rules. Marriages are not necessarily religious. Ever hear of a civil ceremony? After a civil ceremony, people are considered married.

Here's the definition from merriam webster
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "

3. Society "benefits" (more) from procreating couples, than it does from non-procreating couples, and therefore should confer (more) benefits upon the procreative ones (more people = more soldiers, taxpayers, etc.)

Ever hear of over population? Over population is not a benefit to society.

4. Historical argument: Some historical examples may suggest that homosexuality has a corrosive effect on society, and therefore society would need to protect against it. A societal version of a Darwinian perspective, as it relates to anything that could significantly threaten a society.

Example? Religion has a corrosive effect on society. By your logic, you are also arguing against religion. Oh there are thousands of other things that have a corrosive effect on society which means for your argument to be logical, every corrosive element must be removed.

To wit-there have been no logical arguments posted against gay marriage...including yours.

There was a time when African Americans were defined as being three-fifths human.

Now...using the logic in this thread...we shouldnt change definitions...they should not be considered full humans ever.

OR...maybe...just maybe...that as society evolves into a more rational, accepting populace, we alter definitions to be more suitable. We recognize that the old way of thinking was wrong, so we change.

So, those of you who are against gay marriage because it would change the definition...please either change your mind, or publicly admit that you believe that blacks are three-fifths human. If you can't bring yourself to admit that...then you MUST admit that definitions should be changed as society evolves into a more rational and mature state.

reply to post by Kali74


Religion was never set up for a church marriage of same sex, and I don't think it was ever stated to be between people, it says man and a women, pretty clear.
A "legal" marriage could be done, so benefits and other rights married people have now can be used.
Why just have divorce between man and women, this way everyone can have a divorce,
lawyers need work too.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
1. God said so / It's just wrong. A version of the "unnatural" argument.

So you're arguing that god said its wrong. Interesting. Where exactly did god exclaim this? I haven't seen him/her on the news. If you're referring to the bible, do you suggest that just because it's in the bible, it's logical and should be followed?

2. Definitional argument: The word "marriage" should not be subject to change / a new word needs to be introduced for the new concept of gay "marriage".

Marriage is a non-religious word that suggests two people be bound by a set of agreed upon rules. Marriages are not necessarily religious. Ever hear of a civil ceremony? After a civil ceremony, people are considered married.

Here's the definition from merriam webster
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "

3. Society "benefits" (more) from procreating couples, than it does from non-procreating couples, and therefore should confer (more) benefits upon the procreative ones (more people = more soldiers, taxpayers, etc.)

Ever hear of over population? Over population is not a benefit to society.

4. Historical argument: Some historical examples may suggest that homosexuality has a corrosive effect on society, and therefore society would need to protect against it. A societal version of a Darwinian perspective, as it relates to anything that could significantly threaten a society.

Example? Religion has a corrosive effect on society. By your logic, you are also arguing against religion. Oh there are thousands of other things that have a corrosive effect on society which means for your argument to be logical, every corrosive element must be removed.

To wit-there have been no logical arguments posted against gay marriage...including yours.

edit on 22-5-2011 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for playing jfj123.

First, for clarification, these four arguments aren't necessarily "mine", I simply took a look at some of the things proposed, made what I felt was an honest attempt to understand them, and these four "headings" seemed appropriate (although I did bring up the fourth one myself, guilty there).

OK, here we go, my comments for each point:

1. The first argument may also be known as an "appeal to authority". Considering that we all do it, you're likely to find that it's generally accepted as being, let's say, "logical enough". Another way to put it, while you may not say "God said so!", you might very well say something like, "the law agrees with me", or "it says so in the dictionary". Those are examples of the same thing. So, if that's the case, then we all have some explaining to do.

2. The "definitional" argument has nothing whatever to do with religion. Why would you bring that up? Come on, let's get back to logic here.

3. The introduction of a potentially irrelevant third issue, does not show that the other issue is illogical. Let me help you here. If you want to show that an argument is illogical, you need to point out a flaw (any flaw) in the LOGIC. In this case, GetReadyAlready's argument is quite logical, strictly speaking, IMO, because he went on to define what he was talking about, more people = more taxes, soldiers, etc. While the issue of "overpopulation" may one day impact the benefits that society chooses to bestow, the reality is your issue isn't one to begin with. But it is an attempt to dodge the issue in question of course.

4. Bringing in religion again. Hmmm. Well, I'm not a religionist, so I don't take offense, but the idea that every corrosive element should be "removed" would be fairly radical. Should they be examined? Well yes, I would quite agree with you, if that's what you really meant. Some pages back, one of my posts offered some specific historical examples of why homosexuality might be a societal risk-factor, check it out, if you have time. But to give a legitimate risk-factor that presents itself some consideration, is just the prudent thing to do. Likewise, ignoring an identified risk-factor could have consequences, and would not be so smart.

Well, I'm probably just as biased as everyone else, but it sure seems to me there is logic on both sides of this issue. It's interesting to me however to see the pro-gay marriage side so bent of denying this fact, at least in this thread. I wonder why that is?

JR

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Gay marriage should be banned. it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, it goes against procreation. The reason why we have a male and a female.

The most retarded argument I will see today. Aside from the fact that this thread is now so off topic, having been derailed by religious nut bars as usual - I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve is a metaphorical tale which should be taken with a grain of salt.

Please provide a real reason and leave religion or the bible out of it, perhaps even go as far as providing educated conclusion using what is known as facts. You should be free to express your opinion as you have but I think you ought to explain how you came to have it.

Originally posted by LazerTron
There was a time when African Americans were defined as being three-fifths human.

Now...using the logic in this thread...we shouldnt change definitions...they should not be considered full humans ever.

OR...maybe...just maybe...that as society evolves into a more rational, accepting populace, we alter definitions to be more suitable. We recognize that the old way of thinking was wrong, so we change.

So, those of you who are against gay marriage because it would change the definition...please either change your mind, or publicly admit that you believe that blacks are three-fifths human. If you can't bring yourself to admit that...then you MUST admit that definitions should be changed as society evolves into a more rational and mature state.

Here is a post that seems reasonable on first glance, but is it?

The problem is that you're mixing issues. "Gay Marriage" might be one issue, and redefining terms would be another. So, if you read my post, a few above this one, I use the example of "shapes", specifically regarding the precision of language.

What if a person might be for "gay marriage", but also against the notion of broadening the old definition of the term? What would you do with these people, denounce them as "bi" or something? By appearances, few have been reading the posts in this thread, but there have been a few who have said exactly that. It's not hypothetical.

What if gays and lesbians came together, and decided they preferred yet another term? Or half of them wanted this, and the other half wanted that? The religious gays (yes, there are some!) want the term Sacred Union, while the rest prefer the term Special Union?

Does the above sound too silly? Well, imagine if some people felt that redefining the very old term "marriage" was simply unnecessary? Why is that a terrible thing? Does it automatically mean that people who feel that way are "homophobic"?

If I'm reading what the various posters here are saying correctly, it isn't all that radical to simply retain the definition of an old word.

As far as our evolving to alter definitions to be more "suitable" as you put it, well, that's yet another story, but not a small one, if you have read the book 1984. Not that I want to ruin the story for you if you haven't read it yet, but ultimately the end of that process is but one ugly word that means only complete obedience to the state.

This business of changing definitions is not something to be taken lightly, but for those who have no idea what I'm talking about, be sure to look up George Orwell when you can.

JR

Originally posted by LazerTron
So, those of you who are against gay marriage because it would change the definition...please either change your mind, or publicly admit that you believe that blacks are three-fifths human. If you can't bring yourself to admit that...then you MUST admit that definitions should be changed as society evolves into a more rational and mature state.

Or that women are Property.

Today LEGAL marriage is simply a contract to protect rights and property of those joined as one.

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso

I like that point, heres a thought, if you had a pack or herd of homosexual animals, how long do you think they could self-sustain? Without recruiting new members from other non-homo-herds, or accepting cast-offs from other non-homo-herds, methinks, NOT TOO LONG...

Obviously NATURE did not intend for homosexuality, just as nature did not intend for albinos to proliferate and be successful. Albinos have a genetic mutation that causes a lack of pigmentation. In the animal world this is very disadvantageous, because the albino has NO ability to camoflauge itself and hide and/or avoid danger other than running or flying away from the danger. Personally, I assume that homosexuality, is akin to a genetic mutation, whereas, the cause for the supposed abbhorrent behavior, mayt be a chemical imbalance which results in attraction to pheromonmes of the same sex rather than attraction to the opposite sex.

Albinos are not numerous in nature. The condition is not extremely rare, however the effects of the condition dictate that the life expectancy, or longevity will be greatly reduced by the inability to survive until adulthood, and possibly pass it's genes on to the next generation, so there is usually no next generation, thus albinos do not flourish. Homosexuals can not procurate. There is NO WAY for two homosexuals to produce offspring unless they have access to a fertility laboratory that specializes in cloning...

Nature does not intend to produce organisms that cannot reproduce and endure, from natures standpoint, it would be utterly pointless, to evolve lifeforms that are fated to death within a single generation...

Marriage is the joining of a Man and a Woman. Gays, go ahead and enjoin in an exalted relationship with each other, just give the relationship a different name. It's ok that the relationship seems the same as "Marriage", it would bem except, that it would be called by a different name. I don't see anything wrong with that solution. If there is commitment, benefits, and everything else similar to "Marriage" except the terminology used in its title, whats the problem? If the issue is about gays being able to call their committed relationship "Marriage" then the entire issue is unreasonable...

I completely agree with you
this is what I have been trying to say all along
gays can have all the rights they want but it's just not the same and should not be called the same
to think otherwise is delusional