Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pendekar
Annee, you are not supposed to go to point#2 if you cannot accept point#1. this is logical thinking. if you cannot accept point#1, then you have to present a reason why you say that it is illogical to think that way. it is obvious in many aspects that a union between man and woman is different from a union between man and man. yes there was a time when we say a black is different from a white but the difference is only superficial. the differences between these two types of unions however are very critical.

i see more maturity in quitelearner's arguments.

In LEGAL Marriage there is no difference in genders marrying. LEGAL Marriage is a government contract to protect rights and property - - and to afford other benefits.

Gays Marrying with a LEGAL government contract affects no one on a social level. Because these same Gays have already been living as couples in society since the beginning of time.

Yes, there is no difference in genders marrying by legal definition. but that is just one aspects of many differences between these two types of unions. are you sure these unions won't affect anyone in the society? is there any validity in this claim? are you aware of the many scientific studies that have been done that conclude gay lifestyle as unhealthy? even though legal marriage is defined as it is, the court still have to consider many different factors when ruling a case like this. also, are you sure these couples have been around since the beginning of time? I'm not really a fan of arguments that are emotionally blown out of proportion.

Originally posted by pendekar
Yes, there is no difference in genders marrying by legal definition. but that is just one aspects of many differences between these two types of unions. are you sure these unions won't affect anyone in the society?

I have 20+ years of following gay orientation and rights.

This thread is about Gay Marriage. That would be LEGAL Marriage - - - which is about Equal Rights.

Anyone can choose to live in a Healthy way or in an unhealthy way. There is nothing unhealthy about being gay.

I'm old enough to have experienced the Civil Rights Movement. This is exactly the same thing. A Majority fighting to deny rights of a minority.

I'm old enough to have experienced Christmas being forced on Jewish kids in public school. A Majority belief system denying the rights of those with different beliefs.

My mother was disabled by Polio in the '51 epidemic. I've experienced prejudice because of being different. Before the Disabilities Act - - we were refused admittance to restaurants - because it might upset other patrons.

Equal Rights is for minorities - - - being bullied by the majority.

Originally posted by pendekar
. . . are you sure these couples have been around since the beginning of time? I'm not really a fan of arguments that are emotionally blown out of proportion.

Attraction to same gender is a birthright. You are BORN with attraction to same gender.

It is not "emotional blow up out of proportion" - - - to say - - "when life began - so did same gender attraction".

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pendekar
. . . are you sure these couples have been around since the beginning of time? I'm not really a fan of arguments that are emotionally blown out of proportion.

Attraction to same gender is a birthright. You are BORN with attraction to same gender.

It is not "emotional blow up out of proportion" - - - to say - - "when life began - so did same gender attraction".

says who? give me a scientific study that proves that this "birthright" is in the DNA, the existence of the so called "gay-gene". one moment you said they have been living as couples since the beginning of time, now you spun the other way round and tell me it all started when they were born. also, saying life begins at the beginning of time is not really accurate.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pendekar
Yes, there is no difference in genders marrying by legal definition. but that is just one aspects of many differences between these two types of unions. are you sure these unions won't affect anyone in the society?

I have 20+ years of following gay orientation and rights.

This thread is about Gay Marriage. That would be LEGAL Marriage - - - which is about Equal Rights.

Anyone can choose to live in a Healthy way or in an unhealthy way. There is nothing unhealthy about being gay.

I'm old enough to have experienced the Civil Rights Movement. This is exactly the same thing. A Majority fighting to deny rights of a minority.

I'm old enough to have experienced Christmas being forced on Jewish kids in public school. A Majority belief system denying the rights of those with different beliefs.

My mother was disabled by Polio in the '51 epidemic. I've experienced prejudice because of being different. Before the Disabilities Act - - we were refused admittance to restaurants - because it might upset other patrons.

Equal Rights is for minorities - - - being bullied by the majority.

i can also double post and share you my stories from the other end of the world. but that won't add any credit to my arguments.

Originally posted by pendekar
says who? give me a scientific study that proves that this "birthright" is in the DNA, the existence of the so called "gay-gene". one moment you said they have been living as couples since the beginning of time, now you spun the other way round and tell me it all started when they were born. also, saying life begins at the beginning of time is not really accurate.

Knock it off - - I'm not spinning anything. I post simple straight forward statements. So lets not play stupid childish games.

I never said there was a "gay gene".

There are studies and researchers willing to do further studies. However - - funding for this research is not very forthcoming.

Malaria was around for a long time - - - before it was discovered it was carried by Mosquitoes. It is known that same gender attraction is part of the body makeup - - even if the exact cause is not pinpointed - - Yet!

(and don't be stupid and call same gender attraction an illness - - because I used Malaria as an example of something known - - - even though the source was not yet known)

There is a study where scientists changed gender attraction in Fruit Flies - - by manipulating brain chemicals.

It is not "emotional hyperbole" to say same gender attraction is inherent in life as other differences in humans are. If you want to call it Speculation - - then call it speculation. But Logic is that same sex attraction evolved in life - - - as did everything else.

And LOGICALLY - - if you have same gender attraction - - - you will have same gender couples.

Originally posted by pendekar

i can also double post and share you my stories from the other end of the world. but that won't add any credit to my arguments

What are you talking about? What stories?

I presented 3 examples I've experienced in life of minority inequality - - - by majority.

Social Majority is NOT a logical reason to deny equal rights to a minority.

Uh, this thread grew like a monster, I have not been able to read up on everything. Just wanted to add that a think that the issue of bisexuality has been a little bit ignored. A lot of people mix their preferences and refuse to identify themself as either gay or straight. They go by whom they love and that makes sense to me. And wouldn't it be weird to be forced to have one kind of cermony when you marry one person and another kind of cermony if you later marry another person (yes, lifelong love is very hard to come by), when the feeling in your heart is the same?

Also, just wanted to share with you the story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins that were a pair for a couple of years and raised a healthy young chick. After they separated Silo has coupled up with a female penguin. What Roy will do is anyones guess.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Homedawg

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee

 

But you ARE avoiding answering...you seize on a slang term to allow you to ignore the fact that homosexuals accept special treatment while asking for equal treatment....you can engage in semantics all you want,you know homosexuals are two faced in their quest...Mo indeed

Give it up. I am not avoiding anything.

I asked you to be respectful - - - and said I would respond when you were.

And where was I being disrespectful in my last posts?..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?..

If they had equal treatment, they wouldn't need special treatment.

reply to post by grahag


Yes,but if they are given equal rights,will they give up special treatment...theanswer,is,of course not....they got it they will keep it and ride it to the hilt....and thats wrong....equal rights should call for equal treatment...if they put a proposal on a ballot tomorrow granting equal rights,then Id be the first to vote for it...provided that same bill repealed special status for the same group....and we all know that will never happen

Originally posted by pimpinette
Uh, this thread grew like a monster, I have not been able to read up on everything. Just wanted to add that a think that the issue of bisexuality has been a little bit ignored. A lot of people mix their preferences and refuse to identify themself as either gay or straight. They go by whom they love and that makes sense to me. And wouldn't it be weird to be forced to have one kind of cermony when you marry one person and another kind of cermony if you later marry another person (yes, lifelong love is very hard to come by), when the feeling in your heart is the same?

Yes - great post.

The thing about bi-sexuality is - - - those who I've talked to over the last 20 years - - - do enjoy both genders - - - but every one of them had a preference.

So they are still by birth either gay or hetero - - - although they enjoy both genders.

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by grahag

 

Yes,but if they are given equal rights,will they give up special treatment . .

They do not receive special treatment. If you want to call it anything - - it is "specific" treatment.

The majority doesn't need any treatment "specified" - - because it is theirs automatically.

One must first ask - - - - why any minority's needs need to be specifically protected.

And now we are back to the basic question I asked back on page 29(and no one actually answered)...Why should someone who enjoys special staus(protection under the law,being prosecuted for a hate rime for useof offensive language)when others dont have that priviledge be given equal rights?...WIll they give up the special protections and status if granted equal rights?

Originally posted by Homedawg
And now we are back to the basic question I asked back on page 29(and no one actually answered)...Why should someone who enjoys special staus(protection under the law,being prosecuted for a hate rime for useof offensive language)when others dont have that priviledge be given equal rights?...WIll they give up the special protections and status if granted equal rights?

Is there some reason you need "specific" protection? Is your life threatened just because you exist? Are you denied rights and bullied because you are of a minority?

I actually went back and forth on the Hate crime myself - - so I investigated/researched and discussed the pros and cons on forums.

Minorities have the right to live their lives within the laws - - - with the same rights as everyone else - - - without being discriminated against or abused.

Prosecuting on a Hate crime is actually very rare and hard to prove. However - having it on the "books" has probably saved lives. It is a deterrent - - - just because it exists. That's probably the most important thing about it.

A conviction of Hate crime - - will increase penalties on that crime. A lot of crimes you get a slap on the wrist. A Hate crime pretty much guarantees punishment.

Its a message to society for sure.

reply to post by Helious


I stated in this thread previously that marriage, and even same sex marriage predates the written word. It's been around since we could form organized groups. This predates religion as well. Please look it up before you argue against it.

It's not logical to claim marriage is between a man and a woman, when people of the same sex are legally married all over the world. It would be logical if that wasn't the case, but because it is, you can't argue against that. You may argue that you don't think it should be, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about logical arguments against same sex marriage.

I still can't come up with an argument against it that doesn't have some sort of opinion attached to it. I'm good at playing the devil's advocate too. The reproductive argument is only valid as long as all heterosexual couples are reproductive and that's the only one that even comes close. But if you're going to argue that, then you'll have to annul the marriages of anyone who is sterile as they can't produce offspring.

What's the big deal? Does the meaning of a word cause so many people to be defensive that they'd suspend the civil rights of other people? I'm not gay, but I know what it is to be discriminated against and THAT is discrimination...

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

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).

You asked me t respond to this so I did. Just for clarification

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.

really???? That's what you're responding with?

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.

This is what you wrote
"God said so / It's just wrong. A version of the "unnatural" argument. "
So you brought religion into it.

3. The introduction of a potentially irrelevant third issue, does not show that the other issue is illogical.

Never said it did. It's illogical all on it's own.

Let me help you here. If you want to show that an argument is illogical, you need to point out a flaw

I did thanks for playing

, 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.

Actually overpopulation is the bigger issue than getting more taxes from people who can't pay them. More soldiers also not relevant as the draft can be re-instituted and tada... all the soldiers you need without the burden of overpopulation.

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.

If your logic stands that any corrosive element should be removed, it must work for every corrosive element or the logic fails.

Why would you consider homosexuality to be more corrosive than religion which is the basis of most wars for thousands of years?

Originally posted by Annee

Excuses. All you present is excuses.

In LEGAL Marriage there is no difference in genders marrying. LEGAL Marriage is a government contract to protect rights and property - - and to afford other benefits.

Gays Marrying with a LEGAL government contract affects no one on a social level. Because these same Gays have already been living as couples in society since the beginning of time.

You want Logic - - - there is your Logic.

Gays are already living as couples/families in society. Gays marrying changes nothing in society. All it does is give them the same Legal benefits as other couples/families.

Emotions because someone feels hurt by the use of a word - - - is not logic.

Majority trying to deny Equal Rights to a minority is about Control - - - - no matter what excuse they choose to use.

Like you said, legal marriage is a contract
but i think you don't understand what a contract means
in a contract, all parties involved in it make agreements and set responsibilities
in a traditional marriage it is expected that a couple will form a new family and procreate children
in return the government responds and grants the marriage some rights meant to ease the burden to raising children.
then what does the government get in return? they get a new family that will buy a new house and will create new citizens that will one day grow to pay their taxes and eventually (hopefully) have a marriage and keep on the cycle.
gay couples can't hold their end of the bargain here so why should the government grant the same benefits
remember it is a contract and all parties involved should have responsibilities
and please dont come out with examples of exemptions where a couple is infertile and yada yada yada
those are just exemptions, not the norm and expected
so then what is he big problem? the big problem is not equal rights, the problem is that gay groups are trying to get the same rights from another group yet they don't bring anything to the table. They won't/can't hold their end of the bargain.
some of you might say that there is no law that dictates that married couples should procreate, thats true but its the expected outcome, and that government expects that outcome and therefore gives benefits
why would the government give benefits if there nothing to gain from it? like I said before, marriage rights are not wedding gifts. there are there to protect the family institution and government assets
if gay marriage is accepted then what stops
1. incestuous marriage
2. nudists in public
3. marriage with animals
4. public display of fetishes
etc
etc
with all the arguments that are for gay marriage just replace any of those listed above and they would be completely the same

Adding another article to the Society discussion:

Poll: Christians Support LGBT Equality

By Advocate.com Editors

A new poll shows that a majority of Christians oppose the Defense of Marriage Act as well as other laws that enable discrimination against LGBT people.

Released by the Human Rights Campaign in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the poll indicates that Christians of all ages support LGBT equality, favoring such steps as ending discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations (68%) and laws prohibiting bullying and harassment of all minority groups in schools (74%).

advocate.com...

Originally posted by quietlearner
if gay marriage is accepted then what stops
1. incestuous marriage
2. nudists in public
3. marriage with animals
4. public display of fetishes
etc
etc
with all the arguments that are for gay marriage just replace any of those listed above and they would be completely the same

Using your logic, we should stop all traditional marriages because that could lead to gay marriage.
It's funny when people like you try to hide their bigotry

I would also like to clarify whats the difference between a hetero couple that wont/can't have children with a gay couple. There are alot of differences but I would just like to point out the one thats related to the procreation argument.
hetero couples have the possibility of procreation, if they are unfertile then maybe some treatment will make them fertile. in the other hand, gay couples are intrinsically just not capable of procreation.
the big difference is therefore the existence of the possibility