Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
I've seen plenty of posts asking why people are against gay marriages, the responses are always the same. So I figured I'd consolidate what I thought was all the responses into 1 post and the logical answers to those responses. Please critique and add as needed, I'll update the post. My point here is to find 1 reason that can't be answered and thus create a rational reason for having a gay marriage ban.

?Allowing gays to marry invalidates my beliefs?
Because gays are allowed to marry does not mean the marriage will be sanctioned and accepted at your church. Like wise, your church does not have to exercise every law (or lack thereof) in the books, nor should it. If a church does decide to sanctify the marriage of gays, then you can take that up with your priest and ask him if he can help you come to the understanding he has in regards to your religion and his stance. In other words, simply because something is allowed in this country, does not mean you or your religion have to partake in it. Nor should everything in this country that your religion does not partake in be outlawed for everyone else.

?The dictionary says marriage is between a man and a woman?
We dictate what is in a dictionary, the dictionary does not dictate us. It is a reflection on what we understood at any given moment and is updated whenever a better understanding or more clear definition is presented and agreed upon.

?The system cannot handle gay marriages?
If the system can handle 90% of marriage situations but not the other 10% then either someone is lying or the fix is rather trivial, lessen the privileges of the 90% and you can accommodate for the 10% easily. (I do not have a better way to argue this since the original response is more of a guess than a fact)

?What reason do gay people have for getting married??
It allows them the benefits of any regular marriage. It validates their lifestyle and expresses their commitment to the person they love, much like any straight marriage. It creates a stable parental atmosphere for adoption.

?Why can?t they just have civil unions? Why must they share the same word, ?marriage???
Easy, equality. Changing the term for gay people makes an unnecessary, known distinction between the two.

"Gay marriages inevitably allow more fraud marriages"
Ok, valid. They would, of course, be the exception and not the rule. If nothing major is done about male and female fraud marriages, I don't see why homosexual fraud marraiges would raise a red flag.

"The point of marriages is only to have kids, which gay people cannot possibly do"
If I look at common marriage vows, I don't see any having to do with giving birth. I see a union of 2 people, through better or worse, richer or poor, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do they part. People get married to prove their comitment to the one they love. You ignore all the marriages where the parents cannot have kids, choose not to have kids, or have kids and divorce.

"Gays are immoral and deviant, I do not want the government to acknowledge or validate their lifestyle"
Circle logic. Plain and simple. You just said, I do not want society to accept gays because society does not accept gays.

"There needs to be a dinstinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages because they are different"
There is no destinction between hetero marriages and gay marriages. There is a distinction between hetero sex and gay sex, but that does not pass onto the actual act of marriage which would differ in no way for homosexuals.

?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

"Homosexual marriages remove discrimination thus allowing marriages with anything to exist"

I am interested whether it is possible to address all responses on an issue and come to a complete answer. This seemed to be a good subject to toy with. Although, if I get beat into the ground, you may never see me again in P&N :).
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,489
6,413
126
What about the fact that it leads to sex with ducks or thousands of wives? Those are very important points you left out. I mean that will only lead to thousands of duck wives and you know where that will lead.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What about the fact that it leads to sex with ducks or thousands of wives? Those are very important points you left out. I mean that will only lead to thousands of duck wives and you know where that will lead.

You've got a problem with man-duck relationships?
I've been with my duck for almost 13 years. All I want is the same rights human-human couples have.
It's sad, in this day and age, that people don't yet accept man on duck sex.
My duck may not say it, or anything for that matter, but my duck is really hurting on the inside.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
you haven't addressed increased fraud.

Explain, is this a problem caused by gay people or by the simple increase in marriages? If the latter then I don't see how it is an issue, unless we have some sort of marriage quota that we can't go beyond.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
I like these answers. Do you have answers to illogicial reasons against Gay Marriage that I can use?
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What about the fact that it leads to sex with ducks or thousands of wives? Those are very important points you left out. I mean that will only lead to thousands of duck wives and you know where that will lead.

For the last time, equal protection does not extend to wild waterfowl, only to domestic livestock...

Begining to suspect no one takes me seriously here:|
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

we, as a society, have a right to create laws based on our moral views.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

we, as a society, have a right to create laws based on our moral views.

Then, it order to preserve the "convenant of marriage", we must outlaw divorce too.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

we, as a society, have a right to create laws based on our moral views.

You have a right to, but why do you want to? Do you want to? Where do you think this is going to get you? A place in heaven?
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

we, as a society, have a right to create laws based on our moral views.

What does denying the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law actually deny?
 

AlricTheMad

Member
Jun 25, 2001
125
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

we, as a society, have a right to create laws based on our moral views.

Actually that was quite well stated. Don't think I have heard it put that way before.

:beer:

I don't agree with limiting marriage to one man one woman.
I have hard time with the use of 'moral' in connection with values in most conversations that seem to indicate 'Christian' values.
I hold that I am a moral person with values. They don't agree in all places with Christian teachings, however that makes mine no better or worse than any other.

Do as you will, Harm none

Pat
 

assemblage

Senior member
May 21, 2003
508
0
0
One reason to disallow same sex/homosexual marriages is because it invalidates marriage. It can be seen in the discrimation argument. To allow same sex marriages on the argument that restricting marriage to male and female partners is discriminatory invalidates marriage. If it's discriminatory to restrict to male/female, then it's also discrimatory to restrict to male/female, male/male, and female/female. It would be discriminatory to say the relationships must be sexual in nature. So I should be able to marry my brother if I wanted. It would be discriminatory to limit the number of spouses I could have. I should be able to marry a group of people if I wanted. If that's the case, then there is no purpose of recognizing marriage.

Men and women coming together in a union, bearing and raising children is the purpose of marriage. It's about family. Families with mothers and fathers are best for raising children. Allowing same sex marriage says that men and women are interchangeable as moms and dads. It says men as fathers and women as mothers contribute nothing unique to a child rearing. While homosexual couples and single parents can raise children, it isn't best for the children. It may be better than abandoment, but a man cannot be a child's mother.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
If 'marriage' is so bloody sacred why do 50% end in divorce?
A real Christian should tough it out?
And a man/Duck relationship would be prefferred over traditiona marriage cause you could say have several relationships 'till death do you part' since their life expectancy is so poor.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: skace
Topic Title: Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

No, you left out that they are not human adn therefore cannot be treated equally.

They must be discrimninated against just as the Blacks were not considered human and were discriminated against.,
 

assemblage

Senior member
May 21, 2003
508
0
0
Originally posted by: desy
If 'marriage' is so bloody sacred why do 50% end in divorce?
A real Christian should tough it out?
And a man/Duck relationship would be prefferred over traditiona marriage cause you could say have several relationships 'till death do you part' since their life expectancy is so poor.
Red herring. There are opinions that can answer your questions, but I don't know what your questions has to do with same sex marriages. Are you saying that divorce devalues marriage? Are you saying that marriage doesn't really mean anything since 50% end in divorce, so arguing about same sex marriages is pointless?

 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
Thats what I'm getting at. .
Marriage is far more disgraced by the 'normal' people involved.
If marriage purpose is to raise children then divorce should be illegal, unless abuse is involved, to parent the children.
Gay marriage makes no more a mockery of marriage than what modern society already has.
Far less so IMO
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,489
6,413
126
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?

we, as a society, have a right to create laws based on our moral views.

There's LordBigotKain with his discredited irrational moral views argument again. Try to understand that you live in a Constitutional Republic and your moral views are so much garbage when the conflict with the Constitution. Your argument is based on nothing but the premise that being gay is evil and your opinion as to the correctness of that comes from nowhere but your religious brainwashing. You, sir, are a bigot pretending to have a rational view but there is nothing in it that does not rest of the false irrational feeling that being gay is somehow bad. It is you who have the evil moral values are because they are irrational. All gays want to form a loving commitment just like straights do and your filthy mind comes up with the risks of anal sex and STD's.
 

assemblage

Senior member
May 21, 2003
508
0
0
No fault divorce is a problem that weakens marriage and family. The problem doesn't justify creating another problem with same sex marriages that further weakens marriage and family.
 

Gen Stonewall

Senior member
Aug 8, 2001
629
0
0
Originally posted by: assemblage
One reason to disallow same sex/homosexual marriages is because it invalidates marriage. It can be seen in the discrimation argument. To allow same sex marriages on the argument that restricting marriage to male and female partners is discriminatory invalidates marriage. If it's discriminatory to restrict to male/female, then it's also discrimatory to restrict to male/female, male/male, and female/female. It would be discriminatory to say the relationships must be sexual in nature. So I should be able to marry my brother if I wanted. It would be discriminatory to limit the number of spouses I could have. I should be able to marry a group of people if I wanted. If that's the case, then there is no purpose of recognizing marriage.

Men and women coming together in a union, bearing and raising children is the purpose of marriage. It's about family. Families with mothers and fathers are best for raising children. Allowing same sex marriage says that men and women are interchangeable as moms and dads. It says men as fathers and women as mothers contribute nothing unique to a child rearing. While homosexual couples and single parents can raise children, it isn't best for the children. It may be better than abandoment, but a man cannot be a child's mother.

That seems true.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,365
8,475
126
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: ElFenix
you haven't addressed increased fraud.

Explain, is this a problem caused by gay people or by the simple increase in marriages? If the latter then I don't see how it is an issue, unless we have some sort of marriage quota that we can't go beyond.

not gay people, not increased number of marriages (really) just an increase in the chance that me and my roommate have a sham marriage so i can get dental.