Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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.

MB, the whole homosexual marriage movement is characterized by the homosexual lobby trying to put their concept of morality upon everyone. When something is labeled as a civil rights movement, it inevitably becomes a moral crusade. So I see that you value the morality of the homosexual lobby over the morality of those who follow Judeo-Christian traditions. By what basis do you do this? How have you determined that increasing freedoms is necessarily better than keeping some of them restricted?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Several good answer, none of which you selected, have already been given in the countless threads about this before. I see you took the coward's way to self-righteousness by aguing against a strawman rather than actually wanting a fair debate on the issue.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Several good answer, none of which you selected, have already been given in the countless threads about this before. I see you took the coward's way to self-righteousness by aguing against a strawman rather than actually wanting a fair debate on the issue.

Who are you talking about?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: skace
?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.

I've never heard this specific argument...

?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.[q/]

The only reason to change the definition in this instance is to advance an immoral agenda, not reach a more clear understanding of the term "marriage"

?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)

I've never heard this argument either [or I have just never seen it phrased the way you have phrased it] so i'm not really sure what to say in this instance...

?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.

Thats precisely what we who oppose gay marriage dont want, for them to have government approval [or validation] of their lifestyle. We who oppose gay marriage dont feel that a deviant lifestyle has any need to be validated by the government. If they want to express their love and commitment to each other, then they shouldnt have affairs or cheat on their partner.

?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.

There needs to be a necessary distinction made between hetero marriage and gay "marriage" being that they are fundementally different. They arent equal nor the same and never, ever will be.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Several good answer, none of which you selected, have already been given in the countless threads about this before. I see you took the coward's way to self-righteousness by aguing against a strawman rather than actually wanting a fair debate on the issue.

Who are you talking about?

He is posting to skace

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Several good answer, none of which you selected, have already been given in the countless threads about this before. I see you took the coward's way to self-righteousness by aguing against a strawman rather than actually wanting a fair debate on the issue.

Case closed then. I'm getting irritated with these endless, circular discussions. 😛

 

[marcello]

OP - You should add the "Gay people shouldn't be married because the point of marriage is to have kids" reason. The debunking of that is:
1) I know many couples that are married, don't have kids, and never will. So......if anyone needs an explanation of that, they are dumb (don't worry, I think you're dumb anyways if you're against gay marriage)
2) The people who make this stupid argument should support a law that requires all married couples to have kids (unless they can't)

Of course they wouldn't support the second one, they only inconvience people who are different than they are.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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.

How is that any different than a man and woman who are friends doing the same thing? You're basically segregating straight people and gay people with that type of thinking.

 

[ajf3]

How about this one?

Leading a homsexual lifestyle is wrong and offensive. Allowing gay marriage would validate that type of aberrant behavior.

I think the pendulum has swung as far to the left as it's going to on the gay issues... Not long before it's relegated to road-side truck stops again.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam, take it from me, sex with ducks ain't all it's quacked up to be. That's why the Marquis de Sade preferred chickens.

-Robert

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Ha. Quacked up.🙂

 

[EXman]

Gay people CAN get married. They choose not to by living their lifestyle. 😉

 

[skace]

Just got back, let me update original post 🙂

PS. Hero, I did not see a single thread willing to address all reasons as a running list in any attempt to find the unsolvable. I only see people asking why and then the thread degrading into nothing useful.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: marcello

How is that any different than a man and woman who are friends doing the same thing? You're basically segregating straight people and gay people with that type of thinking.

it's not, but there is more risk.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello
OP - You should add the "Gay people shouldn't be married because the point of marriage is to have kids" reason. The debunking of that is:
1) I know many couples that are married, don't have kids, and never will. So......if anyone needs an explanation of that, they are dumb (don't worry, I think you're dumb anyways if you're against gay marriage)
2) The people who make this stupid argument should support a law that requires all married couples to have kids (unless they can't)

Most married couples have either had children or will have children. Just because you know of many childless couples doesn't change that marriage is about children and family and has been for a very long time.

 

[marcello]

Genesys - Wow, bigotry at it's finest. How is homosexuality deviant? All species of animals have homosexuality inherent in their social structure. If it happens in nature.........it's natural. Just because someone is different that you, doesn't mean they're wrong.

The Liberal's only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of mis-educated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college classroom. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance.

History? You want to use history as an argument for why liberals are wrong? History is written by the victors and skewed in their perspective. Despite their name, most history books are not very historical. It's called irony. If you want an example of a book that people take too literally, but has been changed and edited from it's original intent, just check out the bible.

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
OP - You should add the "Gay people shouldn't be married because the point of marriage is to have kids" reason. The debunking of that is:
1) I know many couples that are married, don't have kids, and never will. So......if anyone needs an explanation of that, they are dumb (don't worry, I think you're dumb anyways if you're against gay marriage)
2) The people who make this stupid argument should support a law that requires all married couples to have kids (unless they can't)

Most married couples have either had children or will have children. Just because you know of many childless couples doesn't change that marriage is about children and family and has been for a very long time.

If it's about family then shouldn't their be laws requiring people who get married to have children (if they can)? Or is it only ok for straight people to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage"?

 

[Tab]

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.

Show me several scientific studies that have shown that kids in homosexsual families turn out worse than hetrosexsual familes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: marcello

How is that any different than a man and woman who are friends doing the same thing? You're basically segregating straight people and gay people with that type of thinking.

it's not, but there is more risk.

Why, because you only room with guys? Nobody is worried about the other abuse. Why should we worry about this. I would say the risk is vastly greater the other way. I can just see most guys marrying another guy for a tax break. Riiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello
How is homosexuality deviant? All species of animals have homosexuality inherent in their social structure. If it happens in nature.........it's natural.

And normal and acceptable? Such as infanticide? Pregnant 13 yo's? And we are mere animals?

Originally posted by: marcello
Despite their name, most history books are not very historical.

You don't need a history book to see that marriage & family has always been about male and females.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam, take it from me, sex with ducks ain't all it's quacked up to be. That's why the Marquis de Sade preferred chickens.

-Robert

Could you shut your big trap about chickens. I don't want the word getting out. Puk puk paGUCK

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: marcello

How is that any different than a man and woman who are friends doing the same thing? You're basically segregating straight people and gay people with that type of thinking.

it's not, but there is more risk.

Why, because you only room with guys? Nobody is worried about the other abuse. Why should we worry about this. I would say the risk is vastly greater the other way. I can just see most guys marrying another guy for a tax break. Riiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!

True, so many guys are so homo-phobic that it would be tough to get two who would do it. Not to bring in a dumb whore, but Britney Spears got married and divorced in a few hours, right? There was a little uproar over it, but nothing that big. So two people who love each other and will stay together their whole lives, hypothetically, are more dangerous to the sanctity of marriage than a dumb whore who is trying to sell some CD's? I don't get it

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
How is homosexuality deviant? All species of animals have homosexuality inherent in their social structure. If it happens in nature.........it's natural.

And normal and acceptable? Such as infanticide? Pregnant 13 yo's? And we are mere animals?

Originally posted by: marcello
Despite their name, most history books are not very historical.

You don't need a history book to see that marriage & family has always been about male and females.

So F%^#ing what? Up to a few years ago slavery was accepted all over the world. We have a tradition based on bigotry and bigotry is contrary to the notion that all people are created equal. A god damned parrot would be better suited to repeat your hackneyed

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
How is homosexuality deviant? All species of animals have homosexuality inherent in their social structure. If it happens in nature.........it's natural.

And normal and acceptable? Such as infanticide? Pregnant 13 yo's? And we are mere animals?

Originally posted by: marcello
Despite their name, most history books are not very historical.

You don't need a history book to see that marriage & family has always been about male and females.

To the first point: you're comparing hurting people to consensual partnership. Very different. Also, I don't quite understand the 13 yo reference. Either way, human society used to have girls pregnant at that age. That part of society has changed, partly because our lifespan is longer, partly because we realize a 13 yo is not ready to be a parent, partly because women are allowed to be independent now, and for other reasons too.

To the second point: That's only because it hasn't been allowed. If it was allowed and accepted it would be a different story. Change and progress are important aspects of a society. I don't think we would last a day in the world 2000 years ago because it's so different, but that's a good thing.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
My duck may not say it, or anything for that matter, but my duck is really hurting on the inside.

You need to stop with the penis-enlarging pills. Think of the ducks!!

 

[judasmachine]

I simply fail to see why this is an issue. If I as a male like pink bed sheets, does that make me anyless a person that has feelings, needs, and wants? I say don't let the federal government or the state government decide this one, let's let individuals decide for the themselves.