• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What exactly is the argument against Gay Marriage?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Rayden
"Marriage" is defined as a union between a man and women before God.

Let two people get together and have all the same legal rights, but don't call it marriage.
Click to expand...

Nah, just pull the tax exempt status of any church that won't marry Gays.
Click to expand...

Afterall, it is about God, not money. I'm sure they won't have a problem with losing their tax exempt status as long as they stay true to God's word.

But I also believe that if they want to use that one part of the old testament where it seemingly speaks of homosexuality, they should use every part of the old testament.
 
misconception: the catholic church hates gays, does not support them, believes it is a sin to be gay.

it is a sin to have pre-marrital sex, whether straight or gay.
a man cannot marry a man, therefore, gays can never have sex.

the catholic church supports gays, has support groups for them, and loves them just as much as anyone else. they just have a burden to carry like anyone else.

marriage was institued by God to join a man and woman in love and simultaneously for procreation. one is not independent of the other.

/end religious rant. more at http://www.ewtn.com

personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
 
Originally posted by: misterj
misconception: the catholic church hates gays, does not support them, believes it is a sin to be gay.

it is a sin to have pre-marrital sex, whether straight or gay.
a man cannot marry a man, therefore, gays can never have sex.

the catholic church supports gays, has support groups for them, and loves them just as much as anyone else. they just have a burden to carry like anyone else.

marriage was institued by God to join a man and woman in love and simultaneously for procreation. one is not independent of the other.

/end religious rant. more at http://www.ewtn.com

personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
Click to expand...

Then let men marry men and women marry women. What is the problem?
Does it say in the bible "Men cannot marry men" or "Women cannot marry women?"
 
Originally posted by: misterj
misconception: the catholic church hates gays, does not support them, believes it is a sin to be gay.

it is a sin to have pre-marrital sex, whether straight or gay.
a man cannot marry a man, therefore, gays can never have sex.

the catholic church supports gays, has support groups for them, and loves them just as much as anyone else. they just have a burden to carry like anyone else.

marriage was institued by God to join a man and woman in love and simultaneously for procreation. one is not independent of the other.

/end religious rant. more at http://www.ewtn.com

personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
Click to expand...

Seperation of Church and State; what a novel idea. :beer:
 
Gravity is a theory and it's just a pity Christian fundamentalists don't find it contested in the Bible. Then we could get them to walk off the tops of tall buildings as a test of faith. -- dmcowen674
Click to expand...

LOL, I jsut saw that in a sig, classic.
 
Originally posted by: misterj
personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
Click to expand...

God told me last night he's gay about gay marriage.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: misterj
personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
Click to expand...

God told me last night he's gay about gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You heard it first right here people. God is gay about gay marriage. Quick Tab, write it down in a book. That makes it real.
 
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: misterj
personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
Click to expand...

God told me last night he's gay about gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You heard it first right here people. God is gay about gay marriage. Quick Tab, write it down in a book. That makes it real.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to add that God is an evil pink flaming homosexsual flamingo who calls himself Riprorin. 😀
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: misterj
personally, i think for financial reasons, go ahead and have it allowed by the state. have your certificate and political advantages. just don't expect for it to be approved by God or the church, and continue to follow the church laws.
Click to expand...

God told me last night he's gay about gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You heard it first right here people. God is gay about gay marriage. Quick Tab, write it down in a book. That makes it real.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to add that God is an evil pink flaming homosexsual flamingo who calls himself Riprorin. 😀
Click to expand...

if anyone has rips email they should send him a link to this thread 😛
 
Originally posted by: silentlamb
Marriage between a man and a woman is legally recognized because it has the ability to produce children in general, which is directly aligned with the common good. Procreation is the only way to ensure the survival of a society. Thus, it makes sense that the institution (marriage between a man and a woman) becomes legally recognized and by direct consequence encouraged by the government. Why should an institution that could never provide a similar benefit to society be legally recognized and or given benefits when it could never provide for the common good in this manner?
Click to expand...

Government does not need to encourage procreation, it will happen even without the states clever plans to keep the species viable. Today we actually need to consider discouraging procreation. Overpopulation is a serious issue in most of the world, and will be here in America soon. When looked at this way the state should actually discourage strait marriage, and encourage same-sex marriage.

Originally posted by: silentlamb
I have no problem with same-sex couples doing whatever they want, but I think we are looking at this argument from the wrong perspective. We should be asking why should same sex couples get legal recognition? It has to be something that the majority of the people determine is for the common good since we live in a democracy. This is not a why not question (why not give them legal recognition), it is a why(why give them legal recognition) question. Starting from a 'why not' perspective does not make sense in arguing for a legal issue. Imagine how many why not scenarios you can think of. If you do not have a solid reason that serves the common good this institution does not hold up in the legal landscape.
Click to expand...

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. We follow the democratic form of electing our representatives, but they are then expected to do what is best for the people, not what is the most popular. The Constitution is what gives a same-sex couple the same rights as any other couple, the state should not make laws that limit a person's freedom unless the state was specifically given the right to do so by The Constitution. Since the power to enforce or define marriage is not specifically given by The Consitution, our representives needs to ask why should the government be given this power. A free nation starts with the assumption that you are free to do a thing. A free nation does not hand out freedoms, the freedoms belong to the people, the state must take them away on occasion, but should do so only for great a cause.

Personally I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. I can find no reason for a couple to need the state to sanction their union. I do not need the state to tell me who I can, or can not marry. I do not want to pay a tax to prove my love. I should not need a licence to devote my life to that special someone. My love life does not harm anyone else, therefore it should not be a concern of the state. We need to remove all tax codes and laws aimed at marriage, they simply are not a part of what the state should be doing.

BTW- just for clarity my use of the word 'state' refers to the government, be it local, state, or national, and The Consitution refers to The Consitution of the United States of America, but only because I can not claim to know the workings of every state's and city's government.
 
I am not oppose to same sex marriage as long as they are not religious. And if the said religion has a definition of the marriage to be exclusively to be between men and women.

I think this is where this whole thing is getting out of control.

Religions are the keeper of traditions and values and, because of that, it is not a good idea to change them. So from a catholic religious stand point I do not agree to same sex marriage.

BUT, from a legal stanpoint, I do not understand why you would not agree with the concept.

ALSO, I believe that for pro-creation, a man AND a woman are needed. So we are left with 2 choices :

1-Prevent same sex marriage
2-Educate every single american so he is aware of HOW to correctly educate his own child.

In conclusion, I would say that I would be ready right now to legalize (all around the world) the same sex marriage as a civil official status, but I would recommend that if these people wants to have children, they would need to prove that they understand what they are doing.
 
Originally posted by: Sword
I am not oppose to same sex marriage as long as they are not religious. And if the said religion has a definition of the marriage to be exclusively to be between men and women.

I think this is where this whole thing is getting out of control.

Religions are the keeper of traditions and values and, because of that, it is not a good idea to change them. So from a catholic religious stand point I do not agree to same sex marriage.

BUT, from a legal stanpoint, I do not understand why you would not agree with the concept.

ALSO, I believe that for pro-creation, a man AND a woman are needed. So we are left with 2 choices :

1-Prevent same sex marriage
2-Educate every single american so he is aware of HOW to correctly educate his own child.

In conclusion, I would say that I would be ready right now to legalize (all around the world) the same sex marriage as a civil official status, but I would recommend that if these people wants to have children, they would need to prove that they understand what they are doing.
Click to expand...
Actually, creating children requires only a woman and a sperm donor.
 
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Government does not need to encourage procreation, it will happen even without the states clever plans to keep the species viable. Today we actually need to consider discouraging procreation. Overpopulation is a serious issue in most of the world, and will be here in America soon. When looked at this way the state should actually discourage strait marriage, and encourage same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

You're actually wrong about the population problem. In China and India, yes. In Europe they are acutally descreasing in population in many countries (Italy, Spain, and Sweden come to mind).

The US would actually be decreasing in population as well if it wasn't for immigrants.
 
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Government does not need to encourage procreation, it will happen even without the states clever plans to keep the species viable. Today we actually need to consider discouraging procreation. Overpopulation is a serious issue in most of the world, and will be here in America soon. When looked at this way the state should actually discourage strait marriage, and encourage same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

You're actually wrong about the population problem. In China and India, yes. In Europe they are acutally descreasing in population in many countries (Italy, Spain, and Sweden come to mind).

The US would actually be decreasing in population as well if it wasn't for immigrants.
Click to expand...


Soon Japan, China, and many European countries will start to see the side effects of the lack of procreation. The senior citizens are taking up more and more of the population percentage which means there are less young workers taking their spots as they retire which leads to a declining economy. If you really study the 'overpopulation' problem you will discover there is no problem. The actual problem plaguing most industrialized countries today is not enough reproduction. That is why some countries have started investigating ways to give couples benefits for having more children.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: silentlamb
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: silentlambEdited: 08/09/2005 at 02:12 PM by God
Click to expand...

Uh-Oh 😉
Click to expand...

haha, God knows
Click to expand...

So you have you change your mind on the gay marriage issuse? Let's seem some agrueements. 😉
Click to expand...


No change of mind yet, but I am understanding more and more the other sides arguments. I will try to respond to one or two of the posts tonight.
 
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Government does not need to encourage procreation, it will happen even without the states clever plans to keep the species viable. Today we actually need to consider discouraging procreation. Overpopulation is a serious issue in most of the world, and will be here in America soon. When looked at this way the state should actually discourage strait marriage, and encourage same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

You're actually wrong about the population problem. In China and India, yes. In Europe they are acutally descreasing in population in many countries (Italy, Spain, and Sweden come to mind).

The US would actually be decreasing in population as well if it wasn't for immigrants.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not population growth is an issue in America, that issue is clearly irrelevant to the issue of straight vs same-sex marriage. If the government wishes to encourage the production of children, all it has to do is simply provide benefits to people who successfully reproduce. In fact, if the claim is being made that the government hands out marriage benefits to encourage reproduction, that's a horribly inefficient technique, since large numbers of married, heterosexual couples don't or can't reproduce. Why give out benefits and get nothing in return?

It would be much more efficient to hand out "reproductive benefits" only to those who actually produce children, don't you think? And consider this: Extending marital benefits to same-sex couples would in no way REDUCE whatever incentives exist for reproduction by heterosexual couples, so the argument that restricting the right to marry to heterosexual couples is necessary to encourage procreation is completely specious.

In fact, ANY argument that restricting marriage to one man/one woman is necessary to encourage XYZ suffers from this same flaw, since allowing same-sex marriages in no way discourages heterosexual marriages.

If you are currently a spouse in a "traditional" marriage, ask youself the question: In what way would the existence of same-sex marriages undermine you own marriage? And if you are not currently married, but are heterosexual, then how would the existence of same-sex marriages reduce your desire to marry or make marriage less attractive to you? I seriously doubt you can cite any specific "damage". Which begs the question: With all this talk about "defense of marriage", what exactly is marriage being defended against?

Frankly, I've NEVER heard a convincing argument against same-sex marriage.
 
What is Gay Marriage?

Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman. By the definition of marriage, gays can not be married.

A man and a man or a woman and a woman may possibly have some kind of union, but it would not really be marriage. I dont see why there cant be some kind of a legally recognized civil union. Marriage can be both a Civil Agreement and a religious affair.

Maybe a term we used in the Army for Common Law Marriage: Interlocutory.
 

Just to clarify one point. I now know that we are a constitutional democracy/republic and not just a democracy and what that means. I knew we had a constitution that exists to protect the rights of everyone. It protects minorities from majorities and majorities from themselves. However, I apologize because I did not use the proper terminology in my previous posts. I will also clarify that if I thought discrimination or the violation of rights was taking place I would not have my current opinion.

I still stand by the argument that I do not think that marriage is a right in the sense that we are talking about it. I think we are confusing two different ideas here. Marriage within the legal landscape and marriage within the religious and or human perspective. We have the right to marriage in the religious and or human perspective, but we do not have the right to marriage in the legal/government perspective. From here on I will call marriage within the human perspective marriage, and marriage within the legal/government perspective legal status.

By not giving legal status to two people the government is not infringing on any rights is it? There is no freedom to get the government do give you a such a privilege. There has to be a reason for the government to grant such a privilege. The argument that it is our right to get legal status does not hold, just as it is not your right for the government to recognize and give legal status to your friendships.

I do not think the argument that it is discrimination between homosexual couples vs. heterosexual couples holds either. Discrimination is unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice according to dictionary.com. The discrimination argument would claim that a person as a homosexual is being discriminated. Let me try to explain. Lets say we have person A(male), person B(male), person C(female). In scenario one, person A is heterosexual. Person A wishes to obtain legal status between himself and person B, he cannot obtain legal status because they have the same gender, but he can obtain legal status between himself and person C. In scenario two, person A is homosexual. Person A wishes to obtain legal status between himself and person B, he cannot obtain legal status because they have the same gender, but he can obtain legal status between himself and person C. In these two scenarios the only variable that changed is the sexual orientation of person A, which is the factor that is the apparent cause of discrimination. However, under the law, these two groups are treated exactly the same, thus there is no discrimination. If there is discrimination then it is discrimination for everyone equally which means there is no unfair treatment because all are treated the same.

So if we have established that there is no right to legal status, and the government does not discriminate by only offering this privilege to couples of the opposite gender then the argument changes completely. One cannot argue that same-sex couples should have the legal status because heterosexual couples do. Instead one must argue either that heterosexual should not have access to the legal status because of X. Or that same sex couples should have access to the legal status because of Y. X and Y need to be defined. Since X and Y do not include a violation of rights or discrimination, logically X and Y have to do with what is best for the common good. Therefore the most appropriate way in our current constitutional democracy for this be decided and change is by decision of our elected representatives.
 
Originally posted by: Amplifier
Just for kicks (and because I like to argue), someone here give me a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

To save time I'll take out the cliches.

-Marriage is a sacred bond! That ends up in divorce 60% of the time
-Gay couples should not be allowed the same legal rights as a man/woman! Very few marriage laws can't be duplicated in wills or corporations right now.
-It's not natural! Neither is sex for any purpose besides procreation
-Marriage is about making a family! That is saying sterile men/women shouldn't be allowed to marry.
-What are we going to do next, have sheep and people married? When sheep can form a legal corporation, then sure.

So there have at it.

-Amp

p.s. And for reference, I'm not gay.
Click to expand...

Who cares. If homos wanna marry each other, let 'em go right ahead. Just means more evil, psychotic, neurotic, double-dealing, don't-know-what-they-want, never get enough to be happy, never say what they mean, suck the living soul from my body, women for me. Thanks for thinning the herd. Now I can finally find a nice girl and be miserable for the rest of my sad heterosexual life.

If only they knew what they were asking...they'd go back to nameless hand-jobs in the bathroom at the local manhole.

 
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Amplifier
Just for kicks (and because I like to argue), someone here give me a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

To save time I'll take out the cliches.

-Marriage is a sacred bond! That ends up in divorce 60% of the time
-Gay couples should not be allowed the same legal rights as a man/woman! Very few marriage laws can't be duplicated in wills or corporations right now.
-It's not natural! Neither is sex for any purpose besides procreation
-Marriage is about making a family! That is saying sterile men/women shouldn't be allowed to marry.
-What are we going to do next, have sheep and people married? When sheep can form a legal corporation, then sure.

So there have at it.

-Amp

p.s. And for reference, I'm not gay.
Click to expand...

Who cares. If homos wanna marry each other, let 'em go right ahead. Just means more evil, psychotic, neurotic, double-dealing, don't-know-what-they-want, never get enough to be happy, never say what they mean, suck the living soul from my body, women for me. Thanks for thinning the herd. Now I can finally find a nice girl and be miserable for the rest of my sad heterosexual life.

If only they knew what they were asking...they'd go back to nameless hand-jobs in the bathroom at the local manhole.
Click to expand...

Thats right they can suck the.......... 😉

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top