Is There Actually A Reason As To Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal?

Sharon den Adel · 04-28-2008, 02:18 AM

I don't think there is, myself.

Religion, for one, cannot be used in a defence against gay marriage. Not everyone is religious, as those who are do not necessarily believe the same things you do. YOUR religion may be against gay marriage, but it doesn't mean that everyone elses religion will be, too.
Religion, I have noticed, is often used as a defence against gay marriage. Often people will say 'Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible', like therefore I must think 'Oh, okay, therefore it must be wrong'. Believing in a God is a choice, and choosing which of Gods words you follow is also a choice, which is why we have Christians who are in support of gay marriage and abortion. They still believe, but they don't necessarily believe everything.

Another defense is 'Homosexuality is abnormal and immoral'. I ask you to define normal, and to define immoral. Everyone has their own ideas of morality/ Some people are against abortion because they believe it immoral, others support it because they don't see it as immoraal, more they see it acceptable. What is abnormal for some may not be abnormal to others, so this defense is useless as we all have different opinions on the issue, and there is no reason why we should be against something, or in support of something, just because someone believes it is right.

Another one is that gays cannot procreate, which is apparently what marriage is all about. So, what do we do? We ban all infertile couples from marrying, and we prevent those people who have no intention of starting a family from walking down the aisle in the first place. If gays can't procreate, why should we allow people who choose NOT to procreate to marry?

'Gays spread disease and do not practice safe sex' This is another defense I have heard. Just because people do not use protection does not mean they should be excluded from marriage. Heterosexuals often do not use protection - if they did, there wouldn't be so many abortions, would there? I'd imagine that gay men would be more likely to slap a condom on than the straight man, simply because gay men know the risks of unprotected anal sex. They are not stupid.

'Gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage' What sanctity? What is so special about heterosexual marriage? Nothing, if you ask me. Straight people have been destroying the sanctity of marriage for years now. Marrying and divorcing, bed hopping - straight people seem to forget what marriage actually means. Sometimes I think that straights only get married because they can. The so called sactity of marriage is not the issue, and anyone who claims it is should remember that almost 50% of straight marriages end in divorce. That certainly makes straight marriage special, doesn't it?

'Marriage is between a man and a woman' Says who? You? I say marriage should be between two consenting adults who love each other, be they man and woman, two men or two women. The definition of marriage can be changed anytime. The law may say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but why do anti gay marriage people believe that? Because the law says so?
The law also says that a fetus is not a person, and that abortion is not murder, but pro lifers don't defend the law here, do they? No, according to them, abortion is murder and the law has it wrong. But hey, if the law says marriage is between one man and one woman, well, they'll believe that, won't they?

These are only some of the arguements against gay marriage I have been presented with, and not one holds any weight whatsoever.
Religion is not a basis for deciding who can marry, and who cannot. My country is not governed by religion, and neithor is the US. Just because a bunch of religious folk happen to think gay marriage is immoral doesn't mean the rest of us have to think that way.
There is simply no LEGAL reason as to why gays should not marry. Not one at all. Immorality means nothing. Many things are legal which people consider to be immoral. Unnatural means nothing, as many people do things which are considered unnatural by other people. There is no argument against this, and it's about time people started to realise that they just don't have a case against this.

fxashun · 04-28-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon den Adel

I don't think there is, myself.

Religion, for one, cannot be used in a defence against gay marriage. Not everyone is religious, as those who are do not necessarily believe the same things you do. YOUR religion may be against gay marriage, but it doesn't mean that everyone elses religion will be, too.
Religion, I have noticed, is often used as a defence against gay marriage. Often people will say 'Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible', like therefore I must think 'Oh, okay, therefore it must be wrong'. Believing in a God is a choice, and choosing which of Gods words you follow is also a choice, which is why we have Christians who are in support of gay marriage and abortion. They still believe, but they don't necessarily believe everything.

I don't argue religion. But for someone to ignore the obvious anti sodomy leanings in the bible makes me question that "version" of the faith that they worship.

Quote:

Another defense is 'Homosexuality is abnormal and immoral'. I ask you to define normal, and to define immoral. Everyone has their own ideas of morality/ Some people are against abortion because they believe it immoral, others support it because they don't see it as immoraal, more they see it acceptable. What is abnormal for some may not be abnormal to others, so this defense is useless as we all have different opinions on the issue, and there is no reason why we should be against something, or in support of something, just because someone believes it is right.

Quote:

Another one is that gays cannot procreate, which is apparently what marriage is all about. So, what do we do? We ban all infertile couples from marrying, and we prevent those people who have no intention of starting a family from walking down the aisle in the first place. If gays can't procreate, why should we allow people who choose NOT to procreate to marry?

I'll stick with the "normal" part of it since I am not a authority of morality.
But "normal" has nothing to do with population of something or anything like that. I look at humans as having 2 arms and 2 legs one head. Any human that deviates from that is abnormal. There is no amount of BS you can spew that will convince me otherwise. I think that humans, in their evolution on this planet, have evolved certain systems, organs, and most importantly genders. And among the 2 genders, there are distinct differences between the two, meticulously evolved to compliment each other. With homosexuality, we have human beings that exhibit a behavior to opposes those, much the same as having 3 arms or 1 leg. Sure a person with 3 arms can survive and live "just like anyone else". But that's still abnormal for a human. That 3 armed person should not all of a sudden have the "right" to force all shirt manufacturers to sew shirts that have 3 arms when we know humans only have 2.
Just as a we have no problem castigating pedophiles and zoophiles out of hand, I'll be damned if I'm gonna buy the bullshit that homosexuals are somehow normal but theother deviant folk aren't. Without using "consent" there is very little difference between the urges. While "man and woman"/"male and female" is nearly universal among living creatures on this planet.
We should not consider homosexuality under the same legal term or even social term as heterosexuality.

Quote:

'Gays spread disease and do not practice safe sex' This is another defense I have heard. Just because people do not use protection does not mean they should be excluded from marriage. Heterosexuals often do not use protection - if they did, there wouldn't be so many abortions, would there? I'd imagine that gay men would be more likely to slap a condom on than the straight man, simply because gay men know the risks of unprotected anal sex. They are not stupid.

Not my argument.

Quote:

'Gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage' What sanctity? What is so special about heterosexual marriage? Nothing, if you ask me. Straight people have been destroying the sanctity of marriage for years now. Marrying and divorcing, bed hopping - straight people seem to forget what marriage actually means. Sometimes I think that straights only get married because they can. The so called sactity of marriage is not the issue, and anyone who claims it is should remember that almost 50% of straight marriages end in divorce. That certainly makes straight marriage special, doesn't it?

Marriage is a human construct. But the symbolism of one man one woman isn't. An individual human might get married for many reasons. But to those of us that take it seriously, there is a symbolic significance. "Straight people" aren't destroying the sanctity of marriage any more than "women" are destroying the significance of the ability to bear children with abortion. That's an ignorant argument. Humans are fallible and prone to defect. When you take any personal responsibility from something, and that has been done to both marriage AND pregnancy, you end up with abuse. "True" marriage is still special. And for the 50% of us that still hope for all we are that we never lose our spouse, "marriage" and the "man and woman" symbolism as it relates to it, is one of the last concrete biologically based, unchangeable aspects left. "Gay marriage" is no more than a aberration of humanity searching for acceptance.

Quote:

'Marriage is between a man and a woman' Says who? You? I say marriage should be between two consenting adults who love each other, be they man and woman, two men or two women. The definition of marriage can be changed anytime. The law may say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but why do anti gay marriage people believe that? Because the law says so?

The "law" can say anything we want it to. The law can change. The standard set by "man and woman" and what it symbolizes cannot. Two consenting adults is bullshit. That could be anyone. What is an adult? The age has been as low a 7.."under the law", but biologically it has ALWAYS been "man and women" in humans. Left to interpretation, "the law" can be anything.

Quote:

The law also says that a fetus is not a person, and that abortion is not murder, but pro lifers don't defend the law here, do they? No, according to them, abortion is murder and the law has it wrong. But hey, if the law says marriage is between one man and one woman, well, they'll believe that, won't they?

But feticide is illegal though in MANY states. That illustrates just how bullshit "the law" can be.

Quote:

These are only some of the arguements against gay marriage I have been presented with, and not one holds any weight whatsoever.

I disagree, I find many of the reasons irrefutable.

Quote:

Religion is not a basis for deciding who can marry, and who cannot. My country is not governed by religion, and neithor is the US. Just because a bunch of religious folk happen to think gay marriage is immoral doesn't mean the rest of us have to think that way.

Not only religious people feel that way.

Quote:

There is simply no LEGAL reason as to why gays should not marry. Not one at all. Immorality means nothing. Many things are legal which people consider to be immoral. Unnatural means nothing, as many people do things which are considered unnatural by other people. There is no argument against this, and it's about time people started to realise that they just don't have a case against this.

There is no natural reason for a human to "be" gay. Why should we change "marriage" to allow for recognition of an obvious human aberration to be considered legally under the same legal definition as heterosexuality? There is no "legal" reason why the age of consent keeps changing, if we are gonna base laws on "what people want", there's no "legal" reason for bans on polygamy, or zoophilia, prostitution, or gambling, etc. Obviously there is a bit more involved in what is "legal", and I hope we continue to separate the deviant from what we know has significance for humans and for that matter complex life forms.

tristanrobin · 04-28-2008, 09:17 AM

For the same reason there is no natural reason for a person to be an ignorant bigot.

But they're allowed to marry.

pensacola_niceman · 04-28-2008, 09:27 AM

The Good Reverend Fred Phelps is sternly against gay marriage. Isn't that reason enough not to allow it?

pensacola_niceman · 04-28-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

For the same reason there is no natural reason for a person to be an ignorant bigot.

But they're allowed to marry.

What if they're gay ignorant bigots?

fxashun · 04-28-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

For the same reason there is no natural reason for a person to be an ignorant bigot.

But they're allowed to marry.

As long as it's not same gender, nothing to keep the ignorant bigot from marrying. But then again, any man can marry any woman. That's equality for ya.

garysher · 04-28-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

For the same reason there is no natural reason for a person to be an ignorant bigot.

But they're allowed to marry.

No need to be so hard on yourself.

You need to work on that self-esteem.

waitingtables · 04-28-2008, 02:36 PM

People once thought it was deviant for women to have equal rights, and for blacks to be considered 100% human. Christianity has no place in limiting legal freedoms. I don't give a rat's ass what the bible says. We don't live in a theocratic state that forces beliefs into laws. As we evolve, we have a document that is what we based our government and laws on, and that evolves along with us. And so when we decide that 13 is to young to get legally married, it is voted on, and either rejected or passed into law. As I have stated before, I don't think that we will ever have a majority that will allow humans to marry their pets, or close family to wed, or for it to be okay that bigamy or polygamy are acceptable. But it is possible that we have evolved enough to recognise the rights of people to not be legally discriminated against based on their consensual relationship with another human. If a church does not wish to recognise that right, that is their prerogative. But the law is an entirely different matter. Under the law, barring gays from the right to legally marry one another is discrimination, as written in the Constitution.

garysher · 04-28-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

People once thought it was deviant for women to have equal rights, and for blacks to be considered 100% human. Christianity has no place in limiting legal freedoms. I don't give a rat's ass what the bible says. We don't live in a theocratic state that forces beliefs into laws. As we evolve, we have a document that is what we based our government and laws on, and that evolves along with us. And so when we decide that 13 is to young to get legally married, it is voted on, and either rejected or passed into law.

Americans reject the notion of legalising homosexual marriage every chance they get. No state ballot has ever approved homosexual marriage.

As I have stated before, I don't think that we will ever have a majority that will allow humans to marry their pets, or close family to wed, or for it to be okay that bigamy or polygamy are acceptable. But it is possible that we have evolved enough to recognise the rights of people to not be legally discriminated against based on their consensual relationship with another human. If a church does not wish to recognise that right, that is their prerogative. But the law is an entirely different matter. Under the law, barring gays from the right to legally marry one another is discrimination, as written in the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution state that homosexual "marriage" is a right?

waitingtables · 04-28-2008, 02:46 PM

It hasn't happened yet, Gary, but that is not going to remain the way forever. And the Constitution doesn't have to specifically mention gay marriage, the language about discrimination is clear, and the phrase, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is for all, not just the "moral majority." (Who have to go a long way before they are actually moral)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode