Arguments AGAINST gay marriage

For what it's worth, I know that there are several arguments for and against gay marriage and needless to say, legalizing this in all 50 states is what I would support. However, I do wish to know exactly what logical arguments there to be against gay marriage. I've already come up with the 2 main ones for it.

1. "It fits right along with the 14th Amendment." I can't be the only one who thinks that is the most important reason for this. See the clause of "Equal Protection Under the Law," that pretty much speaks for itself.

2. "It's not your business." The other big argument for gay marriage, because logically speaking what 2 men or women do in the privacy of their home, on their own time is none of anyone's business, although its clear lots of political officials and regular citizens disagree. However, there is no obligation for people who feel that gay marriage is wrong to live, be friends with, talk to or acknowledge homosexuals in their lives.

So....arguments against?

 

It is against Gods will..... Oh wait you said logical.... carry on sorries!

 

That was quick. LOL

 

Apart from the "god doesn't like it" argument which is the true motivation behind most people scrambling to assemble a cogent "secular" position, there really aren't any.

The closest anyone comes on here is that "marriage" is a kind of insurance policy against the "possibility" of procreation.

When asked about couples who are infertile and can't procreate, the proponents argue that "we can't tell by looking at them". Trouble is, we can. We know that octogenarians cannot procreate, we know that cousins are permitted to marry in certain states as long as they can prove they CAN'T procreate, we know that people with certain disabilities can never have kids naturally with each other but we still let them marry as long as they are male and female.

Look at any policy measure aimed against gays such as the Amendment One debacle currently taking place in North Carolina. 95% of those arguing for it are doing so on the "god doesn't like it" platform but, to a person, they would not represent their position as such in a court of law. That's why they keep coming up with these ridiculous talking points.

 

Marriage is a heterosexual institution, that`s all we need to know.

 

it hands over more control to the govt in a subject which they have no business being involved.

The govt is there for the individual in the USA and should focus on the individual. They should not be inviolved in any form of marriage.

It emboldens govt even more to keep going to them and creating little niche groups. For gay marriage we want a rule created for a group who engages in sex with same sex partners. Next, we'll have moms who want to wed their sons. Then we'll have uncles who want to wed their niece. All along the govt should not be involved at all. Make tax codes for the individual and everything else can already be handled via contract law.

If you want this thing called "marriage" then create a church, group or whatever and have at it.

If you want to legislate "acceptance" then this is not going to make that happen either

I'm for small govt and will oppose gay marriage, incest marriage, plumber marriage, engineer marriage etc etc

get out of our bedrooms mr and mrs govt.

 

Perhaps they should get out of the business of licensing marriages, but the legal institution (under whatever name) serves an important function in facilitating the union, in legal matters at least. Whether it's called marriage or not I don't really care, but I don't see why it should not.

 

If government has no business being involved in marriage, then a whole lot of laws will have to change. For example, then there would be no reason to need a marriage license, and any church that wanted could marry anyone they wanted. Which means some churches would marry gay people.

So if that's your argument against gay marriage, the "solution" would insure gay marriage. How logical is that?

That's not an argument against gay marriage, that's an argument against all marriage. Try again.

Ditto.

Don't want to legislate acceptance, want to legislate equality. You seem to recognize that current laws aren't equal, so I'm guessing you're actually on the right side of this.

It sounds from the above that you're against heterosexual marriage too.

 

good grief can I be any more clear

I'm against Govt having any role in marriage. If you want to jointly own an asset then sign the contract. If you want a person to have your belongings then make a will.

Marriage needs to be what it was intended, for 2 people to commit to each other. If you are a possum shooting, atv riding group then create your own style ceremony and say vows, do whatever you wish.

If you are more traditional and want to do it in the presence of a preacher then go for it. If churches around you won't perform the service then start your own parish.

But, I do not agree to the govt creating new groups or ruling for groups because they engage in same sex relations, or with someone directly related to them etc etc etc

you don't fix the "problem" by growing the govt. if we were all simply treated as individuals then this becomes a non issue with the exception of those who have the intent to try and legislate acceptance

 

honestly, they need to get out of more than that. Why should I be able to add a "spouse" to my medical insurance but couldn't add my sibling? If I pay for 2 people then what's the difference?

I think the govt likes the whole "gay marriage" topic because it's a nice diversion for them from being exposed to the real root issue which is too big and too powerful fed govt.

What never ceases to amaze me is why most homosexuals lean left politically when they should be conservatives or at least libertarians where both parties are for individual liberty vs big govt. United we stand, divided we fall, and if more people would unite and fight for smaller govt many issues which exist today would disappear as individual rights and liberties became the norm.

 

no same gender couples have done it what’s the reason to keep more from doing so?

 

excepting un fairness in what the government is doing because you don’t want them to be doing it at all doesn’t seem right and gay marriage is only up for so much debate because there’s nothing clearly wrong with it but people have a problem with it none the less we actually have good reason not to risk kids being manipulated by adults or family members by other family members

 

True, but not exclusively so (especially not in the 'legal' sense).

 

In a Country that espouses the separation of Church & State... it sure feels like the Church has a HUGE amount of influence on the State.

 

Marriage has a purpose within society. And its purpose isn't to equalize sexual attractions or levy rights to people.

 

Part of it is probably a matter of practical... we see it as more likely that the government will adapt in a more favorable manner sooner than it will shrink in scope. It's fun to talk about what's right, but we do have to deal with reality. This would be (unless I'm mistaken) the first country on earth that licences marriage, and then subsequently remove it from law. I doubt it will be stood for.


And another part sees it as a necessity. Would homosexuality have been decriminalized if it were not for the supreme court stepping in? Would integration have happened in southern schools among blacks and whites if the government had not stepped in? The idea that problems will just vanish and people will have equal opportunity is a fairy tale of the libertarian movement, if you ask me. But don't get me wrong, the government can do many MANY bad things in its own right. Finding a happy balance may be an eternal struggle.

 

What is/are these purpose(s), and how many of them must be satisfied in order to make one worthy of a marriage? Marriage may have a purpose, but the society that this marriage is a part of has changed, as have the legal and social constructs around it. Marriage can't just have a purpose... in fulfilling that purpose, its effect must be both narrow and sufficient. And this question of narrowness and sufficiency is relative to the current and historical changes in society that impact it.

 

if any 2 people can be legally recognized by the federal government as "married" then a man with 7 sister wives marries the first, has the other 6 marry each other and now they get 4 times the food stamps

only partially joking here because you know this will happen.

my stance is that government needs to stop licensing it altogether and let the people do whatever they want in their churches / synagogues / online social forums etc.

 

double post X(

 

But if your going to add rights to it and make it a legal thing then you have to give people equal rights when it comes to it

 

sadly there is truth in the post because the govt is very good at incrementally taking away our freedoms.

 

Well liberty takes precedence over almost everything. Gay marriage should be legalized due to liberty and freedom. I personally dislike gays, but why the hell does my opinion matter? It shouldn't, people should be free and should be allowed to make their own decisions. People act like the days of ignorance when we had slaves are gone, but our society and our laws reflect that ignorance that we act like we got rid of.

 

It will take income tax revenue away from the federal, state and local governments, just like polygomy.

Not really against it, but that is the only logical arguement you can have to keep 2 or more consenting adults from marrying whom ever they want.

 

I'm gay and African American, and my view on liberty is exactly the same as yours.

 

Here are my thoughts on Gay marriage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFtumUKaBGM