Arguments AGAINST gay marriage

It`s my opinion Johnny. I think that marriage should stay hetero, but if gays make their own commitment institution, go for it.

 

I think if what everyone thought about what marriage should "stay as" was true, divorce would be illegal, re-marriage would be a sin, mormons could not marry jews, and blacks could not marry whites.

Marriage is a highly inclusive legal institution, supporting the commitments of people who have a great variety of different religious and personal views about marriage. Same-sex marriage does not change this, it's merely an extension of an already highly inclusive institution.

 

Homosexuality hurts society because it promotes wrongness and encourages a declining of standards that our societies throughout history and nature itself has built on.

Few of us are saying not to respect the rights homosexuals. Most people against homosexual marriage just don't want to promote it as normal...cause it is not.

To promote homosexuals as a wonderful and normal lifestyle, just as it would be to make drugs legal so people can be doped up 24 /7...is not a helathy way to build a world.

Until this definition in the dictionary is changed...

"Marriage is a religious or civil ceremony between two people of the opposite sex that become husband and wife."

...no one can claim that homosexuals are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry. By the very definition of marriage , homosexuals are excluded from the marriage equation.

Now, if the world wishes to start calling apples...oranges and beef...chickens, then things may be different for the homosexuals.

 

Begging the question, appeal to tradition.

And what's wrong with being abnormal?

You assume making drugs illegal has stopped them from being doped 24/7 as opposed to just over-burdening our prison system. And, if I understand you correctly, you are not suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal... so this would not change whether a not someone would be homosexual, 24/7.

The existence of a word and discrimination in that word is perfectly fine. A dictionary is allowed to discriminate without purpose, other than just to define a word.

The government can not. The law is not a dictionary, it's a living, breathing, functional document bound to considerations for equal protection of the law and the presumption to be serving a legitimate state interest. Regardless of the meaning of a word, they can't be used in law without fulfilling these considerations.

Some may have said the same thing about blacks marrying whites, where in that day, marriage was defined as "the union between the man and woman of the same race". Can blacks & whites not claim discrimination, simply because that's the meaning of the word? Can they not call for the meaning to be changed, such as to allow interracial marriages to occur? I'm sorry, but the current definition of a word has nothing to do with whether it is being used in a discriminatory fashion in law. If you don't want the use of the word to be changed, then it should not be used in law in the first place.

 

All people do have the same rights when it comes to marriage. But their sexual attractions are not categorized as "rights"

 

Instead, the sexual attractions are gifted with "special privileges"... which themselves are not rights, but the equal application of the law is. By extension, if one party is given special privileges, other similarly situated parties have the right to the same privilages.

 

Any one who wants all sexual attractions to be held equal under the law....is bonkers.

 

I just don't like it. It makes me feel icky.

 

then why let allmost any heterosexual couple do it?

 

its not espeshily wondrful to be gay or bi but its naturel and not hurting any one vote used to be just for men we let women do it today becase thoug its not tradition it is just to let them marry its just to let a 1 gender couple make the same comitment and enjoy the same benefits as a 2 gender couple it is not just to deny that on precident alone for the sake of tradition

 

fredom of choice among any unmaried conscenting adult you as ahetero sexual would pick vs fredom to pick any conscenting unmarried adult you would not want to pick as a homosexual or case by case restrictions for bi sexuals

ya thats exatly the same in your dreams

 

yes but equlity in marrage for homoseual couples is sane as like hetero couples no one is harmed by marrage alone no 1 is in danger of having their free choice steped on

 

Feel free to make a logical argument if you would . I have not heard an argument that "all sexual attractions be held equal under the law", but I have heard that similarly situated parties should be recognized the same under the law.

 

"wrongness" is in the eye of the beholder. What standards will decline if we allow same-sex couples to enjoy legal recognition of their marriages?

I disagree - advocating that legal marriage be withheld from same-sex couples is disrespecting their rights.

Empty rhetoric. You appear to be using "normal" as a proxy for "moral". They aren't synonymous.

Comparing homosexuality to drug addiction is offensive. They are not alike.

Dictionaries don't dictate what the law must be. They only report on popular usage, and are thus in need of regular updating as usage changes; they are always behind the curve.

Circular argument. It is the very definition of legal marriage that is in dispute.

 

that statement right there should scare the bejeezus out of every adult. Is that really where we've allowed ourselves to be placed by those who are suppose to be working for us. What a sad testament.

 

I know that and I wouldn't try to take it from you.

Of course.

 

I simply don't know what you just said.

 

I see. So it is what sexual attractions that YOU choose that should be considered equal under the law. Sounds like you are a discriminator. You are cherry picking the people that are obligated rights. That isn't how rights work. Its all or nothing.

For instance...we don't give whites and blacks rights...but decide that mulottos shouldn't have any...right? All races have the same rights and the same equality under the law.

And....if sexual attraction was denoted a right and due equal protection....we wouldn't pick and choose according to what JeffLV decides.

 

When blacks were allowed to marry whites, this didn't result in people marrying rocks, dogs, and children.

Similarly, when men can marry men, and women can marry men, this doesn't mean that any other barriers have to come down. If a barrier exists with cause, it can stay. If there's no cause for a barrier, it should be taken down. Yes, this is discrimination, and there's nothing wrong with discrimination.... with a justifiable cause. You're attempting to apply a slippery slope fallacy, pretending that there's no relevant distinction between any sexual attractions or individuals in questions, but you already prove this to be false... assuming you agree with heterosexuals marrying, but you don't agree with heterosexual marriages between 12 year olds or incest, then you already have demonstrated that you believe there are relevant distinctions to be considered. Questioning whether the gender of the two involved is relevant doesn't have to have anything to do with other barriers, such as the marriage between rocks, children and dogs.

The question is if there's any relevant distinction to be considered between two otherwise similarly situated members of the same sex marrying. Instead of addressing that question, you're dodging it with a slippery slope fallacy. Of course, to answer this question, it requires an understanding of the purpose of marriage to begin with.

 

Your argument isn't based on logic. Mine is.

All races have rights and have equality under the law. In order for same sex attraction to be equal under the law....all sexual attractions would have to have equality. Geeze...otherwise YOU are doing what I am doing..picking and choosing....except I'm not stating that hetrosexual behavior has "rights". I am simply saying that marriage is a hetrosexual institution, for hetrosexual issues.

 

Let's put this to the test... "In order for freedom of religion to exist, you must have complete and unequivocal freedom to practice your religion" Do you agree with this statement? Does the freedom of religion mean that, due to your religious beliefs and your protected freedom of religion, you have the right to perform child sacrifices? That you have the right to marry a 8 year old if it is custom to your religion? That you can commit murder in the name of your religion?

Absolutely not. Whether you acknowledge it or not, freedoms are not absolute. Acknowledging the religious freedom does not mean freedom to do anything implied in your religion. Freedom to marry based on your preference does not mean freedom to marry anyone you like. If there's a good reason to restrict a religious practice, so be it. If there's no good reason to restrict a religious practice, then it should not be restricted. If there's a good reason to restrict certain marriages, then so be it. If there's not, then butt out. There is no presumption that allowing same-sex couples to marry must imply that there are absolutely no restrictions on who or what you can marry, when there is legitimate cause for the restriction.

You are right that, in order to have a complete and free ability to marry whomever you like, this would imply that there could be no restriction on who/what you can marry. But nobody is arguing for that, nor do they have to. Worst-case scenario, they (we) are being just as prejudice as society already is with the restrictions that already exist on marriage... You're just criticizing gays for not fighting the same restrictions that you presumably already support.

Ah, now we're getting down it... what are these "heterosexual issues"? This is the important and relevant consideration. When determining similar situation and the narrowness and sufficiency of the law to execute its given purpose, we must understand what purposes are. This is step-1 in determining similar situation. Step 2: Does the purpose serve a legitimate state interest. Step 3: In its execution, is it fulfilling its purpose narrowly and sufficiently.

 

it seems that way

 

saying we have to let any one have any kind of sex or call anything a marrage becase we alow gay marrage is not logic and in the case os sex we can see its not true

 

Indeed... the supreme court recognized the right to privacy within ones own home, overturning laws that restricted the gender of your partner and anti-sodomy laws. It was a ruling for sexual freedom... but this does not mean that you can have sex with anybody of any age or with the non-consensual. It doesn't mean ALL forms of sexual practice and sexuality must be allowed. As usual and expected, there are reasonable restrictions. The key word there being "reasonable". Suggesting that allowing same-sex couples to marry means anyone can marry anybody regardless of any reasonable restrictions is a manufactured controversy without precedent.

 

No, it's whether you can take group A to court and prove that, with respect to the application of the contract they are being denied, they are "similarly situated" to group B who are not so denied.

In the case of gays they have proved that the contract can be equally applied to them because:

A) They are emancipated adults able to understand and commit to the contract.

B) The contract can be applied to them administratively in exactly the same way as it can heterosexual couples with respect to family law (which usually only comes into play when things go wrong: divorce, death of a spouse etc.)

C) There are no other valid, or presumed, restrictions, considerations or objections that should prevent them from access to the contract.

That's about it really. Their case stands on its own merits. I'm not sure which other "sexual attractions" you mean but as long as they can satisfy those criteria and if they are currently banned from access to the marriage contract, then they have the kernel of a case.

I would argue that a bi-sexual male should have the option to marry a male where SSM is recognised and so, also, should two heterosexual males for whatever reason they choose: property, disbursement of assets etc. and of course the same should and indeed does apply to both genders where SSM is recognised.

Gays have proven themselves to be significantly "similarly situated" to most heterosexual couples (those that can reproduce naturally with each other) and IDENTICALLY SITUATED to the remainder (those that can't).

Even that's largely irrelevant because procreation is not a requirement of the marriage contract.

At the end of the day and no matter how long it takes, that is going to be the legal outcome of all of this, I guarantee it.