Arguments AGAINST gay marriage

No...freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to hurt someone else...or it shouldn't. Case in point is when Islamics sue because their employer will not give them time to pray five times a day. Its not the employer's obligation to conform to other people's religion.

Freedom of religion means the government will not establish a religion or restrict certain religions.

But freedom of religion is an unalienable right as dictated in our constitution. Freedom of sexual attraction is not an unalienable right--and doesn't hold the same water. Society--the people through the states choose what sexual attraction is good, bad and indifferent. Thus gay people can have relations legally. A man, two women can decide to live together and raise children legally.

A sister and brother can live together and have a child....legally.

But what is legal does not make these things equal. And they are not all up to be protected through equality of law. Even it it does not hurt the people in question.

People do see a legit reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman. You simply don't acknowledge their reason as legit. So you are one voter out there and I am one. Marriage serves a purpose of encouraging healthy families amongst those people who create children naturally. Its purpose is not to denote equality amongst gays or to levey out tax breaks. Its not a right. Its a general policy to promote a healthy society.

But...you don't see it that way. Perhaps the gay agenda will fight for marriage not because they want to be equal (which isn't possible as gay behavior doesn't result in the same outcome as hetersexual behavior) but because it will create a better family structure for those gay people who want committed relationships to be promoted and encouraged. Perhaps to encourage adoption.

But that isn't the gay agenda---so I'm not with you. If your motivation is equality---then every other sexual orientation will fight for their equality---and that isn't good for our future.

There are always people fighting for the lifestyle they want to live. And if it seems natural to them, and if they believe they were born with it----they will fight for it. Society is fluid and changing according to the direction society chooses to go.

The heterosexual issues are....that children are produced and a family unit will follow. A policy like marriage is meant to encourage a healthy family unit. Otherwise---children are raised in chaos (which as marriage has been diluted....is becoming the case). Sticking with the focus is important in order for a healthy society. Once the focus is pointed towards the "rights" of the adults to behave how they want regardless of the outcome---marriage dilutes more.

If the gay agenda would change their focus they might get somewhere. But the arrogance leads me to believe that gays simply are self-serving. The last thing marriage needs at this point.

 

Freedom of sexual attraction is protected under the right of privacy, with much the same caveats as religious freedom... i.e. you're free to do what you want to the exclusion of well justified restrictions (i.e. you can't hurt someone, particularly against their will or before the age of consent).

And while the particular rights in question may not themselves be unalienable rights, equal protection of the law is an unalienable right.

There's a difference between what people see as a reason, and how it's actually executed.

That's where the "narrowness and sufficiency" comes in. There is the "stated purpose" of a law, and then there is a question of if it is being executed narrowly and sufficiently. Failure to do so means the law is either just a bad law, or the purpose given is not the real purpose... take your pick, neither form of a law is a legitimate one.

So what do you think? Does promoting marriage among gays not encourage a healthy society? Does it not encourage and facilitate adoption? After all, taking care of adopted children is just as important (if not more important) than taking care of biological children. You seemed open to these arguments... your only objection (so stated) was that you think gays are only in it for "equality".

That said, I have my doubts that this purpose you put forward is the actual purpose that is supported in society. SCOTUS recognizes marriage as a fundamental right, existing without any regard to children whatsoever. The right of criminals in prison, who either can't or shouldn't reproduce is protected. An axe murderer and pedophile can marry, produce children, have those children taken from them by the state, produce more children, have those children taken away too, and still remain "married". You can negotiate a marriage in the form of a business contract, i.e. I'll marry you in exchange for 25% share in your upcoming business venture. You can have a plutonic marriage that is strictly for the benefits. Two people can marry at 18, die at 80, never produce children, and they still can keep those benefits all their lives and benefit from that marriage contract even after death. Long story short, you have the fundamental right to marry without regard to your willingness, ability or suitability to reproduce... and apparently this is supposed to mean that supporting children is the primary purpose of marriage, as it is practiced today.

And in the mean time, gay couples who wish to have or adopt children are left without.

If supporting healthy family units for children really is the primary purpose for marriage, it's being poorly executed.

As it should, if the case of similar situation is proven.

If your argument is that marriage SHOULD be about children, then I can understand and submit to such an argument. But if your argument is that it ALREADY IS about children and should remain as such, I just don't see it.

So I might ask, how do you think marriage should be reformed? And would such a reformation exclude all gays, or only those gays without children.

As a "child focused" marriage, I thought it might make sense to have time-limits on financial marriage rights... i.e. you can, but the rights are not just granted until death. Heterosexual couples can obtain such rights early-on without children, but the financial rights will expire given enough time if there are no children produced. Couples that SHOULD NOT reproduce (i.e. child molesters, and generally just people who will have their children taken from them) do not qualify for the financial rights at all. Similarly, if you've had your children taken from you, you lose those financial rights. Couples who adopt (including homosexual couples) qualify for the financial rights. In all cases, the non-financial rights can be maintained regardless of any time limits or the existence of children in the marriage.

I could support such reformations in marriage.

 

No the actual purpose behind the lobbying for discriminatory laws is to penalize gays for their nasty and immoral behavior because "god doesn't like it". Most anti-gay groups make no secret of this in their initial efforts to craft these laws but they fall suspiciously silent when asked to defend them on that basis in court.

 

There is no such thing as "gay marriage". The word marriage means a union between a man and a woman. It does not mean between two people regardless of gender in spite of more recent efforts to redefine the word. It is antithetcal to the meaning of the word. Current federal law defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 14th Amendment does not apply in this case, since nobody is denied the right to marry. They gay marriage movements sole purpose is to destroy religion in this country. Once they achieve a marriage right, all churches will be forced to participate and accept gay marriage or they will be taxed out of existance or incarcerated. Utah had to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman before the congress would accept them into the union. This is stare decisis legal precident and if you want to undo it you will have to amend the constitution which you can't and will never do and you know it.

 

Actually...its the gays that bring up religion. They have this thing....for religion. They pop it into the argument. Its a manipulative tool used that frankly....gets a little tiresome.

 

I know of no group lobbying for discriminatory laws. Name one. What it comes down to is that you wish to change laws and traditions long established an it just can't happen fast enough for you. There are people who want to do away with laws which have long been established against the molestation of children. Child molesters are considered mentally ill. The same is true for homosexuals. For many years there were laws against sodomy. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness less than 4 decades ago. Now those laws against sodomy are gone and homosexuality is considered a viable lifestyle alternative. The question is, should all people be forced to accept this regardless of their own personal, moral or religious beliefs? This appears to be the goal of the liberal/homosexual agenda, to circumvent the 1st Amendment to the Constitution without a constitutional amendment and in the process, destroy religious freedom in this country.

 

No...your are wrong. The right to privacy will allow a brother and sister to live together and have sex. But that right to privacy does not create a situation where siblings who want to be married...have that "right".

Policy is done in generality...not micro-managed. Straight people in general have babies. Straight people in general sustain a nation. The marriage policy revolves around straight people. To restrict marriage only to people who swore they were going to have children would be a poorly executed policy.

And regarding gays wanting to marry to help encourage commitment....that would be nice. But that isn't the objective of the gay rights agenda. So its a non-issue. That would actually take a little humble attitude.....to admit that marriage is designed for a purpose within society---to encourage a strong family unit.

Gay activists aren't humble. They are vain. Its all about them.

Marriage is in a dire state right now. It does need a cultural reformation. But to micro-manage individual child-bearing decisions is not the role of government. Government can make a policy that encourages the best arrangement---so that children have a better changce at being in a healthy environment.

We should go back to putting the family first and making the commitment a true commitment. You might be too young to remember "shot gun marriage". There was a time when the culture was OUTRAGED over two adults creating a child out of wedlock and not fullfilling that responsibility to the child by creating a home for it. So it isn't laws---but culture that really needs to change. Right now---adult needs and gratifications are prevalent. Children are dragged along, forgotten or dismissed. By straight people and same sex people.

You don't change culture by succombing to a group that blatently screams "me, me, me" .

The reason people vote against gay marriage now---is because they see the state it is in right now and I believe our society would like to change what has gone on in the last 35 years.

 

Tell that to Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Matt Staver, Bryan Brown and Maggie Gallagher.

 

They aren't part of this conversation. I don't even know who they are. But I do know that we were having a discussion on gay marriage and I wasn't the one who thought religion should be part of the discussion. You did.

 

They aren't part of this conversation. I don't even know who they are. But I do know that we were having a discussion on gay marriage and I wasn't the one who thought religion should be part of the discussion. You did.

 

Family Research Council
Liberty Counsel
Focus on the Family
NOM
Mass Reistance
Concerned Women For America
The Catholic Church
The Southern Baptist Convention
The AFA
ProtectMarriage.com
The Traditional Values Coalition

I'm getting bored, when do you want me to stop?

Yup! Unwarranted discrimination can never end fast enough IMO.

A stupid and irrelevant comparison to the contractural joing of two consenting adults.

That's because they can't see that their actions cause harm to others.

No it's not, don't be silly.

For absolutely no rational reason, so what's your point?

Not withstanding the fact that most people reading this weren't even born 40 years ago. You know maybe they'd have a problem with the idea of medical "diagnoses" being based on the fact that other people didn't like somebody else's behavior which they, themselves, were quite happy with and which caused zero harm to others. That was the era of "moral" medicine. We're over that now.

Because it absolutely is for homosexuals. What isn't viable is people going through life pretending they're not homosexuals when they very plainly are. Just ask the many ex-ex-gay leaders who have finally given up the whole sheebang.

You don't have to accept anything. You can avoid homosexuals at all times, your church and other private organisations can cast homosexuals from your midst but the bloody government can't discriminate when it comes to which similarly situated citizens it hands out contracts to. Why is this so hard to understand?

Yea, yea that's absolutely what they want to do. I'm sure, every morning, they dream up more nefarious means to achieve that very aim over tea and Coco Pops.

Oy Vey!

 

I apologise if I took things out of context but my point was that the purposes stated by many anti-gay groups when they attempt to enact constitutional bans etc. are nearly always religious in nature. Given the option to defend such actions in court they never mention this. Religion wasn't mentioned even once during the prop 8 defense or the subsequent appeals process but in 99% of cases it's what's used to drag people to the polls.

And I'm not just talking about marriage, there have been many laws enacted to refuse recognition of any kind of partnership whatsoever for any reason. This week's NC law completely negates even existing and most basic domestic partnership arrangements. Fair minded people should be up-in-arms over this.

I have never seen an athiest or humanist organisation attempt to enshrine anti-gay laws onto the books.

 

You can stop anytime. The fact that these groups want to defend current laws does not mean they are pro-discrimination. The fact that you want to force them to change their belief shows that you are pro-discrimination against them for their religious beliefs.

Their is no discrimination in the current marriage laws. Anyone can marry.

It is completely relavent as an example of what is going on regarding homosexuality, current laws, and the homosexual agenda.

Child molesters know right from wrong. The comparison to gays is valid. There are rational medical reasons for the laws against sodomy. The point having been made, you have failed to refute any of it, my argument still stands, regardless of how many people are ignorant of recent history.

My point being is that the goal post is constantly moved.

As demonstrated by the recent controversy over who must pay for contraceptive expenses regardless of religious beliefs, all religious organizations would be forced to accept homosexual marriages, indeed forced to perform them, regardless of their religious beliefs. I can see lawsuits, fines imposed and even criminal penalties for those who refuse to comply. Catholic Bishops an priests jailed for refusing gays civil rights. This is the future you are advocating.

And they also plan these things at political fundraisers for Obama.

 

The religious view of right and wrong isn't the argument when it comes to creating marriage policy. Marriage remains an institution because of what it does for society---not due to religious reasons.

The religious view is for the religious. It means nothing to those who don't believe or who don't interpret the Bible literally. Religious people talking to religious people in other words. No Paster is going to convince you..or make a case.... with Bible scripture. And that has nothing to do with what I consider our marriage "policy".

I do believe that gay couples need to have civil union or domestic partnerships. Those arrangements can evolve around the needs of those people who are living those lifestyles. And marriage can evolve around the needs of the potential "family unit"--Mom, Dad and unplanned baby. Marriage would call for more sacrifice from the couple, more commitment and stronger consequences for breaking that commitment.

Civil Unions I imagine would be more flexible--to fit the needs of the gay and lesbian community.

 

and the basis for excluding one gender unions in marriage is what? the gay marriage movement sole purpose is to grant homosexual couples equity when it comes to legal unions union it in no way threatens religion and gay marriage would not force a church to marry any one in the way a church is not forced to marry heterosexuals today you are not telling the truth about that

 

um iv seen people on both sides bring it up

 

long established laws and traditions should be overturned if there arbitrarily discriminatory your not going to fide a sound argument that molesting a child is fair or harmless to children in what way are homosexuals mentally ill?

legal marriage is not religious no one is asking you to accept homosexual or gay marriage but you should not have the power to prevent homosexuality or gay marriage just because you don’t approve of it which legal or not you are free to continue to do

 

I'm confused, are catholic churches forced to marry you even though you were already married once? Are mormon churches forced to marry in their temples, even if you're not mormon?

 

Of course, because I was talking about two different subjects... specifically I was talking about Lawrence vs texas, not the case of marriage.

And nowhere did I suggest that only those who swore they were going to have children could get married.

I'm curious how you propose to fix it then. As the less people specifically tie children to marriage, then the less business government has being involved with marriage to support any purpose with regard to children. As is, the two concepts are all but divorced, or at least viewed as two distinct purposes for marriage (as nobody ever said that marriage has to serve just ONE and ONLY ONE purpose).

The separation of the concepts (as I see it) originates from womens rights and the all-but-vanished stigma against cohabitation and premarital sex. Nowadays, women are independent... they don't REQUIRE to get married, and they don't REQUIRE to stay married... which makes the relationships more tentative, and even eliminating the purpose to get married to begin with. With no stigma against premarital sex or cohabitation, the desire to be together and sleep together are no longer a motivating factor to get married. The legalization of divorce has further reduced the finality of marriage, and thus the level of commitment required before marrying, and during marriage.

Consequentially, marriage has become little more than a recognition of love between two individuals, and a choice two individuals make without regard to social and legal pressures that require it.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know... in many ways it's good, but in many way's it's also bad. Pandora's box is already open, so I don't know how you do a time-reversal to re-create the situations that marriage existed in before women's liberation and legal divorce. But whatever the cause and with little being done to try and change marriage from its shifted purpose, the further marriage goes down this path, there is becoming little reason to exclude homosexual couples.

 

Uncle Ferd says...

... "It's kinda like havin' sex...

... inna cesspool.

 

Yes it does because it has been proved time and time again that the only purpose not to allow same-sex couples access to current contracts is to discriminate. That's not enough to satisfy the legal standard. That's why Prop 8 was a train-wreck and the recent Federal DOMA cases are crawling around in the same rubble. Nobody can present a legitimate and valid reason why such discrimination should remain in place or what valid purpose it serves.

Personally, I would not want a lesbian marrying my son no matter how much it helped me to prove a point.

The legal and consensual and the criminal don't even belong on the same page.

No it isn't, don't be silly.

Then why isn't it illegal? For that matter do you want laws created to ban everything that has the potential to cause harm or just the things you, personally, don't approve of? Statist, much!

I refuted it all, you're just not comfortable with that.

As we learn; we grow.

The insurance aspect of this is a different question but no organisation is going to be forced to perform a religious ceremony. The legal side of marriage can be performed in a court house. Any church can argue that the wedding ceremony is "for entertainment purposes only" and that withdrawl of that service does not prevent the couple from enjoining in civil marriage. Even today a Rabbi cannot be sued for not wedding two Catholics and the KKK are under no obligation to join interracial couples, so what do you think is so different about this?

That's because you're a conspiracy theorist, you can see anything you want to see.

A knees-up wedding at a church gig is not a civil right however equal access to a governmental contract is.

No it's the fear you're brewing into a thick sustaining stew.

Because there are absolutely no fiscal conservatives who are equally in favour of marriage equality? Don't tell Ted Olsen.

 

I'll refute both of those.

1.) Before you can claim that anyone is being denied "equal protection under law," you must prove what specifically excludes them from being covered under existing laws. I have a litmus test for this, but I've noticed that only a few people on the pro-same sex marriage side are truly willing to take it. Most of them are not brave enough to challenge their current beliefs.

2.) Unless you're gay, it's not your business either. That argument works both ways. As a heterosexual, you can't support gay marriage and tell other people it's none of their business without being a hypocrite. So unless you're willing to withdraw your own opinions on the matter and be completely indifferent to it, this argument doesn't work.

 

being the same gender as the person you want to marry excludes many homosexuals from the marrage of their choice

why that is is unclear its not about reproduction you can marry some 1 who cant or wont reproduce

no ones personal liberty is infringed on

no special risck involved to any one when compared to whats aloud with hetero sexual marrage

yep the same gender ban is a pointless limit on who you can enter the contract of marrage with seems sexist to you cant marry some 1 becase of your gender

 

IMO all kinds of marriage are wrong gay or not

 

I'm late in my own thread, but one thing I can't stand is how some people say that by endorsing gay marriage that means legalizing pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc is right behind it. I do like, however, to point out how children and animals are not allowed to enter legal contracts such as marriage, so legalizing either is not possible.

Polygamy I'm kinda indifferent on though.