Anti-Gay Marriage thread, not a bash thread

Gays want to be the right, through law, to be married. This would be through a religious ceremony through god. That would force priests and what not to practice against their religion. So gay marriage would be an act against god. Not only that but it goes against nature. And like it or not but this country was founded under god, but with tolerance and freedom. Humans pretend our lives are more important than they really are with our smart phones and mass media. When it comes down to it, naturally we are to survive and reproduce. This makes gays unable to reproduce and fulfill their duties as a human just as every other animal on earth does.

I do not belong to any church or religion. I am open to all but I will not be told what to think. I chose how I think based off what is most logical in my opinion. But it is not my place to judge others or their decisions, and if being gay makes some people happy then let them be happy and exercise their free will. But when they want to participate in a religious ceremony by force I disagree. No hate though just my thoughts

 

Because only Christians get married, right? You've never met an atheist who is married?

Explain how?

Wrong

lolwut?

Google 'earth overpopulation'. Or at least tell my reproducing is a good thing? Also your argument is called a 'naturalistic fallacy'.

 

False. Words cannot express...

How stupid those two statements were. Wrong on such basic levels of what gay maraige is about.

In your opinion, perhaps, but again it wouldn't be through the church mosque or anything unless they wanted to allow it.

Evidence of this? There are gay animals.

False. ""The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams Our Founding Fathers on Christianity

Perhaps, but not every straight married couple has kid, so your argument is invalid.

Not all coupled animals chose to reproduce, and again, gay animals don't.

They don't, so you have nothing to disagree with.

The ignorance in this post was mindblowing.

 

Morals do not equal laws. The world would be a better place if people could get this through their head.

 

You can never say that too many times.

 

:facepalm:

Marriage is sanctioned by the government. If you get "married" in a church, it doesn't really make a difference until you sign the papers supplied by the state you are getting married in. Priests wouldn't be "forced" to perform gay marriages. You do not need a priest to get married.

Also, the founding fathers were mainly secularists. The line "under god" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954.

 

Alright, so first off I'd like to state that I'm simply indifferent on this issue, I really couldn't care either way as it's their choice and it's not really a concern of mine.

As for a logical view on the anti-gay marriage.

"When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."


NOW, I'm aware that population increase isn't exactly a good thing at the moment, but this explanation does make some sense.

 

congratulations...one of the (very) few rational christians that i have ever come across...hate you guys....makes me question the morality of my abject atheism....( )

jk there's no "hope" for me

 

In that case don't let old people get married, or people who are sterile. etc.

 

I see your point.

That was just the only somewhat reasonable argument I could find. I don't necessarily agree with it. The basis behind it I believe is that they don't think that taxpayers should pay for something that is generally considered unacceptable by a large portion of the government, and the United States public.

 

you are exactly right... which is why the gubbermint should get the hell outta the marriage business. it is not the place of the gub to either approve nor condemn any mutually voluntary relationship (no matter what "they" want to call it) between consenting adults!!!!

 

most ridiculous explanation for why there's gay people ever...

 

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

If its okay to change that, then why is not okay to change the terms of consent? Who are we to say that a man and a dog cannot love eachother?

You see, many people believe marriage is between a man and a woman for a reason. Its about raising a child together and expanding the family. It has nothing to do with hate. People who say its because of hate are closed-minded.

 

I'm fully in favour of gay marriage, polygamous marriage, even insestuous marriage so long as it doesn't utterly destroy the lives of the parents/produce inbred children... any kind of marriage so long as it's between humans who are adults and fully consent to the arrangement. However, for the sake of providing a bit of debate I'd like to present one reason to disallow gay marriage.

Society is a thing that we all share, that we all exist within and interact with daily - when we go out in public, we see society and the people who share it with us. Since society is comprised of individuals, it is logical to say that we, as individuals, should be able to determine the type and nature of society we want to live in and interact with; society is 'by the people, for the people'. We, ideally anyway, determine what kind of society 'works for us', and we do this through deciding what kind of economic system 'works for us', what laws we think are just... and similarly, create (through what mechanisms, I know not) societal taboos and behaviours that we frown upon as not being something that 'works for us' in being exposed to these taboos and behavious that 'we' simply don't want to see when we interact with our society.

You can see where this is going, but I'll make my point with an example that I think we'll all think is fairly reasonable. Smacking naughty children in public is something that is a decision made by a private individual over a child that they and they alone have responsibility and custodianship over (except, of course, as the law applies to the child and the rights of the child)... smacking children in public is thus a behaviour that effects nobody other than the parent/child, as well as those people who might happen to see this behaviour and disapprove of it. Now, I'm going out on a limb here but I'll assert that most of us don't like to see children being smacked... let the parent discipline their children as they see fit behind closed doors, but it's just not the sort of thing that most of us like to see, we prefer greatly not to see it. You could even argue the same thing for a shirt - 'most of us' hate the colour fluro-pink, and thus would greatly prefer not to see it. The only real difference is that a child is involved in the first example, but the same principle applies - these are things that directly effect nobody besides the individual who has made the decision to smack their kid in public/wear a fluro-pink shirt, but are things that effect potentially the entirity of society in regards to the people who should happen to see/be exposed to these behaviours.

So, the argument is this; suppose that 'we' don't like to see gay couples kissing in public (whereas 'we' have no problem seeing a man and woman kiss in public), and that 'we' don't like to have to recognise Mr and Mr Smith when they come to dine as a couple in a romantic restaurant. If this figure was a high proportion of the population, say 90%, do 'we' have a legitimate right to tell people that they can't do things that offend 'us' even though they have no greater impact or effect on us besides that we are exposed to and might even perhaps see such behaviours in public, on TV, in the newspapers etc etc etc. Do 'we', as the people who have a legitimate right to determine the environment that 'we' live in, have the right to extend this to stopping other people from doing things that we simply find unpleasant or offensive?

If you think this is so ridiculous, think of the recent burqa bans and tell me that it's not the exact same thing as what I've just talked about - people who don't like 'seeing women dressed like ghosts', or 'don't like living in a society that tolerates the subjugation of women', even though the women themselves made a conscious decision to wear the burqa. There's no difference to my mind, none at all, so if you can justify banning the burqa on these grounds, can you not apply the same essential justification to gay marriage? For the record, I fully support the right of Muslim women (and anyone else!) to wear the burqa (or anything else!) and think it's none of our bloody business if they do or not. Anyhow, that's enough off-topic anecdotes... has my argument got a leg to stand on fellas, yay or nay?

 

He's been using that explanation for quite some time now. I dont think he understands just how ridiculous it is. As if there would be no gays if the world wasnt over-populated.

 

A rise in murder would also help with over-population.

You seemed to imply that nature purposely creates gays to balance out the population.