I need the BEST argument against Gay Marriage

Nov. 30, 2005 | Hildy

[Sols]

I'm sorry, what was I thinking, asking someone to think through the logical conclusion of their argument.

[Ohioan]

The best argument is that it is an oxymoron, a misuse of words--a totally self-contradictory concept. Marriage is not just a word that may be reinterpreted. It has always referred to a specific concept with respect to human relationships. It reflects our effort to sanctify human mating and procreation. It may have been used as a cliche' to refer to such things as "married to his job," to refer to one devoted to his work, but it has never really meant anything but that sanctification of procreational bonding. To try to give something so central to the continuity of human society a new meaning, as a feel good measure for those who are sexually abnormal, is a travesty.

The reality is this. No one, male or female can consummate a homosexual "marriage." The very idea is preposterous. (And, in most societies, an inability to consummate a normal marriage, has been grounds for annulment--for declaring the marriage void.)

Homosexual marriage is as absurd a concept as marriage to a tree; marriage to a rock. To even use the term is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage means. A Court may delcare Black, "White" or "Green" or "Blue," but it can never change the actual appearance or characteristics, simply by changing the name.

William Flax

[MikefromOhio]

tell them to look at the tools that have been provided or have evolved...

There are reasons why men are equipped the way they are as with women.

[Galveston Grl]

First make clear that marriage is for creating stable and healthy relationships for heterosexuals and families. Ask him why we would want to change something that works for heterosexuals to accomodate that which is childless, unstable and disease ridden. Marriage, and all the rules governing sexual behavior and duty is for heterosexuals and the children they produce - gays can make up there own thing. The rules are developed around the way men and women expect and need one another to act sexually and morally. Often heterosexuals fail to live up to the rules and duties of marriage; but the ideals of heterosexual marraige should not change to fit the failures and don't change to fit those who have nothing to do with heterosexual relationships. Gays don't have to destroy what heterosexual have in order to name themselves wonderful.

[katieanna]

HIldy, there's a masculine and feminine/male and female everything. Even in the languages of the earth, there are masculine and feminine definitions. The combining of these two entities makes the whole.

If nothing else works, tell him this: you get no electricity from two plugs or two sockets. Sorry to be crass, but, there it is.

[Hildy]

See post #26.

[NCLaw441]

Marriage has a meaning. The union of one man and one woman in a lifetime, monogamous relationship. If gays want a similar kind of relationship, that may be fine, but it cannot be called marriage, as that dilutes the meaning of the word. You could call a tricycle a car, but a car is a four wheeled, motorized vehicle. If you call a tricycle a car, you have diluted the meaning of the word "car."

Then there is the "where does it end" argument. If 2 gays can marry, why not 3? 4? 100? How about a brother and sister marrying? a whole family could be "married"? What logically would stop it? Just my unvarnished thoughts.

[rhombus]

Of course, no such government would last very long as their society passed away within a few generations. Perhaps that's why there are no "libertarian" nations on this planet?

No such government would last very long??? Society passed away within a few generations??? What they ran bankrupt not collecting marriage liscense and divorce decree fees? I think the people talking about religion have it right. Marriage belongs in the churches, not the city halls.

[MOgirl]

Hello,

OK, you have me laughing so hard that my son wants to know why. Of course, I can't tell him!!

Glad to be here, MOgirl

[Physicist]

There are two separate questions. The first is whether homosexuals be permitted for form legally committed couples. The second is whether the government should provide economic subsidies and legal privileges to those couples. Which question--or both--do you wish to argue?

[Don Corleone]

Hillary Clinton

[Unam Sanctam]

People have different moral views on homosexuality, and the government should be neutral and not impose liberal views on everybody by promoting homosexual activity through giving it an official government stamp of approval. Heterosexual marriage is different, since there is a strong government interest in promoting stable committed marital relationships between mothers and fathers for sake of providing children with a stable family environment.

[thoughtomator]

The fact that it's an oxymoron, to begin with? The definition of "marriage" requires two people of opposite genders. The point of marriage is to create an environment conducive to the bearing and raising of children, something no "gay" relationship - no matter what they want to call it - can do.

[fix]

It's simple. Marriage is a religious institution. None of the major religions (and I'm deliberately excluding moonbat religions that are nothing more than twisted social clubs) that sanction marriage accept homosexuality. So what's the point of getting married? Kinda like an atheist praying if you ask me.

[Don Corleone]

Janet Reno

[NC28203]

>>>I believe the best argument is that we are supposed to be living in a country where huge changes in the social structure are not made against the wishes of a significant majority of the population.

Like the Emancipation Proclomation?

[Dahoser]

That is a very funny post. Quite true, but still very funny.

[InvisibleChurch]

because gays can't procreate, thus the end of humankind

[MadIvan]

It actually hurts gay couples. A number of companies have said that if gay marriage proceeds that they will yank benefits to those gay couples that merely cohabit.

For example

Usually that argument slams the Lefties into a bloody smear.

Regards, Ivan

[two134711]

Many posts have hinted at it; yours said it best.

And for you atheists, divine decree need not mean God, but the natural order. Solar systems revolve around a sun; galaxies around blackholes. Society revolves around families. Marriages are composed of male and female, just as life on earth is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

In nature some things are constant throughout.