I need the BEST argument against Gay Marriage

Nov. 30, 2005 | Hildy

[Hildy]

I need the best... don't mean a good opinion, personal anecdotal stories...a great argument against gay marriage. I'm in a very very civil discussion (as strange as it may sound) on another bulletin board. I'm the only heterosexual, let alone Conservative and it's been very interesting. But it always comes down to Gay Marriage. And, frankly, besides the religious argument that can always be overruled by civil arguments, I'm gonna lose this one...I know one of you brilliant people have at one time posted something brilliant about it...or know of a journalist who has written something brilliant about it. On this one...I admit...I'm at a loss. Thank you.

[Ole Okie]

...within 5 generations we'd all look the same if we just use artificial insemination and the same 8 women that will agree to have the children to populate this wonderful world.

These 8 then become the Queen Ants ... er, Queen Aunts of the human race?

Man, start feeding them Royal Jelly!! Quick!

[sit-rep]

For a hundred million years, a marriage has been between a man and a woman, not some retard pillow biters or carpet munchers. If a man and a woman get married and can't have kids, they carry on. But at least they ARE NORMAL!!

I refuse to be led down the road of comparisons. I bring up my children with the knowledge homosexuality is a mental retardation. Something that is demented.

Now, it's obvious you have a soft spot in your heart for the abomination of our culture. That's fine...happy days to you. But don't square off with folks who reject the practice out right. It is a waist of both our time.

[HouTom]

I agree that this is the best argument. The government "liecensure" of any union is inappropriate.

[Sols]

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.

And then what? Oh no, those people are married, they're going to ruin society by what.. buying a house and baking cookies?

I figure a state has an interest in preventing iner-family marriage because of the increased burden in weird failed mutant baby-monsters.

I don't want to look like I'm pro-polygamy and polyamory, but they are consenting adults arranging their lives as they see fit. It's not my business, they aren't going to ruin my marriage by no having kids.

Quite frankly, I consider none of it, even heterosexual marriage, to be the business of the state at all.

[Carbonsteel]

Hey, gays have the the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. :)

[lepton]

The only purpose for government recognition of marriage is to facilitate, or at least lessen interference with, the preparation for the pair to reproduce. If any civilization is to endure, it must reproduce.

It is a bad idea to pay people to have children, but it is of general longterm benefit to at least not interfere with it. The legal benefits of marriage are to acknowledge the benefit that those bringing children into the world are bringing generally, and to allow them to prepare an environment to raise these children without those moneys being taken for other things. These benefits are also to help create an environment where both parents (and there is a great deal of evidence that having each a mother and a father around is of substantial benefit to the children) are encouraged to keep their bonds permanent.

Yes, those heterosexuals who extract marriage benefits and who never have children have abused the system. We draw the line at couples who are at least potentially capable of having children, and decline to investigate this capability beyond the plainly obvious.

Homosexual marriage, legally, simply forces companies to provide benefits to someone who has no connection to them, for no real reason. Most of the other minor "benefits" often cited, such as inheritance and such, are simply a matter of whether the contract is pre-packaged and would be better addressed in those terms rather than with mangling marriage.

[floozy22]

Because society functions best when men and women marry, produce children, love, nurture and raise them. From families, to communities, to society. Mothers and fathers have a biological imperative to nurture and protect their offspring. A healthy functional 2-parent family is the best foundation for society. While a lot of single parents do very well raising children, mothers, fathers and families should enjoy all the benfits society can afford them.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

A straight couple that cannot (or I suppose does not want to) have kids is not normal. Should couples who can't bear children not be allowed to marry?

You err in using an anomaly as your example. All children come from the union of one man and one woman. None come for homosexual "unions." The fact that some in the first group suffer either from a physcial abnormality or the lack of will to have children in no way changes the fact that the 2nd group CAN NEVER EVER have children.

[FormerLib]

With the contract, the government can ensure that those who are supposed to take responsibility do so.

A sound family structure is a critical part of the foundation of any society.

[jrawk]

Forget arguing against same sex marriage. Argue in SUPPORT of homosexual marriage, but it has to be a shotgun wedding...

(provided that one partner is actually pregant with the other partners offspring)

[Nickname]

Because it is part of the communist agenda:

26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml

[kanawa]

One of the best IMO....

Lee Harris: Marriage belongs to the straight world and gays should not change it

FR link

[TBall]

Queers certainly should not be married in by church as that would be a sacrilege.

[lepton]

You're at a loss because there isn't a valid non-religious reason the state should allow straights should marry and gays shouldn't.

Sure there is. Marriage is about producing and raising children, that the society or state can continue.

[expatguy]

[lepton]

You're at a loss because there isn't a valid non-religious reason the state should allow straights should marry and gays shouldn't.

Sure there is. Marriage is about producing and raising children, that the society or state can continue.

[Sols]

An infertile couple are not normal, especially by the biological definition, but certainly by any common definition.

[HouTom]

Did Adam really have a choice?

[N2Gems]

From the time that we stood upright and walked out of the jungle (maybe even before that) marriage was an institution between a man (or men) and a woman (or women). The reason this came about (from an anthropological standpoint) is that human offspring take a very long time to mature to the point that they may assume responsibility for themselves. Marriage became an agreement, sanctioned by society, that would reasonably be expected to produce a relationship that would last long enough for the raising of children.

Aside from that, there is ample evidence that children do best when raised in a mom, dad environment. Everything else is not as good. If the liberals are serious about their rhetoric, this is their opportunity to actually do something for the children. Instead of taking actions that would further weaken the family, they could be taking action that would strengthen the most favorable family unit for raising children.

[andonte]

There's only one way to look at gay marriage, and that is through the eyes of God.

God in Heaven ordained marriage on Earth to be between a man and a woman. For man to change that is an affront, an insult, to God. God will not be mocked in this way. He will mete out justice in the end.

I pity those who are pushing this travesty on society. Sadder yet is that all 285 million of us Americans are not righteously enraged about it.

Gay marriage would be horrible, horrible, horrible!

God's patience with man is not inexhaustible.