I need the BEST argument against Gay Marriage

Nov. 30, 2005 | Hildy

[FormerLib]

Take the libertarian approach...Governments shouldn't "license" any marriage.

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?

[sit-rep]

Go away...

[NC28203]

>>>The purpose of marriage is to raise children, bringing well-adjusted kids into society. Children rasied by gays are more prone to depression, suicide, crime, dropping out of school, and violence. It's not to the benefit of society to encourage more kids like this.

The same could be said of children with divorced parents, but the state allows heterosexual couples to divorce.

[Mulch]

Just pose this question to the group. If same-sex marriage is allowed will heterosexuals be allowed to marry someone of the same sex? If they would not be allowed to marry, then we truly do have a civil rights violation.

[fisherman90814]

Michael Medved had a very good argument that I heard him state before and it was something along these lines:

conventional marriage was the only institution that was publicly sanctioned because it was the best social arrangement for the State to promote the family. The State originally became a partner to the contract because it was in the benefit of the state for producing healthy upstanding citizens. He also cited some case law and common laws that date back to the original state recognized and sanctioned unions between a man a a woman. Hence the marriage license and marriage contract. Anyway.........something like that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Divorce Courts are too full now.

[Hildy]

Well, what about people who marry with no intention of having children, or are older, etc.

[Zionist Conspirator]

There's only one argument against gay marriage and it's the same as the argument against mass murder or theft or idolatry or the improper performance of a sacrifice: it violates arbitrary Divine decree.

What else matters?

[frankjr]

Civilization requires procreation to continue to exist. There is value to society because of this need. Society and governments provide incentives (e.g. taxes, joint ownership rights) to establish unions between men and women to help ensure reproduction.

[colorcountry]

Yeah maybe, but I forgot to direct them to Hildy, so ping to Hildy to post 19.

[steve-b]

Simple. Make the case for the separation of marriage and state -- that takes care of the whole problem.

[facedown]

The word marriage has a meaning. One can call anything a "marriage" but that doesn't make it so.

One can call a pig a "horse", but it'll never win the Derby.

[Antoninus]

First of all, you've allowed yourself to get drawn into the argument on their terms. The question shouldn't be "Why not homosexual marriage?" but "Why should society change thousands of years of the definition of marriage to suit a very small percentage of the population with an affective disorder?"

But since you've gotten drawn in on their terms, ask them where do they draw the line? Polygamy ok? Incestuous marriages ok? Homosexual incestuous polygamous marriages ok? If they say no to any of these, I'll bet they can't give you a good reason why that's not directly applicable to homosexual marriage as well.

[kajingawd]

nope...taking the position againts gay marriage.

am just explaining what the effects could be over time.

[two134711]

As Hildy pointed out, she wants comments against same-sex marriage, not in favor of them.

[Hildy]

it's all about money, health benefits, social security, etc.

[ElkGroveDan]

Every time they change a diaper they have to throw away their baby with it.

[Lando Lincoln]

My first post in awhile, but "you've drawn me out". Anyway, as a male heterosexual who is happily married, I do not think it is appropriate for a married childless, hetero-couple to stand in adoption lines behind a homo-couple. They (the homo-couple) simply can not and should not have that same right. It is not fair to anyone - perhaps especially the child. Under some proposed laws, all married couples would have equal footing.

[Wiseghy]

The discussion is actually much, much more complex than just a simple word. Marriage represents a whole set of laws that protect children, assets, heirs and to a very significant degree, society at large.

I heard McClintock say that people are and should be free to form whatever "agreements" and relationships as they like. The implication, however, was that "marriage" as a set of laws should be protected, and any change in it should be made extremely carefully, because of the implications for so many in society, including lots of innocent, unrepresented children.

[Defiant]

Here ya go