Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I need the BEST argument against Gay Marriage
Nov. 30, 2005 | Hildy

Posted on 11/30/2005 2:08:49 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-305 next last
To: rhombus
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?

41 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:18 PM PST by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sols

Go away...


42 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:27 PM PST by sit-rep (If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA

>>>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.


43 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:35 PM PST by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


44 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:41 PM PST by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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.
45 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:44 PM PST by fisherman90814
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Divorce Courts are too full now.


46 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:50 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

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


47 posted on 11/30/2005 2:19:53 PM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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?

48 posted on 11/30/2005 2:20:11 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Vehe'emin BeHaShem, vayachsheveha lo tzedaqah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


49 posted on 11/30/2005 2:20:13 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus; Hildy

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


50 posted on 11/30/2005 2:20:16 PM PST by colorcountry (That's what happens when you fall for a pistol. (No, no, I don't mean no gun.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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


51 posted on 11/30/2005 2:20:29 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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.

52 posted on 11/30/2005 2:20:54 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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.
53 posted on 11/30/2005 2:20:58 PM PST by Antoninus (Hillary smiles every time a Freeper trashes Rick Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sols

nope...taking the position againts gay marriage.

am just explaining what the effects could be over time.


54 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:15 PM PST by kajingawd (" happy with stone underhead, let Heaven and Earth go about their changes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sols

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


55 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:16 PM PST by two134711 (I have libertarian leanings, but my conservatism keeps those in check.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

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


56 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:20 PM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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


57 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:23 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


58 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:27 PM PST by Lando Lincoln (The general public doesn't pay attention enough........to care enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


59 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:37 PM PST by Wiseghy (Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. – Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Here ya go
60 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:39 PM PST by Defiant (Dar al Salaam will exist when the entire world submits to American leadership.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-305 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson