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.
I'm sorry, what was I thinking, asking someone to think through the logical conclusion of their argument.
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
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.
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.
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.
See post #26.
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.
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.
Hillary Clinton
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.
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.
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.
Janet Reno
>>>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?
That is a very funny post. Quite true, but still very funny.
because gays can't procreate, thus the end of humankind
Usually that argument slams the Lefties into a bloody smear.
Regards, Ivan
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.
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.