I need the BEST argument against Gay Marriage

Nov. 30, 2005 | Hildy

[colorcountry]

taking responsibility for children is an area where the Government needs to get involved and they do, whether one is married or not.

If the government disallowed divorce for any reason, due to the responsibility to children and the consequences of divorce, I don't think gays would be at all interested in the institution of marriage. I don't think a lot of heteros would be either. It probably would be a good idea.

[NC28203]

From the many posts citing the need to raise children in a stable two-parent environment, I think there should be more on the state outlawing divorce than on the state outlawing gay marriage. What is the ratio of divorces amongst heterosexual couples to the number of marriages sought by gay couples? I have to believe it weighs heavily towards divorce.

[FormerLib]

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.

Although I'm only quoting a part of his or her reponse, lepton should be congratulated for composing such an excellent argument against societal recognition of homosexual marriage.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

They didn't start out old remember. That's an invalid argument. They are usually parents and grandparents and great grandparents by then. So it is a natural family arrangement, even if that specific couple married late. We are talking about the legitimate practice of protecting a unique relationship -- that of male/female marriage. It is nature's definition of family whether you believe in God or not.

[Publius6961]

The best argument against gay "marriage" is that the argument is not so much about marriage, or its benefits, as it is about the perverts' desire to deprive heterosexuals the exclusive use of the word.

The don't need to do that if their goal were simply equality. It's a senseless symbolic destruction of an existing cultural icon, for no other purpose than to legitimize the fiction of physical and natural impossibility of a same sex version of the idea.

A long ways from their early whining about merely seeking "tolerance", of the late seventies.

[Restorer]

A majority of the population of the United States was in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation when it was promulgated and within about a year it was a significant majority.

[NC28203]

>>>Why should the government promote an extremal unhealthy lifestyle?

Like the lottery? Granted I don't think the state should be involved in this industry anyway. Their payouts are considerably less than those of the Vegas casinos.

[Restorer]

A majority of the population of the United States was in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation at the time it was published and within about a year it was a significant majority. This is true of the United States as a whole, and especially of the Union States, which was the relevant entity at the time.

A significant minority of the population of the once and future United States was rather violently opposed, obviously. ):

[Hoboto]

If you want to stump the gay marriage supporters, ask them about bigamy.

For example, if gay marriage is legalized, shouldn't bigamy be as well?

After all, if a person loves another, shouldn't they have the chance to marry?

[sit-rep]

I give you first place on this thread...very good! Well said!!

[SaxxonWoods]

Marriage is actually a religous sacrament, and the state should not be involved in recognizing a religous sacrament. The state should recognize civil unions only. Churches should marry people, and can marry whomever they please.

The main argument FOR gay marriage is that love should be the determining factor, and that gays are being discriminated against by denying them marriage, it is a civil rights issue, in other words. The problem with this is that next the bisexuals will declare that they love Bob AND Sue, and need Bob and Sue to be complete, that love is the determining factor, and that they are being discriminated against. Then we will groups of 8, and 16, and marriage will be meaningless, except for Moonies.

[Publius6961]

A straight couple that cannot (or I suppose does not want to) have kids is not normal.
That's your opinion; I do not agree with that, nor would nature.

Should couples who can't bear children not be allowed to marry?
Yes.
D'oh!
They can change their minds and have the complementary equipment to reproduce.
Perverts will never.

[svcw]

There are actually two issues.
One a legal contract, ie. the government issued license.
Two a religious ceremony.

Any two people can have a religious ceremony (there are many churches who will marry any two beings or more together whether or not there are government sanctions on the union). So in my opinion it is not even an issue for discussion. As a side note I am always amused that homosexuals will say they can not commit to each other without a license. Why not? Just live a committed life. (I know its not possible though.)

The real issue is the government sanctioned union between two consenting adults. What homosexuals want is government recognition of their unions. They as a group are desperate for normalcy. One would suppose that they are desperate for this because they know instinctively that they are not normal.

What is the real purpose of government sanctioned unions between a man and a woman. For 5000 years of recorded history it was to stabilize the family unit, in order to raise the next generation. Only a man and woman can produce children, therefore the only union the government should advance is a legal and sanctified union between a man and a woman.

The argument you will get with this thought is "what about people who marry who are unable to have children", my response it still represents the paradigm of one man and one woman.

Personally, marriage is what God has commanded: one man one woman, it is a representation of Gods relationship with the church.

[FormerLib]

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

How is it made easier with a contract?

In the same manner as any other legally-enforceable agreement. For instance, do you rely on written or verbal contracts when buying a home or other large purchase? One is a legally enforceable contract while the other usually is not.

[irishtenor]

Marriage was defined by God. Until he changes his mind, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Man can, and does, institue civil unions, but MARRIAGE was instituted by God. Nuff said.

[two134711]

It most certainly would. It would tell people that marriage is not just about the wedding or being with the person you love. Marriage, like fighting a war, is a serious mission. Unless you are willing to stick it out for the long haul, then maybe you should stay home and let the real men be the heros, so to speak. :)

[Sols]

I don't like kids, I guess I can't get hitched. :(

This is why I especially find "marriage = children" arguments are upsetting. I feel the logical conclusion is disallowing non-child producing marriages as well. I also think it's a pretty clinical way to look at a beautiful thing.

Maybe I'm just paranoid *tinfoil hat*.

[Lando Lincoln]

;)

Lando

[HitmanLV]

First of all, it's not gay marriage. It is same sex marriage. Gay people have not been barred from getting married. A gay man has as much freedom and right to marry as a straight man: that is, find a woman who is willing to marry him. There is no bar to gay people getting married.

Gay people have gotten married as long as there have been marriages. They have just married people of the opposite sex.

Second, I wouldn't give any serious attention to the nature/nurture argument that some people pose. That is, if it is nature (and therefore natural), we shouldn't have institutional blocks to same sex unions.

For example, it's perfectly natural for a male to see a female who sexually excites him, chase them a bit, catch them and force them to the ground, and have sex with her. That behavior is exhibited in nature all the time. It's certainly 'natural.' That doesn't mean it's legitimate behavior.

Some critics point out that the female in the above example doesn't give her consent. That's perfectly natural, too, as I point out. The fact that this is natural doesn't mean it should be considered legitimate behavior.

So nature or nurture, in itself neither gives a license for legitimacy in themselves.

Another public policy issue is that as a general principle, it's probably not wise to change a long-standing definition of an institution like marriage for 100% of the population to somehow accommodate 1 or 2% of the population. The 2% shouldn't be abused, of course, but that doesn't mean that their every whim should be accommodated.

Another aspect of changing the definition of marriage in regards to the sex of the parties involved, what then makes other aspects of the definition special? What is special then about the 'twoness' of marriage - why can't it be 3 people, or 4, or more? If one part of the definition is up for grabs, what makes

If they are ok with 3, 4 or 5 member married couples, ask what public policy issues are advanced by advocating those relationships? That the parties will be happy is nice, but it's not a public policy concern: that is, what makes culturally advocating these relationships so good for the rest of us?

If challenged that same-sex couples are denied valuable tax benefits of marriage, politely ask the person specifically what those benefits are. They won't know, because it's a myth. They will instinctively try for misdirection and talk about next-of-kin and hospital visitation, but remind them firmly that neither is a tax issue. Press on the tax issue, and when they come up empty politely ask them valuable can these tax benefits they mentioned be if they have no idea what they are. This has the added impact of making them look very dumb.

Much of the marriage deal can be accomplished by private contract. Suggest that as an alternative. They will protest and say why should same-sex couples goto added expense and trouble that married couple's don't. Remind them that marriage couples pay to get a marriage license and much of the legal forms simulating aspects of the marriage relationship are boilerplate and can be bought in a stationary store for a few dollars, probably less than a marriage license.

Further, most people - but not all - spend quite a bit of money on marriage ceremonies. Indeed, using contract law to make a comparable marriage may indeed by cheaper and easier than in fact getting married.

You don't need to rely on religion to argue against same sex marriage at all.