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 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 301-305 next last
To: rhombus
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.

141 posted on 11/30/2005 2:44:43 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 98 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


142 posted on 11/30/2005 2:44:46 PM PST by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton; Hildy
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.

143 posted on 11/30/2005 2:44:55 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 106 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

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.


144 posted on 11/30/2005 2:45:10 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool; He is holy. Ps 99:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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.

145 posted on 11/30/2005 2:45:19 PM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

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.


146 posted on 11/30/2005 2:45:56 PM PST by Restorer (They want to die. We want to kill them. Cool!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: MRadtke

>>>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.


148 posted on 11/30/2005 2:47:15 PM PST by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

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. ):


149 posted on 11/30/2005 2:48:55 PM PST by Restorer (They want to die. We want to kill them. Cool!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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?
150 posted on 11/30/2005 2:49:02 PM PST by Hoboto (I blame Hippies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

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


151 posted on 11/30/2005 2:49:06 PM PST by sit-rep (If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


152 posted on 11/30/2005 2:49:30 PM PST by SaxxonWoods (Question for Socialists: Why are others bound to do for you what you won't do for yourself?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sols
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.

153 posted on 11/30/2005 2:50:25 PM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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.
154 posted on 11/30/2005 2:50:27 PM PST by svcw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
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.

155 posted on 11/30/2005 2:50:39 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 122 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

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.


156 posted on 11/30/2005 2:51:06 PM PST by irishtenor (At 270 pounds, I am twice the bike rider Lance is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry

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. :)


157 posted on 11/30/2005 2:51:18 PM PST by two134711 (I have libertarian leanings, but my conservatism keeps those in check.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: lepton

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*.


158 posted on 11/30/2005 2:52:59 PM PST by Sols
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
;)

Lando

159 posted on 11/30/2005 2:53:25 PM PST by Lando Lincoln (The general public doesn't pay attention enough........to care enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
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.
160 posted on 11/30/2005 2:54:34 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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