Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Originally posted by Jrocbaby

Originally posted by Testsubject3
Define Logical...

One could say because its weird/wrong which is a logical statement/argument. All based on the fact its human nature to survive and to survive you have to keep your genes going and as of right now man/man or woman/woman can't...well at least not naturally.

But other than that I don't see a problem with it.

Oh so we can kill 50,000,000 babies with abortion, 15,000 a day from a lack of basic clean water/food, and we have 8 BILLION people, and you are worried about your species dying?

You sir have not defined logical

Besides, 1 gay couple that does not produce, IS SO MUCH BETTER, than a straight couple with 10 kids, and we know how often that happens in every town in the country

edit on 22-5-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)

First I would like to start of by quoting, so I hope your a Billy Madison fan.

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Secondly I'd like to ask. "out of context much?"

I was asking the OP to define logical. My statement was not the definition of logical. All you have stated is that people die which is a pretty weak/ off topic rebuttal. I never said I'm worried about my species dying, I said that a same sex couple could not procreate which is part of the basics of human nature. Which would be a logical argument.

reply to post by thepainweaver

So, it is kind of an oxymoron to argue for gay 'marriage' when 'marriage' is a creation of religion, and religion is openly against homosexuals.

That is just perfect, I could not agree with you more it took me about 6 paragraphs to make that point and you have made it much better than I have with just one line. Clearly you have splendid linguistic talents and I applaud and admire you for that.

reply to post by kevinunknown


"Why is it that we are allowing the rights of one group in society, in this case slaves to surpass that of another group, religious people?"

That's what they were complaining about before slavery was abolished too.... how dare they !!!

Next...

reply to post by kevinunknown


Uh... WRONG. A religious component is NOT necessary to have a legal marriage.

Religions can be bigoted against gay marriage all they want... it is no more the place of gov't to say religions must recognize gay marriage than it is of religions to say the gov't must not.

But the legal contract of marriage is not not NOT based on religion... at least in the US. At least, so far. Who knows what will happen if the religious bigots get enough political power...

reply to post by LexiconV


Slavery is totally different you know it and I know it. The two are not comparable.

If that is the only counterargument you have against my points then I think you had better go do some rethinking.

reply to post by kevinunknown


its conceivable that marriage evolved after the natural tendency for humans to pair off was observed. religion may have institutionalized marriage, but didnt invent it.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Marriage is a religious ceremony for a true marriage you must have the spiritual aspect of the marriage. If you only have the legal comment of the “marriage” then your “marriage” is really a civil partnership. If you had bothered to read my whole post you would have understood that.

that is how it works in the UK

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Myendica

 

Heterosexual couples selfishly get married without the intent of starting a family. Consider young hot blondes who marry rich old men. Or consider drunk men in Vegas marrying a drunk stripper.

Heck, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of marriage with the intent of starting a family, that action is selfish as well because they -want- to get married and -want- to start a family. People really don't need to get married to start a family, and people don't even need to start families. It isn't as if the world is hurting on people. I think the population is plenty full.

what you said here is speculation. U have no idea the mindset of the people getting married. none. Stop making up BS to fulfill your view. Like I said.. I have no p[roblem

Originally posted by LexiconV

Originally posted by Myendica
I have nothing against gay marriage. but the arguement is, the two together cannot create a family, which is the origin of marriage.

I mean, you can call it whatever you want.. but two male brids, won't lay any eggs. well, that hatch..

edit on 22-5-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

Doh... No more eggs with your bacon for breakfast Christians. that would be cannibalistic and you better toss that bacon out too if you're going to keep being pedantic about the Old Testament rules... and the shell fish, the prawns and all those aphrodisiac oysters.
You can kiss goodbye to your Thanks Giving dinner too...all you birdies.

Next....

you are extremely ignorant. YOU ARE IGNORANT.

I cannot believe half of what you people are saying. where do you get this ideas from? how are you not in mental institutions. fireals? I'm not even Christian you over generalizing /./...&%*&^$*&^%$*&^


whats funny is, behind your computer screen you got all kinds of atitude and can talk mad #... why don't you goto congress and talk all this # if you got thise whole arguement down!!!! but you wont cause you're a worthless computer troll ... Life doesnt owe you anything... lowlifes.

gay relationships are purely pleasure based, they lack the component of the desire to create new life.
a big component of real marriage is to create life from your own blood, gay unions main purpose is to enjoy the affection and "love" from your partner
gay union is not the same as traditional marriage and should not be accepted or called the same

also to those saying homoxesuals are natural, yes they might be natural since there are examples of it happening in nature. that does not mean that it is normal or meant to be.

The anus was not meant to be used for sexual penetration - fact

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by thepainweaver

 

So, it is kind of an oxymoron to argue for gay 'marriage' when 'marriage' is a creation of religion, and religion is openly against homosexuals.

That is just perfect, I could not agree with you more it took me about 6 paragraphs to make that point and you have made it much better than I have with just one line. Clearly you have splendid linguistic talents and I applaud and admire you for that.

...said the priest to the altar boy, as he rammed it forcefully!
Pathetic
Akushla

Originally posted by quietlearner
gay relationships are purely pleasure based,
, gay unions main purpose is to enjoy the affection and "love" from your partner
The anus was not meant to be used for sexual penetration - fact

How bad do you want to get #ed? It's ok to tell me. I won't judge you. Oh if only the anus was "meant" to be used for sexual penetration i could enjoy so much love and affection from the man of my dreams.

i think it should just be called marriage. you dont get a gay drivers license, birth certificate, diploma or anything else

reply to post by kevinunknown


That may be how it works in the UK, but not the US. I didn't have to read beyond:

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Marriage is a religious ceremony preformed by a leader of that religion such as a priest.

to know you are wrong. In the context of marriage in the US.

Originally posted by goos3
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

One reason, its wrong.

Wow. I noticed all the stars this post has gotten! Really?

The topic asks for LOGICAL arguments, not personal evaluations. "It's wrong..." HOW? Yet by stating "It's wrong," stars are given, as if this answered the post's question.

Now before I make my point, let me make myself clear and state that I do not vehemently appose gays or hold some disgust or hate against them.

My logical argument against gays ISNT against the demographic as a whole, but rather the warped and unnatural behaivior of SOME extreeeeeme gays. The kind that go out of thier way to really show the world that theyre gay.

Aside from it being plain annoying when youre getting hit on by one, its as if said person who is being overly extravagent about it is really trying to let everyone know, as if they cant contain it. Normal people don't really behave that way.

One last thing before I make my point...my close friends uncle is gay and hes a really cool, down to earth guy. You would never think he were gay. He doesnt look gay, act gay, or talk gay and I can appreciate that. If one man truley loves another man that they want to be with them then so be it. You cant really argue against THAT.


Now...those things being said, my argument against gays is the unnatural behavior of SOME (not all) gay persons which I believe is the biproduct of massive doses of overconsumerism and warped media...secondly, it is the inability to reproduce. Yes...make life. 2 human beings of the same sex (and this goes for the vast majority of organic life) cannot procreate. This is where some people will say, "WELL ITS NOT ALL ABOUT SEX YOU KNOW!!!!!!!111" and I agree, it doesnt have to be, but lets be realistic...who doesnt want to get it in every once in a while? This aspect of not being able to naturally procreate and engage in NATURAL sexual activity is the most major issue I have with it. Ask yourself what would happen if the majority of people in the world were homosexual...yup.

Regardless, I consider most of them human beings unless they act otherwise...the end.

Peace

Originally posted by quietlearner
gay relationships are purely pleasure based, they lack the component of the desire to create new life.
a big component of real marriage is to create life from your own blood, gay unions main purpose is to enjoy the affection and "love" from your partner
gay union is not the same as traditional marriage and should not be accepted or called the same

also to those saying homoxesuals are natural, yes they might be natural since there are examples of it happening in nature. that does not mean that it is normal or meant to be.

The anus was not meant to be used for sexual penetration - fact

...and i suppose the mouth or the the hand were not either?!
...ever done this yourself...hypocrite?
Pathetic
Akushla

reply to post by Jugtalicus


Those extravagant gays who "hit on you" do so because they're men, not because they're gay.

Jeesh, try being a woman for one day in your life.

Originally posted by akushla99

...and i suppose the mouth or the the hand were not either?!
...ever done this yourself...hypocrite?
Pathetic
Akushla

tell me, why do you believe gay marriage is ok? once again, I haven't a problem with it.. I just like to know your opinion.. why a gay marriage as opposed to a straight one?> you seem like you play the role of all knowing

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by thepainweaver

 

So, it is kind of an oxymoron to argue for gay 'marriage' when 'marriage' is a creation of religion, and religion is openly against homosexuals.

That is just perfect, I could not agree with you more it took me about 6 paragraphs to make that point and you have made it much better than I have with just one line. Clearly you have splendid linguistic talents and I applaud and admire you for that.

So the creation of something from a srouce that is said to oppose homosexuals cannot be used for another purpose, and cannot be used to support homosexuals? There's something of a false dichotomy to that along with another logical fallacy I'm ignoring.

If religions are against homosexuals (which all of them aren't, so that isn't really an accurate statement to make in the first place), and if marriage is believed to be a creation invented by religion (which I doubt as well), then people need to find a way to turn the concept of marriage against its creator so that it can be expanded to encompass homosexuals and allow them to marry.

It's a process of conversion that can be used to make gay marriage legal and acceptable. Furthermore, conversions are a natural phenomenon in nature, so there really isn't a problem to it. Heck, religion itself even evolved, converted, and changed to several branches and practices over the years that are today divergent and far-removed from the original rituals and practices that made up the idea of "religion" as it existed in the primitive world.