Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

reply to post by Helious


I read pretty well actually, but your post went ALL over the place, so it was a challenge. You've got some actual falsehoods in there. Still waiting for the logical argument against.

Homosexuality is not a right. - WRONG
It's your right to be attracted to whoever you want. No one can take that away from you. It is your right as YOU control it entirely.

Being attracted to the same sex is not abnormal and is no different than a polar disorder - WRONG
It IS abnormal, but it's not unnatural. if you can find me a published scientific study that labels homosexuality as a "polar disorder" (or even bipolar), then I'll retract that statement and apologize.

Homosexuality is a fetish - WRONG
It's not a fetish. A fetish is something that causes sexual excitement that has nothing to do with the genital areas. It's a commonly known fact that homosexuality is a gender preference and it not always related to sexual activity.

Keep in mind that equality is laughable when you're the one with more rights. And the right to marry who you want should be a legal right to anyone. You may argue that homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want and that's the same rights as other people, but again, you're just being disingenuous.

Even in one paragraph you say that you don't see any problem with it and then you go on in another to say that it's disgusting. I'm not getting a sense of where you're going, but there's not a lot of logic in it.

reply to post by technical difficulties


having a government regulation on marriages is like having a government regulation on birthday parties

I have no problems with gay marriages. When you adopt a child, and bring them into your gay marriage. That is where I take offense. When a child does not have a mother and father, I believe you are depriving them of a "normal" childhood. At school the child will think "The other kids at school have a mommy and daddy, why don't I?" They may be picked on or bullied because of this, and think it is there fault. If the child does not have a same sex parent, they may not develop skills or traits seen as the norm.

Just because you want to live a gay lifestyle, does not mean you need to pull another child into it. I am sorry if anyone is offended by me referring to a "normal" childhood, as someone with two heterosexual parents. That is the "norm" however

This thread is extremely offensive, and full of intolerance (since apparently if you mention the term "hate" that's the only thing that they focus on in their responses). Posting things like "You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us" and other similar statements are ridiculous. All of the intolerant are going to end up like my grandfather....some unhappy old guy who still hates black people. At least it's something to look forward too.

No matter the argument, human/civil/equal rights always prevail, even if it takes another 20 years.

I'm just glad I'm on the side of good, and acceptance...

...and not part of the dying breed.

Originally posted by tokar854
I have no problems with gay marriages. When you adopt a child, and bring them into your gay marriage. That is where I take offense. When a child does not have a mother and father, I believe you are depriving them of a "normal" childhood. At school the child will think "The other kids at school have a mommy and daddy, why don't I?" They may be picked on or bullied because of this, and think it is there fault. If the child does not have a same sex parent, they may not develop skills or traits seen as the norm.

Just because you want to live a gay lifestyle, does not mean you need to pull another child into it. I am sorry if anyone is offended by me referring to a "normal" childhood, as someone with two heterosexual parents. That is the "norm" however

Have you ever even looked into how children from gay couples turn out before passing off this intolerance? If you did, you'd find this...

articles.cnn.com...:LIVING

Marriage is an outdated extension of religion.. Not sure why gays want to participate in yet another way to control the masses.

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

It seems low to call me out for being "late to the party" as something that might make my response less valid. The thread was quite vigorous and I tend not to read replies before I get my original response out. I'd be fine with calling myself out as it'd be my choice, but I see nothing wrong with posting late as long as followups are done.

You're obviously well-read and your spelling and grammar are impeccable, so attempting to bash people with your intellect would only be a good idea when someone can't defend themselves against it. I recommend sticking to the argument instead of trying to dismantle the thread and go off topic. I try not to reply to trolling but in this case, you warranted a reply because you do make some points in your post.

I had to search through the forum to find GetReadyAlready's post and it is definitely a legitimate argument against same sex marriage IF there's no way for that couple to have children AND you discount all the other heterosexual couples out there that can't have children, yet still decide to get married. There is, and the tax benefit can apply to them the same as it does for heterosexual couples with children. It's really more of a reason for couples who don't have children to have their marriage annulled because they don't produce a tax base. And I covered it already in a previous post.

Regarding the man/animal and man/boy legalization issues, I believe that there are some supporters of those, but they're definitely minor and then you have to deal with consent issues and the who rights over minors/animals to contend with. But comparing legal consenting behavior between two adult people and those of an animal or minor is disingenuous at best and very similar in strategy to comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or Stalin to garner that emotional association before the discussion even starts.

Thanks grahag, appreciate the civil reply, as well as your kind words.

Glad you got a chance to read getreadyalready's contribution, at least now we can all agree that there really are more or less reasonable arguments on both sides of virtually any issue, including those we may care most about.

As far as being late to the party, my apologies for any condemnatory tone directed too much at you, obviously we all make posts at times without reading an entire thread, especially if they are lengthy. My frustration was more with those who ducked in just to make their announcement, that "yep, no logical argument!", without really offering any contribution. This is the kind of thing that can be bothersome in any discussion.

As far as your gentle accusation that I have derailed the thread, and am more or less trolling, well, I will have to take issue with that I'm afraid.

Offered here as a reminder, being so late in the thread, here is what our OP provided:

So my question here to ATS is, are there any decent points on the other side that have been overlooked

My congratulations to you, since you have actually found one, after having it pointed out to you.

As far as pushing off-topic, you failed to mention a specific example in my case, but you may have been a bit mixed up, based on my final comments I'll get to before completing this post.

My opinion is that going radically off-topic is mostly what the pro-gay-marriage folks have been doing, from page one. Think about it. The "assignment" was to try and find "decent points on the other side", and quite frankly, there has been a very vigorous attempt to push a social agenda instead, with some posting over and over, the same OFF-TOPIC nonsense.

Honestly, why wouldn't you lay this very accusation at the feet of Annee, or hotbakedtater, since they have made the most posts, and they are mostly off-topic? No wonder you failed to cite a specific example, since I have been one of those taking the unpopular job of trying to keep the political zealots under control (not easy).

Of course it's fine to be a democrat, or a republican, or a whig, who cares? But for those who are somehow surprised to find that the assignment wasn't to announce victory on every page, well maybe now they can put their thinking caps back on.

There have been some great posts I think on both sides, although I seem to be the only one starring Garfee's posts. Someone who self-identified as being personally very acquainted with this real-world situation, has been continually told to stuff it, with the slogan "separate but equal" being thrown in his face, over and over. The gentleman is 100% on-topic with his contributions, and all he gets is political slogans? Sadly grahag, I observe that you have seemingly joined in with this as well. I wouldn't even point it out, but really, you're calling the kettle black here.

I have gay friends, and family, and IMO, Garfee is far from being the radical one here, he is expressing what I would consider a majority opinion from the gay community. Oh, but who cares what they think, especially if you're trying to change the world?

As far as children and animals go, I'm sure you have me mixed up with someone else, otherwise, it would be a clear attempt on your part to marginalize me by identifying me with the ludicrous fringe (at least you didn't accuse me of being a Bible-thumper!). Actually, considering you specifically mention Hitler and Stalin, I guess vilification must be your aim.

Well, I suppose we'll just leave it at that.

JR

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

I agree with everything you said, I came here because I found it hard to belief that there is no logical argument against gay marriage. The title was interesting and I wanted to engage in a logic based discussion.
yet every time I presented a logical argument two or tree people will respond with one liners on how they disagree personally without trying to invalidate the logic,or at least trying but failing because of their own logical flaws
and then I have to spend more time trying to argue why their counter argument is not logical
at the same time the subsequent responses also are heavily opinionated and logically weak
to people that called me prejudiced and bigot etc. I'm not, plus I hardly care about gay marriage
this is the first time in my life trying to take part in a gay marriage debate
therefore is my first time thinking about this subject they way I did while taking part in this thread
and obviously is my first time trying to argue against pro gay marriage advocates
I have to tell you, they say first impressions are very important.
my first impression is that pro gay marriage advocates are not good at logic but emotion driven
I'm not saying all gay marriage advocates are illogical. I'm pretty sure there must be pro gay marriage advocates that are highly logical but this is just that impression I got from the couple of people in this thread.

First I will say quietlearner, your logic is excellent in my opinion, as were your various patient presentations of your arguments. As far as "your country" goes, I can't imagine how that was so important, but I was glad to see that you saw such low attempts for what they were. (BTW, your English is excellent!)

You're right about those first impressions, and it's too bad that the political zealots and social agenda radicals are so emotional, but that's probably why extremism appeals to them. Not that passion for things we care about it a bad thing, but when it gets to the point that they are behaving like the Three Monkeys, well, no wonder the thread descended into the zoo that it did.

I will say that the thread began to turn around, IMO, when you arrived, and began helping to hold their feet to the fire.

As for me, the gay marriage issue isn't all that important to me either. I just thought that "truth" was being so badly abused, that someone needed to step up and do something.

Well, hope to see you around ATS, I enjoyed reading your posts. People like you raise the quality of the ATS experience considerably IMO.

JR

Originally posted by aceto
Marriage is an outdated extension of religion.. Not sure why gays want to participate in yet another way to control the masses.

Not the ritual of marriage (although some want that as well), but the legal aspects of it too.

lol, a normal marriage has a 50% success rate so you just as well can flip a coin before you decide yes I do.

I think the percentage of lesbian/gay marriages success will be higher.

Just another example that state and religion still aren't separated in too many countries.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Society in general doesnt agree with same sex marriage. A loud and proud minority have taken the pulpit to further their agenda. To find one logical argument against it would be impossible. You can probably find five hundred. From moral issues to family issues to quite frankly it is just not something I want to see in my neighborhood. I have just as much right to object to it as anyone does supporting it. From a purely biological standpoint, no moral issues involved...well honestly, its not normal. There is nothing normal about it. Advocates say it happens in nature all the time, maybe it does but that doesnt make it normal. Animals also tear each other limb from limb and consume them. Animals also have no issue with eating trash, licking their own backside, or playing in traffic. That argument is so flawed. If it were normal, reproduction wouldnt involve a male and female. So if you wish to take God out of the equation you are still left with the truth, it is not normal.

Agreed!! The only reason to get married "should be" when two people decided to have kids. Straight or gay period. (I don't care who gets married) Why would you get married? (unless to start a family) I've seen way too many ugly divorces in a short time frame to promote marriage.

There were many gay people who came out in the news against gay marriage. Why? $money$. You work and work to become successful only to be taken for 50% or more when the marriage fails? If I were gay, I would rather have my cake and eat to than stand together for the 50% rule.

But, really, who cares if people want to get married. (people being the key word here)

Originally posted by bruisedhalo
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Society in general doesnt agree with same sex marriage. A loud and proud minority have taken the pulpit to further their agenda. To find one logical argument against it would be impossible. You can probably find five hundred. From moral issues to family issues to quite frankly it is just not something I want to see in my neighborhood. I have just as much right to object to it as anyone does supporting it. From a purely biological standpoint, no moral issues involved...well honestly, its not normal. There is nothing normal about it. Advocates say it happens in nature all the time, maybe it does but that doesnt make it normal. Animals also tear each other limb from limb and consume them. Animals also have no issue with eating trash, licking their own backside, or playing in traffic. That argument is so flawed. If it were normal, reproduction wouldnt involve a male and female. So if you wish to take God out of the equation you are still left with the truth, it is not normal.

Homosexuality IS abnormal behavior, but it is NATURAL. Just as being an albino or left-handed person is not normal, they are both natural. Based on the fact that southpaws are not normal, should we annul their marriages?

By logical argument, I'm meaning one that given NO other facts other than the argument, there appears to be no reason to fight it. Some people might call it common sense, but that tends to be ambiguous. I've heard a few that by themselves might make sense, and those are the ones worth arguing. We've had a few that made sense, but then fall apart when we talk about them due to the standard not holding up when compared to other similar arguments, such as the left-handed/abnormal argument.

Originally posted by tokar854
I have no problems with gay marriages. When you adopt a child, and bring them into your gay marriage. That is where I take offense. When a child does not have a mother and father, I believe you are depriving them of a "normal" childhood. At school the child will think "The other kids at school have a mommy and daddy, why don't I?" They may be picked on or bullied because of this, and think it is there fault. If the child does not have a same sex parent, they may not develop skills or traits seen as the norm.

Just because you want to live a gay lifestyle, does not mean you need to pull another child into it. I am sorry if anyone is offended by me referring to a "normal" childhood, as someone with two heterosexual parents. That is the "norm" however

If homophobic couples took that advice, then gay married couples adopting children wouldn't be a problem.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by tokar854
I have no problems with gay marriages. When you adopt a child, and bring them into your gay marriage. That is where I take offense. When a child does not have a mother and father, I believe you are depriving them of a "normal" childhood. At school the child will think "The other kids at school have a mommy and daddy, why don't I?" They may be picked on or bullied because of this, and think it is there fault. If the child does not have a same sex parent, they may not develop skills or traits seen as the norm.

Just because you want to live a gay lifestyle, does not mean you need to pull another child into it. I am sorry if anyone is offended by me referring to a "normal" childhood, as someone with two heterosexual parents. That is the "norm" however

If homophobic couples took that advice, then gay married couples adopting children wouldn't be a problem.

This is the one argument that is hard to go against for most people. But if you apply the reasoning to heterosexual couples, it falls apart and fails to be a logical reason against legalizing gay marriage.

I do agree that having a father and mother present would be beneficial to a child, but heterosexual couples can't guarantee that and current legal marriages can't be denied based on the criteria that the mother/father won't be around as a role model. It IS healthier to have both parents in the household, but I doubt you'd find much of a difference between homo and hetero couples in how the children end up.

Originally posted by klarkowski67
Agreed!! The only reason to get married "should be" when two people decided to have kids. Straight or gay period. (I don't care who gets married) Why would you get married? (unless to start a family) I've seen way too many ugly divorces in a short time frame to promote marriage.
There were many gay people who came out in the news against gay marriage. Why? $money$. You work and work to become successful only to be taken for 50% or more when the marriage fails? If I were gay, I would rather have my cake and eat to than stand together for the 50% rule.
But, really, who cares if people want to get married. (people being the key word here)

As far as I know, there's not a requirement for a reason to get legally married. I was married 14 years ago because I absolutely love the woman who was my best friend and wanted her to share my life and that commitment was what we wanted to give to each other. We don't have any kids, so when someone brings up the fact that marriage should be for children, I tend to take notice more.

I understand that some people FEEL that it should be to have children, but as long as it stops short of saying that my marriage shouldn't stand because I don't have children, the respect of that opinion stands. The second someone starts telling me that I should have children because that's what marriage was for, I get fairly defensive because their opinion and judgment of the status of my marriage is in question. It's a short step to suggest legislation and then all of a sudden, my legal marriage isn't, anymore.

I don't think that's in danger any time soon though. Common sense (and logic) will prevail.

Its all about money...who gets who's SSI and Retirement and Life Insurance...if you want someone to get oru stuff,file a will....take the money angle out of the marriage quest and it would fall on its face

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Honestly, why wouldn't you lay this very accusation at the feet of Annee, or hotbakedtater, since they have made the most posts, and they are mostly off-topic? No wonder you failed to cite a specific example, since I have been one of those taking the unpopular job of trying to keep the political zealots under control (not easy).

Apparently I got to you. Sorry - - but I just find you silly.

I am very aware what the OP's question is. In what thread on ATS do you not get opposition?

In my opinion/viewpoint - - - there has not been one Logical viewpoint/position/argument against Gay marriage.

I understand ideologies/beliefs/society/political etc. - - - but they are not Logical arguments against LEGAL Gay marriage. They are excuses.

In the late 50s/early 60s - - - women athletes were Lesbians - - because no "real" Woman would physically exert her self in an extreme way - - endangering her female anatomy. Seriously!!! And this wisdom came from my high school in Liberal Los Angeles. Not even conservative midwest/south.

Sure - people take their beliefs/ideologies seriously - - and think society should fit the criteria they support. So what.

Gays have families/relationships - - exactly like Heteros. There is no difference.

Denying them the same rights as Heteros is discrimination against a minority group. It is not anything else.

Originally posted by bruisedhalo
I have just as much right to object to it as anyone does supporting it.

But not legally.

I would object to having a neighbor with your viewpoints. I can object all I want. But not legally.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bruisedhalo
I have just as much right to object to it as anyone does supporting it.

But not legally.

I would object to having a neighbor with your viewpoints. I can object all I want. But not legally.

HUH?..What is "Legally Objecting"???