looking for a good argument against gay marriage?
605494
"if straight ppl have to suffer through marriage, EVERYONE should have to." \n\nhow about that one?
850864
Congrats on coming out!!...Although I totally agree with gay people being allowed to marry, we have to examine the political climate of what we're dealing with.  Anytime another group is pushed into a corner they are gonna be on the defensive.  This is what's happening with gay marriage.  Christians (being riled up by the Republicans) feel it's an attack on the "sanctity" of marriage.  I won't even try to get into all the ironies of that statement, but it is in fact how they feel.  The gay community feels that a fundamental right is being taken away and so the push for legalized marriage intensifies.  \n\nThe only solution for this situation is for the gay community to back off for "marriage" and to push for civil unions.  Having all the same legal rights, benefits, and legal consequences (divorce) as marriage..but not calling it marriage.  This would be a true separation of church and state, it would ease the Christians minds of marriage being on the attack and essentially take away any arguing points on the issue. It would allow the gay community to benefit form what straight people have been enjoying for centuries.\n\nUnfortunately we live in such a political charged atmosphere that such compromises have to made to get a solution.  It isn't necessarily right...but it's the best way for us to realistically achieve our goal of legal rights.  If the marriage push continues by the gay community it's only going to cause increased tensions  and our ability to enjoy equal rights will be a long time away.
876739
There are two nonreligious reasons to prohibit gay marriage.  One is such a union cannot produce children.  In former times, every child was needed to support society and infant mortality was high so they absolutely forbade such unions.  That doesn't mean they didn't happen.  They were often disguised.  \n\nThat reason can go out the window.  There are plenty of children now and plenty of adults who choose, for one reason or another, not to have any.  A childless household is no longer anything to be remarked on.  \n\nThe second reason is monetary.  If the federal government, insurance companies and pension plans had to recognize a gay partner as being a spouse, they would have to pay benefits just as they would for a religious spouse.  They are fighting this.  If you think social security is in trouble now, wait until that finally gets accepted and thousands of long term gay spouses are able to draw survivor benefits.  \n\nHow do I feel about it?  LET THEM HAVE THE BENEFITS.
665746
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it. Sheer insanity is the ONLY force driving anyone to oppose Gay marriage, for there is NOT ONE consequence resulting from gay marriage that would harm anyone / anything anywhere in this universe.\n\nGays can make marriages worthy to be admired.\nGays can effectively lead children into adulthood.\nChildren raised by Gays are not harmed/damaged in anyway.\nGays have careers, own homes, participate civily in communities all over the place.\nGays pay taxes and contribute much to the economy all over.\nGay marriages will NOT threaten the human species.\nGay marriage will NOT affect "straight" marriages.\nGay marriages will NOT diminish the number of "straight" marriages commencing from year to year.\n\nTo be sure, Gay marriages will require levels of responsibility equal to all the tasks that come with the package. In many ways the scenario will be no different than heterosexual marriages.\n\nThis is NOT a religious matter.\nThis is a civil matter.\nThis is about love, affirmation, responsibility with family matters and life decision matters.\n\nThis is the 21 century of reality. Gay marriages will NOT contribute ANY harm to the life of things on planet earth. Only the insanely driven and/or sleep walking bigots would think otherwise.
231122
Gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue.  By preventing any two consenting adults from marrying, solely because of their homosexuality, you are discriminating against them.  It is unfair for gay couples to be prevented from marrying.  \nA common argument (of fundamentalists) is that since a gay couple cannot naturally reproduce, they should not be allowed to marry. But many straight couples cannot naturally reproduce either. Another common argument is that gay marriage will promote pedophilia. Statistically, most pedophiles are straight white males. \nGay marriage does not affect anyone but the couple themselves. It will not "turn" anyone gay. It will give couples equal rights to insurance, shared property, and the same rights as a heterosexual married couple.  \nWhile each of us has the right to our own personal belief about whether or not homosexuality is, as you said, an "abomination", we do not have the right to force our personal beliefs on others in such a way as would affect their lives and happiness permanently.  \nAfter all, if someone told you you could not marry solely because you were straight, I imagine you would be upset. Straight may be normal to you and I; but to gay couples, being gay is their reality.
1023996
It amazes me that people are so hung up on gay marriage.  The "God didn't want it that way" crap holds no water, according to the Bible we should not kill, slavery is a good thing, adulterers should be put to death and women have no place in church leadership.........where is the logic to any of it??  I'm straight but I believe gays are treated in today's society is no better than African-Americans in Mississippi in the 1950/60's.  I really think it all boils down to fear and ignorance.
543088
I particularly like "Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe" by John Boswell and it would be neat to see his evidence online, perhaps in timeline form.  Gay marriage is a hot topic, and those of us who do history know that this whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" thing is total crap.  Plenty of societies have had, allowed, and encouraged same sex marriage, like Native American societies.  I would like to see more about that online.
57526
Yes...although I'm thinking this wasn't the place to ask this question...unless you're looking for a fight.  You will invariably get rude and hateful answers.  Since you don't have any history, it's impossible for me to guage if you asked this to see others' views on the subject or if you are gay and wanting to marry.\n\nI am a strong advocate for gay marriage.  I'm straight myself, but I have quite a few gay friends and I like to think of myself as somewhat liberal.  Who are we to define who should and should not get married?  Granted, anything within a family is sick and wrong (although I'm sure there are some people out there that will beg to differ with me - but I've seen in places that the result of children from incestuous relationships often have severe abnormalities)...and I agree with NoMorLuv that anything involving animals (beastiality) is also wrong.  They can not speak for themselves.  Multiple partners, not okay either.  \n\nThat remains simple.  Set a law establishing that a marriage is a union between 2 persons - be it a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women.  That's it.  1 union per 2 people, not related by blood.  There ya go.  Solves that.  Why can't 2 guys get married in most states?  Why can't 2 women?  Why does it matter?  \n\nI'll tell you why - because you have the religious types (nope, not quite sure where my faith lies) that say that it is wrong in the Bible.  I thought God was supposed to love you no matter what?  No matter what your sexual orientation?  I've seen people post here that if you repent for your sins (ie homosexuality - I saw it on a post concerning lesbians going to hell) that God will forgive you.  Why should you have to repent for loving someone of the same sex?  That implies that it's wrong, when it's not.  So what if you're the same sex?  As long as you love each other, that's what's important.\n\nIn my mind, I think that a marriage should be just as stated above.  It's a commitment to love and honor your spouse, no matter what.  I have a very close friend at work (he lives in Massachusetts - where gay marriage is legal) who is married to another man and he can't be happier!  And you know what, I can't be happier for him!  \n\nPeople say that by allowing gays to marry, it will destroy the sanctity of marriage.  Will not.  Like said, it shouldn't matter as long as there is love and commitment there!  \n\nPlus, there's the whole children thing.  Just because Mary has 2 moms (or 2 dads) doesn't mean that she will grow up to be a lesbian.  It's more important to show a loving relationship than the sex of the parents.  Homosexuality is not something that is induced by surroundings or peers, it's just something that happens.  Nor is it an abbhoration, as I've also seen people post here.  Damn people and their closed minds.  It's actually been seen in young children, sometimes they just don't know it yet.  I believe it's something that is just predetermined...a lot of gay people (mostly men) that I've talked to said they always knew.  Actually, my married friend was married to a woman once...he thought he might change!  (I saw that here too...someone said with enough of the right counselling they can "become" straight!)  So it really doesn't matter who your parents are, as long as they're happy.\n\nBesides, why should they be denied the benefits of being married just because they're not man/woman?  Gay people need health insurance too!  (No smart comments, future posters, please!)  Life insurance?  Then again, some plans might let you place a sibling or what not as a beneficiary.  There's the tax break (although that's not as big of a reason but it is still a reason)...\n\nSo all that being said...YES.\n\n\nPS - Thanks for the clarification.  I'm all for it.  If you don't live in a state where gay marriage is legal yet, lobby for
658600
The amendment is a good idea, because it will prevent "gay marriage" proponents from shopping around for sympathetic judges who legislate from the bench in defiance of the will of the people.  (A solid majority of Americans reject legalized "gay marriage.")\n\nBut a constitutional amendment must pass two-thirds of everything -- two-thirds of the states' legislatures, two-thirds of the US House and two-thirds of the US Senate.  As good an idea as this proposed amendment is, realistically it doesn't stand much chance.
149141
Totally against it. Where does one stop in the changing of the meaning of marriage. If gays can have the right to marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not be able to have two wives? Four wives? Why not be able to marry a 7 year old? Why not be able to marry a dead person? Why not an animal? Where does it stop once you begin the trek down that slippery slope?\n\nMarriage is a sacred rite derived from religion. I know you liberal secularists hate to hear that, but it is true. Most religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.\n\nJust one man's opinion.
344824
Wow there are alot of choices that have different views. Not sure what you are looking for but here are some debates:\n\nAbortion, gays adopting, spanking children, immigrants, etc. \n\nI will still think about this one and get back to you.\n\n\nETA: Polygamy, Same sex marriages
490449
I'm not gay, and i think they should. People should be allowed to marry who they want. The only reason people are trying to ban it is because of religious beliefs (i.e. conservative christians) getting in the way of non-biased desicions that could legalize it.
607353
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
1038289
Alas, we do not have laws banning gay marriage. Yet. With any luck, that will remain true. \n\nI would say that for the most part being against gay marriage is a matter of fearing what you don't understand, and/or being uninformed.
414580
No i dont think gay marriage should be banned why would people want to keep someone from marrying the person they love. they dont keep a man and women from marrying each other when they love each other. So why should they keep two people from doing something that they want to do.
845605
Alright... Where to start... For those of you out there that are against gay marriage... first of all, i must ask, what happened to the freedom that we hold so dear in our country? Didn't people come to this country to get away from small minded people that wanted to impose their beliefs onto other people? Although it does seem to be a trend in this country, what's different has to be wrong. It happened with racial segragation, it happened with women voting, it's happened time and time again, and now the new topic of bigotry and hatred is gay marriage. \n\nMany comedians have looked at a perfect oportunity with jokes such as, "don't they have the right to be as unhappy as straight married couples?"\n\nOk and this is specifically for you Rae... so you come from a "religious" background. So what does that mean? you were brought up in a closed minded church with people telling you what to think and what to believe? what is your reason for being against gay marriage? first of all, the adam and eve adam and steve phrase is way overdone and frankly just pisses me off because it's a prime example of the narrow-mindedness of christians.\n\nI was brought up in a church, so i suppose i have a christian background. But did you completely forget the new testament. Jesus gave a revalation to Paul that said all things are lawful but not all expediant. So this is my point. Even from a christian standpoint, you are allowed to do whatever it is that you want, but you have to pay the consequences.\n\nThat's the final verdict that the bible has to offer. Also from a christian standpoint, no sin is worse than any others right? so even if homosexuality is a sin, then why does it have to be such a point of contention for christians. It's no different than the evengelical preacher that gets a "hummer" from a transvestite, it's no different than a preacher that stand in front of a church and preaches the gospel and looks at porn(not that i'm saying porn is evil or anything), it's no different than a "goody-goody christian" that follows all the rules... but tells a little white lie here and there. according to the Bible a sin is a sin is a sin right? so why harp on this one? I'm not saying it's wrong, i'm saying why do the christians have to harp on the one "sin" they think is so bad...\n\nIt's all just hypocrisy. preach one thing, but live another.\n\nand as Littlefireyballofhate said, why is it that those with the most closed minds, have to have the biggest mouths? Just because it's something different, "OH" it has to be wrong?\n\npeople with such a narrow viewpoint of the world simply disgust me... The whole point, the foundation of America was for a land where there could be freedom of relgion, or from religion if that was your choice, freedom of expression, and freedom to do and say the things that you choose to be right. So what right does anyone have to shove their opinion down someone elses throat? you don't like it, get over it, and shut the hell up!\n\nThe bottom line is, whether or not your personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong or bad, even if this country proves to have more closeminded people than we expected, you will never be able to get rid of homosexuality, nor should it be "gotten rid of". If that's what makes someone happy, then for god's sake, let them be happy. Rae, you are happy in your life as a "straight" christian correct? so what, your beliefs say that what they are doing is wrong, let me remind again, freedom... that's what it all comes down to.\n\nClosed minded people just want to take away their freedom to express their love, and frankly if they do, what's next? you can't say or do the things you want? when does it stop. This country's foundation is freedom so why would you want to rob some of its citizens of the right to freedom which is held so de
696184
A fellow poster's assertion that gay marriage is not a slippery slope doesn't hold water. Anyone who thinks for a second that further redefinitions of marriage aren't being planned and may not happen are fooling themselves.\n\nLet's look at his "no slippery slope" argument. Basically, it would be "too hard" to redefine marriage to include more than one person or people of different ages. But he said himself that existing legislation has already been changed to change references of "husband and wife" to simply "spouses"! The term "spouses" says nothing about gender, age, or quantity. So... using the poster's own argument, a new law would have to do nothing more than change the legal definition of "spouse". It's EASIER than the changes made recently in Canada and some states to allow gay marriage. More lies.\n\nAlready, liberal professors and psychiatrists have published "research" in favour of "intergenerational relationships". That's one of the new sanitized phrases for child molestation. The Democrats in the US (and Liberals and NDP in Canada) have blocked any attempts to raise the age of consent to even 16 years old, instead favouring legislation to LOWER across the board to 14 (some even proposing 12).\n\nThe depraved sexualization of our children can be seen everywhere. Racy Hallowe'en costumes, slutty outfits aimed at young teens and even pre-teens, Bratz dolls, highly sexualized high school shows, etc.\n\nSuch politically-motivated junk scientific "research" has also come out in favour of polygamy. And once you're weakened the definition to allow two members of the same gender, what basis do you have REALLY to limit it to just two people? The anti-traditional marriage activists seek to destroy the institution of marriage just as they seek to destroy the other fundamental institutions (such as Christinaity) that were responsible for giving birth (how apropos) to the prosperous and free society.\n\nWith the rash of teacher-student sex scandals, liberal supporters of lower age of consent laws, the indoctrination of our society with biased junk science by depraved researchers (the king of which was Kinsey himself), don't think that Nambla is salivating at the mouth... more than usual that is.\n\nPerhaps the biggest lie we've bought is that tolerating behaviour which we've known for eons to be immoral, is somehow a loving thing to do. If you encounter someone with a mental illnes, the loving thing to do is try to HELP them, not say "how wonderful it is that you cut yourself... self-expression is so important."