Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[ReservoirAngel]

Spoiler: Top 10 Harms of Same-Sex Marriage

1. Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

2. Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.

3. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.

4. Fewer people would marry.

5. Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.

6. Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.

7. Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.

8. More children would grow up fatherless.

9. Birth rates would fall.

10. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.

Please note while reading that this list was published by Tony Perkins, acting President of the Family Research Council who are, of course, idiots. And I shall now use my limited knowledge as a homosexual to debunk them all.

1. How would this be any different that subsiding heterosexual marriages? They do that plenty and the economy is ok. Well, not OK, but it's survived. Admittedly I don't know what 'subsidising a relationship' exactly entails, but still the point seems ludicrous.

2. How is this a bad thing? What, teaching acceptance and tolerance is evil? Okay, let's all teach our kids to hate their fellow man, and we can watch from our retirement homes as society falls apart because of that.

3. Religious liberty is dumb anyway since 95% of people who ***** about it only use it to hate on people. "Freedom of conscience" also throws up alarm bells for me, because it's sound like a total nonsense term to disguise their true point of "we wouldn't be able to handle that shit" which is why they fail.

4. Surely if you allow entire minority groups to marry, there would be MORE marriages. Dude, Tony...gay marriage isn't going to change straight marriage, okay?

5. Again, homosexual marriage wouldn't suddenly turn straight people into whores and cheaters. Get in line with the rest of reality, please. You're just embarrassing yourself.

6. Same as number 5. Like, exactly the same. Divorce is already rampant in society, how would allowing same sex couples to marry suddenly make straight people MORE likely to divorce. If you simply mean 'more couples means more potential divorces' then that's not a point against us, that's just basic mathematics and can't be used to make a moral point. Actually this argument goes for all the "fewer people will" arguments he presents.

7. How? Gays and lesbians can only adopt, so those children weren't being raised by a mother and father anyway. Same-sex marriage will not change that at all.

8. Surely if homosexual males marry and adopt, MORE children will be raised by fathers? Then the children only being raised by mothers will balance that out. If you mean "more fathers will turn gay and abandon their pregnant wives" then that's not a logical point, that's just you trying to be a fearmonger. And failing.

9. No, they wouldn't. Suddenly having same-sex marriage won't lead to more gay people, it'll just lead to the ones already around being happier. So birth rates will stay the same. Don't worry, you'll still have your drunk sluts from the South getting knocked up and having 14 kids in her trailer, that'll be safe from us.

10. This is the most braindead argument there is about this. It's like you're inventing you're own problems. You could say that with ANYTHING. "If we allow same-sex marriage, monkeys will want to marry their feces!" It has very little basis in reality, and is one again just the FRC trying to scare people into believing their way. And, again, failing.

--

So there we go, there is NO reason gay marriage is wrong, or that it will cause any problems in the grand scheme of things. Terrorists won't invade, the ice caps won't suddenly melt, there won't be riots (unless right-wing nutjobs start them, then it's their own damn fault not ours)...nothing bad will happen. All that will happen is a minority group of humanity being able to experience the same joy you feel in your lives. Is that so evil?

By the way, I'm a self-admitted moron so if anything I said in my rebuttals of Mr. Perkins's claims is wrong, feel free to correct me.

P.S: I read this entire post, as I was writing it, in Glenn Beck's voice which made it both a weird and VERY funny experience.

Oh, and just for the hell of it...

Spoiler

 

[eelel]

Because their religion says so.

They usually conveniently overlook the fact that I am not of their religion when making these sorts of statements.

I can only speak for moderate Christians but there is nothing in the new testament that is against gay marriage. The fundies get all of their ant-gay talking points from the old testament, which is an interesting read and important to know where we come from but is for the most part rendered moot by the new testament.

It's not rendered moot. Jesus said that he does not intend to change a single coma or a single letter in the law. Without the Old Testament Jesus is just a wandering philosopher, his divinity stems from the fact that he's an heir to Adam, Abraham and David, has been foretold by the prophets and so on. I'm sorry to say that, but when you take time to study the Bible it seems that Jesus in fact did "hate fags". (Well, he would forgive them if they were seeking redemption, but he was capable of anger)

Not that I believe this.

I guse moot is a little strong but he esentaly said other than the 10 commandments that the old law is renderd not as important and if you can point out one passage that actually condems gays in the new testament than I might reconsider my point.

 

[Arcanist]

Since this thread derailed somewhere around post #1, allow me to play a role:

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. "

-Adam Kolasinski

It's a reason, and a secular, non homophobic one at that.

edit: to give credit.

It's secular, yes, but the undercurrent here is definitely homophobic. Does Mr. Kolasinski advocate the annulment of the marriage of straight couples with a sterile partner? What about straight couples that don't intend to have children?

He's singling out gay couples entirely because they're gay. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

 

[thedoclc]

~snip~

I hate one sided debates on thread ideas that have been done umpteen billion times, and you seem reasonable...so here it goes:

1. Why do you consider marriage to be a universal right for anyone? Is there anything to back that up?

2. How can you suggest that a government invest precious resources into marginally improving the lives of a small group of people that will yield no direct or indirect benefit to said government?

1) I take as a basic premise that human liberty should be increased whenever possible. Groups should be treated in a manner which increases their ability to choose to live their lives as they see fit. Since I take this as a starting principle, if we don't agree on that, then all we can do is agree to disagree.

2) In the US, it comes down to the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, which has been interpreted to mean that the civil liberty of a group cannot be infringed unless the government shows: 1) a compelling reason to do so and 2) does so in a minimally intrusive manner. I do not see any duty of the US Federal or State governments to protect or defend marriage, and even if I did, I see no reason such a duty would be best fulfilled by deny a class of people the right to marry.

 

[Rascarin]

As a gay, obviously I feel that gay marriage should be allowed. I can understand the argument of those people who say that "marriage" is a religious institution and should not be changed. In that case, civil unions should be given all of the same rights as marriages between heterosexuals.

Civil unions do not have the same rights?

That's news to me...

*does speedy research*

Well, I clearly haven't been keeping up to date on this.

However, I do recall stories from not too long ago where even though a couple had a civil union they would still be denied basic rights that would have been given to straight couples - one example is of a gay couple, one of whom was taken into hospital terminally ill, and his partner was not allowed to see him. Stuff like that - where inequality still exists.

In that sense, I guess having separate marriages and civil partnerships is bad - they should be seen as one and the same to prevent discrimination like that.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Well, ducks lay eggs, which hatch into ducklings, and become ducks, and continue the species. Homosexual relations cannot by themselves result in children, so there is no continuation of the species. Adoption is not the same as having a child through heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relations can result in children, which grow up into adults, which (if heterosexual) can have children themselves, and continue the species. That is a very stated difference.

So are we going to forbid marriage to sterile couples and those who choose to get their tubes tied? After all, they're no more "beneficial" than homosexual couples are. Funny how we don't call for them to be unable to marry.

That's an misstatement of what I was originally saying. The duck analogy doesn't apply to sterile couples, because analogies rarely stretch beyond their initial purpose, which is only meant to highlight one, or two points.

Sterile couples can either get married, or have homosexual unions, fine by me. The issue of sterility doesn't break the initial argument of what the definition of marriage is, and what the definition of marriage is not.

 

[shadowseal22]

Yes and no. Homosexuality is a fine thing, there is nothing wrong with it, however you don't give a kid who throws a tamper a new ball. The gay community's push for marriage has gotten out of hand, there is already a system to get civil unions set up, and as it stands most people still don't want to give them the title. All the word marriage is, is a title, that's it. There are no real perks to being a married couple can get that a gay one can't. The only people left talking about it are the gays themselves. Right now gay marriage is not a great social question, it's a group of kids throwing a fit about not getting what they want. Some day if they can get their act together and have a real argument besides "he has a ball, so I want a ball" there can be a real conversation about this issue but as it stands now there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Ickorus]

Civil partnerships im fine with, Gay Marriage not so much.

I recently read a news story about how a gay couple were told they couldn't marry in a church and they thought it was unfair but the way I see it people shouldn't be forced to marry gay people if it's against their religion to do so.

Basic version: Im fine with it so long as nobody is forced to perform a ceremony that is against their religion.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Sterile couples can either get married, or have homosexual unions, fine by me. The issue of sterility doesn't break the initial argument of what the definition of marriage is, and what the definition of marriage is not.

Marriage, at its most basic, is a commitment between two people. Any other definitions are a refining of that point.

 

[voetballeeuw]

Did you not see the latest Colbert Report? Homosexuality is as dangerous as second hand smoke!

http://www.colbertnation.com/home

The video is called "Threat Level Rainbow."

I don't have much to add to the conversation, most of my points have been made already. Marriage has a religious connotation, and most religions don't look kindly on homosexuality. Also, some people like to use polygamy as an effect of legalizing gay marriage. "If we legalize gay marriage, then we'll have to legalize polygamy," but I don't really see the problem with that either. If it's between consenting adults, then by all means go ahead.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I guse moot is a little strong but he esentaly said other than the 10 commandments that the old law is renderd not as important and if you can point out one passage that actually condems gays in the new testament than I might reconsider my point.

I could, but I would need to go to the King James Version of the bible, where I believe it is stated several times that homosexualty is wrong in the New Testament, the newer translations all tend to combine the likes of homosexuality, masturbating, etc. into the phrase sexual deviancy, or a similar phrase, which implies it but doesn't state it outright, but the King James version I think does mention homosexuality specifically as being a sin. (Now to know which is the best translation it would of course be necessary to go to the original greek scrolls, and my greek is a little rusty, It would be possible and probably quite easy to find a site on the internet tha does do this for the passages- if you want to prove it either way.)

 

[thedoclc]

I can only imagine how many times it's been said, but biologically, male/male female/female relationships are wrong, but morally? I detect no problem greater than those the accepted heterosexual relationships may or may not provide. I'm aware that marriage doesn't necessarily mean sex, but I bring up the venereal aspect because in the words of Chris Rock; (in Dogma) "To believe a married couple never got down's just plain gullibility!"
I have little reason to doubt that theory, being that so many are evidently inclined to share a bed long before matrimony.

Going to have to debunk this. There is nothing biologically wrong with homosexual relationships. All evidence suggests the contrary, that they are quite normal and to be expected. Humans are not the only animals which practice homosexuality either.

Trolldor is right. Bonobos are just one other species which engages in homosexual behavior, and the concordance in monozygotic ("identical") twins is near 50%, which is much higher than that of dizygotic ("fraternal") twins. That's kind of the gold standard for identifying a genetic component to a behavior.

However, please keep in mind pointing out something is "natural" is not a successful argument that it is moral anymore than it is immoral.

 

[homerthethief]

Since this thread derailed somewhere around post #1, allow me to play a role:

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. "

-Adam Kolasinski

It's a reason, and a secular, non homophobic one at that.

edit: to give credit.

This is not entirely correct. Homosexual couples can have children through methods like in-vitro fertilization or surrogate parents. Also they can adopt children hence "giving the state more workers" or whatever Kolasinski is talking about.

Also the point of marriage isn't necessarily propagation as some people who are unable to have children still choose to get married. Some couples who are physically able to have children choose not to as well for certain reasons.

 

[disfunkybob]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? What's next? "Marriage" to a goat? "Marriage" to your left hand? Once you break the defined nature of the language, where does it end?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

We have made laws to change the definition of marriage to include at what age someone is allowed to become wedded. It means different things to different people. It could be to increase familial status, it could be for love, it could be as a reward. So it hasn't really been defined the same way for thousands of years.

We have romanticized marriage in our society. It's supposed to be a sign of lasting affection and many gays feel they are being dictated to how much they can really love each other.

Calling it civil unions instead is like saying black people can get a driver's license as long as it's called a cotton picker card.

 

[KiraTaureLor]

Technically marriage is a church thing. I don't see why they can't have a civil union though. It gives them the same rights as married couples, but the church is not involved.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

Everything the bible and Christians say about what makes homosexuality wrong is outdated and very contradictory. Views change after 2000 years.

You just reminded me of the best debate I ever had with an anti-gay, religious type. He did the usual trick of quoting the Leviticus "man shall not lie with man as he does with women" passage, so I just casually threw out some of other things Leviticus bans, like 'cursing' your parents, eating pork, eating shellfish, putting two different types of seed in one field and wearing an outfit made of two different kinds of material. You know, just threw them at him to see how he'd handle it.

He said exactly what you did: "some of them don't apply in modern times, because things change in 2000 years, and values change in that time too." Which I then responded to with "how come all those other ones are null and void due to changing values, but you people still stick hard and fast on the homosexuality one?"

He replied back saying "I won and I don't wanna talk to a creep like you any more". I haven't heard from him since. That was 3 days ago.

 

[Joshua Mcdaniel]

i'm not a fan of marriage period. all it is simply this: money, paperwork, and a darn good way to trap a person at the risk of losing everything.

my point is this, if two people want to be together, then let them be together. nothing wrong about to guys or two girls marrying each other. that's all that will happen, gays will marry. in life, there wont be a difference. gay people that have already been living together will be doing the exact the same before as they will being married. only real difference will be when it comes to taxes.


i wish we in america can get past this as a society so we can continue to erase other more pressing bs we have outlawed, like marijuana. seriously, outlawing a plant? that does no harm? my god this country i was born into is full of idiots.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Sterile couples can either get married, or have homosexual unions, fine by me. The issue of sterility doesn't break the initial argument of what the definition of marriage is, and what the definition of marriage is not.

Marriage, at its most basic, is a commitment between two people. Any other definitions are a refining of that point.

Depends on where you're drawing that "most basic" from. But you're free to that opinion, if I can be free for mine.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Also 47.3% of all statistics are made up (there's a paradox for you)

Actually, 89% of statistics are made up, including the one I just told you =D

Back on the subject: Marriage is a religious belief in the first place, (or at least initially it was) not really an actual thing that is directly tied into politics, so if we wanted to go back to seperation of church and state, we could easily say that, religiously speaking, a church has every right to refuse people in general to get married in their "house of *insert religious being or saint or confucious or etc.*" if they aren't of their religion/beliefs.

If we want to make marriage a political thing so that it is legal for gays to get married, and not religiously tied to that basis, then we need to either SEPERATE CHURCH FROM STATE (never going to happen) or we need to offer something equivalent of marriage for those who are not religiously inclined but want to be "life partners." (I.E. marriage while ignoring race, religion, sexual preferences, etc.)

I think G/L/B/T/s should be allowed to married in any part of the country personally, but there's not very much I can say on the matter and actually have some kind of impact as our current government refuses to accept that ohh, I don't know, we don't need to be 18 to have common sense and the ability to think.