Someone PLEASE give me an argument against Marriage Equality

[blackjack50]

Your right. You dont choose what your attracted to. But with things like bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia at least one person/animal cannot give consent to have sex which is why they are illegal. You are right though. Everyone does make a conscious choice to partake in whatever kind of sex they are having but that is irrelevant. Homosexual sex doesnt affect anyone who is not involved.

Hey yalk to the ACLU. And besides...would you be ok with beastiality if an animal managed to give consent? Not to be gross...but there are some ways that people might argue that (though as you said it would be quickly shot down). I just want to highlight that the topic of sexuality is difficult to discuss because there IS an element of choice.

Again I say that I am a sort of limbo on the issue. There are holes.

Homophobia is very rarely used to mean a literal fear of gay people btw. And if there are numerous reasons to object to SSM then please state them. Just remember those reasons tend to get shot down quickly.

Then the use of the term is incorrect and idiotic. I know how it is frequently used. I don't like the way it is used because it is wrong. It is just a pet peeve of mine. BUT on to the issues.

It is irrelevant if they are "shot down." Like I said, "holes in both sides." Some people stick to their convictions. If I am religously opposed to homosexuality, then I have every right to be opposed to it. Nothing changes that, and you cannot simply state I am wrong for my religous opposition. What if I am against the possibility of fraud? Some people have made the case that it might be easier for men to "marry" as friends in order to receive tax breaks. Some people are against it saying that it destroys the institution of marriage(as homosexual statistics do not show marriage as being easier). Quite frankly I think the institution of marriage has also been destroyed by celebrities and politicians. Let's ban them before the homosexuals. Anyway: The slippery slope opposition(gay marriage and what is next?). The Pat Robertson(that is phobic btw...Homosexuals cause hurricanes). What if I am simply opposed to homosexuality and the marriage of homosexuals because it makes me uncomfortable? We have all see some of the more lude gay pride stuff. That is pretty disgusting and not something to be proud of in polite and civilized society(assless chaps? Come on. Save it for the bedroom Bubba. I don't show my hairy ass). So if I oppose it based on that principle of uncomfortability? Is that a choice of mine to be uncomfortable with it? Like I said before: ALL of these have holes. ALL sides have holes. I don't care.

I dont think civil rights should be a majority rules kind of thing.

Kind of the point I am getting at. Part of the reason I have a gun is as an insurance policy that nobody votes on my civil rights . Perhaps if the homosexual side of the debate started to arm themselves?

 

[CriticalThought]

Again I say that I am a sort of limbo on the issue. There are holes.

There are hundreds of thousands of children in this country who would benefit from same sex marriage. Where is the hole in that argument?

 

[CriticalThought]

But it has been in the United States. That is where this issue is. Of course you can always put it to a vote in your state because that is who issues the marriage license. That is where it belongs.

Why can't we do the same with interracial marriages?

 

[Free For All]

Oh, I use to support gay rights... until I stumbled on a Gay parade... that **** just ain't right.

And I also don't like men changing into women... that **** just ain't right. And I would like to have confidence to know that if I fall in love with a chick, it's really a chick.
No surprises for me damn it.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Oh, I use to support gay rights... until I stumbled on a Gay parade... that **** just ain't right.

And I also don't like men changing into women... that **** just ain't right. And I would like to have confidence to know that if I fall in love with a chick, it's really a chick.
No surprises for me damn it.

 

[Omgitsme]

Hey yalk to the ACLU. And besides...would you be ok with beastiality if an animal managed to give consent? Not to be gross...but there are some ways that people might argue that (though as you said it would be quickly shot down). I just want to highlight that the topic of sexuality is difficult to discuss because there IS an element of choice.

Again I say that I am a sort of limbo on the issue. There are holes.



Then the use of the term is incorrect and idiotic. I know how it is frequently used. I don't like the way it is used because it is wrong. It is just a pet peeve of mine. BUT on to the issues.

It is irrelevant if they are "shot down." Like I said, "holes in both sides." Some people stick to their convictions. If I am religously opposed to homosexuality, then I have every right to be opposed to it. Nothing changes that, and you cannot simply state I am wrong for my religous opposition. What if I am against the possibility of fraud? Some people have made the case that it might be easier for men to "marry" as friends in order to receive tax breaks. Some people are against it saying that it destroys the institution of marriage(as homosexual statistics do not show marriage as being easier). Quite frankly I think the institution of marriage has also been destroyed by celebrities and politicians. Let's ban them before the homosexuals. Anyway: The slippery slope opposition(gay marriage and what is next?). The Pat Robertson(that is phobic btw...Homosexuals cause hurricanes). What if I am simply opposed to homosexuality and the marriage of homosexuals because it makes me uncomfortable? We have all see some of the more lude gay pride stuff. That is pretty disgusting and not something to be proud of in polite and civilized society(assless chaps? Come on. Save it for the bedroom Bubba. I don't show my hairy ass). So if I oppose it based on that principle of uncomfortability? Is that a choice of mine to be uncomfortable with it? Like I said before: ALL of these have holes. ALL sides have holes. I don't care.



Kind of the point I am getting at. Part of the reason I have a gun is as an insurance policy that nobody votes on my civil rights . Perhaps if the homosexual side of the debate started to arm themselves?

An animal cannot give consent. If it could then it wouldnt really be an animal.

Just because there is an element of choice involved doesnt mean anything. You cant just disallow something or ban something just because there is an element of choice or even if the attraction is a choice. You need to make an argument that someone is somehow hurt by that choice and that cannot be done with homosexuality and SSM.

And you are right. You have every right to be opposed to homosexuality for whatever reason you believe in. What you do not have the right to do is restrict homosexuals civil rights based of your opinion of homosexuals. And its entirely possible to marry someone of the opposite sex for the benefits it provides. A few people misusing the system is not an excuse to ban the majority from those rights. To me thats like saying that some people use guns in robberies so no one should have the right to own a gun.

People have claimed that allowing SSM will destroy marriage but they have failed to explain how or provide any evidence on how it could.

If it exists then there is someone out there who is uncomfortable with it. So you cant just ban something because your uncomfortable with it. BTW the things that happen at gay pride parades dont represent most gay people. The images you end up seeing on the internet or T.V. or whatnot are normally just a small percentage of people. And no you did not make a chose to be uncomfortable around that sort of thing.

 

[Omgitsme]

Oh, I use to support gay rights... until I stumbled on a Gay parade... that **** just ain't right.

And I also don't like men changing into women... that **** just ain't right. And I would like to have confidence to know that if I fall in love with a chick, it's really a chick.
No surprises for me damn it.

The things that happen at gay pride parades dont represent the majority of gay people.

What exactly isnt right about transgendered people?

 

[Whoppletraps]

What exactly isnt right about transgendered people?

What exactly is right? The "females" are pretty much just guys with developed breasts and a multilated penis.

They're unnatural freaks.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What exactly is right? The "females" are pretty much just guys with developed breasts and a multilated penis.

They're unnatural freaks.

You obviously don't understand a thing about transgenderism.

 

[Omgitsme]

What exactly is right? The "females" are pretty much just guys with developed breasts and a multilated penis.

They're unnatural freaks.

So im an unnatural freak. Cool. Anyways though...if you understood where we were coming from I doubt you would feel that way.

 

[Tigger]

I'm not sure what you mean by "successful". Most patriarchal societies have failed. You only have to look at history to see that much. Are you a historical revisionist who sees ancient societies that have long since fallen as "successful"?

The most successful societies in human history exist now, and the most successful among those make up what we call the "developed world" and they favor an egalitarian society.

I didn't say successful, I said "significant". The last serious Matriarchal society in Western history was the Celts and they've been out of power for about a millenium now. There has not bee a serious, significant Matriarchal culture in Western society since then; and I would suggest that is in large part because Matriarchal societies do not work for human beings in anything beyond the clan/family group social structure (just like communism, by the way, and I don't think that's accidental).

 

[misterman]

What exactly is right? The "females" are pretty much just guys with developed breasts and a multilated penis.

They're unnatural freaks.

You're not a libertarian at all.

 

[CriticalThought]

I didn't say successful, I said "significant". The last serious Matriarchal society in Western history was the Celts and they've been out of power for about a millenium now. There has not bee a serious, significant Matriarchal culture in Western society since then; and I would suggest that is in large part because Matriarchal societies do not work for human beings in anything beyond the clan/family group social structure (just like communism, by the way, and I don't think that's accidental).

I said Egalitarian culture. I'm not sure why in your mind societies can only be patriarchal or matriarchal. Most successful cultures that exist today are egalitarian.

That is pretty much what this is about. You worship patriarchy in a culture that embraces egalitarian ideals. For some weird reason you believe that since long dead cultures that you admired practiced patriarchy then that must be the best model.

 

[Tigger]

I said Egalitarian culture. I'm not sure why in your mind societies can only be patriarchal or matriarchal. Most successful cultures that exist today are egalitarian.

I find no use for Egalitarianism in any part of life. Not in society, not in the workplace, not anywhere. Never have and never will.

That is pretty much what this is about. You worship patriarchy in a culture that embraces egalitarian ideals. For some weird reason you believe that since long dead cultures that you admired practiced patriarchy then that must be the best model.

You're pretty close. At least close enough that it's not worth arguing the semantics over.

 

[CriticalThought]

I find no use for Egalitarianism in any part of life. Not in society, not in the workplace, not anywhere. Never have and never will.

It sounds to me like this is a power thing. You are male and you like having a place of privilege in society simply for being male.

Of course, I could be wrong. You could have some philosophical fear that equal opportunity means sacrificing the exceptional individual. However, that largely comes down to how someone defines equality.

What does seem to be the case is you place significant importance on a belief that society should be organized based upon gender roles and anything that threatens how gender roles are defined, such as homosexuality, is something you percieve as a threat to the structure of society.

 

[misterman]

I find no use for Egalitarianism in any part of life. Not in society, not in the workplace, not anywhere. Never have and never will.

And yet the world is becoming egalitarian all around you whether you like it or not.

 

[roguenuke]

Equal rights for civil unions, be they gay or straight, is a given. However, calling a gay civil union a "marriage" steps on a lot of toes. In a multi-cultural society, people must be respectful of the traditions of others. Otherwise, they risk social disintegration.

Same sex marriages step on no more religious toes than interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, or completely unreligious marriages. There is a church and church followers somewhere in the US (likely more than a few) that consider all the things I mentioned to be against their traditions. And if those church don't want to wed any couple that goes against the church's beliefs, the church has every right to deny them that.

But the fact is that once the government got involved and made called the civil contract of a commitment between two people "marriage", the people took the word away from the church and are now using it to describe a civil contract relationship, that cannot be limited by religious or traditional beliefs. It must be held to laws against discrimination, including sex/gender discrimination.

And why do Jews not make such an argument?

Perhaps, because they recognize the deep-rooted cultural significance of the Christmas tradition throughout the western world and they don't want to be rude.

Or its not a big deal to them?

I bet you some Jews do make such an argument.

In fact, the argument could be made by Muslims as well and we had a story not so long ago about a Muslim teacher who got to take a month off of teaching for Ramadan.

 

[roguenuke]

But it has been in the United States. That is where this issue is. Of course you can always put it to a vote in your state because that is who issues the marriage license. That is where it belongs.

And until 1968, the many states in the US limited marriage to a man and a woman of the same race or at least prevented whites from marrying people not of their own race or from marrying black people. And it was not the states that got the final decision on this, but the SCOTUS. The states should not have the right to discriminate against people entering into a legal contract based on race, religion, or sex/gender. Anti-same sex marriage laws are gender discrimination.

 

[misterman]

And why do Jews not make such an argument?

Perhaps, because they recognize the deep-rooted cultural significance of the Christmas tradition throughout the western world and they don't want to be rude.

They don't want to be rude about being discriminated against? Come on. And why do you assume no Jew has made such an argument?

In any event, I think there is a good secular justification for the Christmas holiday that Jews can deal with: so many people would be taking vacation anyway that it's pointless not to just take it off.

BTW, I did find a court case that might blow your mind: Nativity scene is too religious for New York City schools / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

 

[misterman]

And until 1968, the many states in the US limited marriage to a man and a woman of the same race or at least prevented whites from marrying people not of their own race or from marrying black people. And it was not the states that got the final decision on this, but the SCOTUS. The states should not have the right to discriminate against people entering into a legal contract based on race, religion, or sex/gender. Anti-same sex marriage laws are gender discrimination.

I agree, but I'm such a damn devil's advocate. Does this mean multiple marriages should be legal too? Mormons and Muslims are eager to know.

 

[roguenuke]

Alas, but it was a choice to engage in necrophilia or beastiality. It is the same with homosexual behavior correct? You choose to engage in the behavior the same as a heterosexual chooses to act on their feelings? I can deny myself sex(I do not) too. It is all a choice. Of course the statement that homosexuality is not a choice usually ignores that aspect of the anti-homosexuality argument. Of course I have simplified the context of feelings to purely sexual motivation for the purpose of the discussion(sex and sexuality). To be honest the discussion of marriage equality belongs in a political or religous thread before it belongs here if you ask me (you arent lol).

I simply wish to point out some holes in the "not a choice" argument. Don't worry I know there are holes in the other side too. You just spoke up first.

Why would one male choose to let another man do something sexual to him? It grosses me out. Course it aint my body though.

And by simplifying sexuality to sexual acts, you ignore a major part of the argument and the major differences between bestiality/necrophilia/pedophilia and heterosexuality/homosexuality.

The major differences being that with bestiality/necrophilia/pedophilia, the attraction is purely about the sex. Those who engage in these activities are not looking to start a meaningful relationship with the type of thing/person they are sexually attracted to. A person who engages in bestiality does not want to start a relationship with an animal, they merely want to engage in sex for their own sexual desires. A person who engages in necrophilia does not and could not start any meaningful/legal relationship with a dead person/thing. Even a person who engages in pedophilia does not wish to start a meaningful, adult relationship with the child/children, but merely to sate their own sexual desires.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are looking to start meaningful relationships with people of either the same or opposite sex that may or may not include a sexual relationship as well. That cannot be ignored when trying to compare sexuality with sexual fetishes.

Well according to SOME idiots: if you are against gay marriage you are a homophobe. I am a don't give a blank a phobe. That is something that annoys me. Some people don't like same sex intimacy, and other people are against it based on religous grounds. It isn't phobic. Again. I don't care if someone is gay. I don't want to watch them stick tongues down each other's throats though. Hell I don't like ANY PDA.

But based on the context of this forum subsection (sex and sexuality) it has something to do with marriage equality? Why else would it not be in a religous section or a political section? Remember that many people are against it on a religous context.

Not everyone should be called homophobic for being against same sex marriage, but they are at the least bigoted for being against same sex marriage if their argument is religious or just that they don't like it.

You do not have the right to not be offended. You do not have the right to be able to not see things that you might not want to see just because you find them disgusting.

Same sex marriage is being fought for as a legal entity, not a religious rite. Therefore, any religious argument against it should be automatically void since we should not be basing laws off of purely religious reasoning. Same sex marriage, recognized by the government, should be the exact same thing as opposite sex marriage recognized by the government, a legal contract that comes with certain benefits, rights, and responsibilities due to the nature of the relationship of the two people involved. Restrictions of the legal contract should be fair and based on reasonable harm standards, not religion or tradition.

 

[roguenuke]

Oh, I use to support gay rights... until I stumbled on a Gay parade... that **** just ain't right.

And I also don't like men changing into women... that **** just ain't right. And I would like to have confidence to know that if I fall in love with a chick, it's really a chick.
No surprises for me damn it.

So what would do if you fell in love with a woman who had male genitalia at birth, but her parents had the doctor remove it?

 

[Zyphlin]

I agree, but I'm such a damn devil's advocate. Does this mean multiple marriages should be legal too? Mormons and Muslims are eager to know.

Can't answer for rogue, but I'll answer it for myself...

No.

There is no religious discrimination because there is no religion component to the government entity known as marriage and Mormons and Muslims are free to engage in whatever religious ceremonies they want with each other. The discrimination is, at best, against "polygamy" which would at best be categorized in the lowest tier of the EPC and wouldn't take much for the government to show it could discriminate against them.

On the flip side, Marriage as it current stands is gender discrimination which functions at the middle tier of the EPC and I think has a much stronger argument that the Governments arguments don't reach the necessary level to justify the discrimination.

 

[Tigger]

It sounds to me like this is a power thing. You are male and you like having a place of privilege in society simply for being male.

Of course, I could be wrong. You could have some philosophical fear that equal opportunity means sacrificing the exceptional individual. However, that largely comes down to how someone defines equality.

It's a little bit of both, CT. I am a strong believer in Gender Roles and the idea that mixing them is very bad for society. As we mix the genders we do not normally require that the less competent individual INCREASE their abilities to meet the standard. Instead we tend to DECREASE the standard so that those people can meet it. THAT is utterly wrong in every manner so far as I'm concerned.

I've discussed the difference between EQUALITY and SAMENESS in the past. I have no problem with Equality. What I have an issue with is the idea that Men and women can ever be the SAME. Here's the difference..... Four quarters have an EQUAL value to one hundred pennies. Yet, if one is at an automatic toll booth you want to have one of them over the other, because only one of them will get you through that gate. Likewise, at the penny candy machine, the quarters will be useless. They may have an EQUAL value, but in many cases they don't have the SAME value.

What does seem to be the case is you place significant importance on a belief that society should be organized based upon gender roles and anything that threatens how gender roles are defined, such as homosexuality, is something you percieve as a threat to the structure of society.

Very much so. I am a strong believer that there needs to be a single, agreed upon standard culture and values set upon which society is built. Without that, I believe the foundation of society is highly suspect. The standard which I believe has worked best over the years is a Patriarchal society based on gender roles, and a specific set of morals and values. Nothing is going to change my mind on that topic.

And yet the world is becoming egalitarian all around you whether you like it or not.

Just because something is happening doesn't make it good, or right, misterman.

 

[roguenuke]

I agree, but I'm such a damn devil's advocate. Does this mean multiple marriages should be legal too? Mormons and Muslims are eager to know.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if they were, but there would definitely need to be a few changes to the laws made, since the marriage laws are all based upon two people only within the legal contract. And without changes to preempt problems, we would see massive amounts of either a) people getting cheated or tricked by their marriage (which is something marriage laws are supposed to be in place to protect people against) or b) lawsuits just to settle which spouses get what when one spouse dies or c)the potential for huge marriages that are purely set up for financial reasons or d) a combination of these.

The only things that I would limit multiple marriages on is a certain number of people allowed to get government benefits within the marriage and that every spouse within an already established marriage should have to agree (and sign for) any new spouses taken on by either party. There is no way that only men should be allowed to have multiple wives. I would also firmly set the legal marriage age at no younger than 17 or 18 (although I would love to see it older than 20), with no exceptions for parental permission. The only exceptions to this should be for emancipated adults who can legally sign legal documents without their parents already.

Oh, and I would also make sure that who has what legal say within the marriage for each person has to be established upon the signing or before of the marriage license.