• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the purpose of being against gay marriage? [W:870]

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
106,486
Reaction score
26,800
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Honestly, I have read many posts here about how gay marriage threatens something. I would like to know what it threatens, and why it threatens this.
 
Agree with them or not, but many are against gay marriage because they believe it reduces the sanctity of marriage by redefining and adding perversion into the marriage definition. Many also believe that by their moral beliefs marriage is only between men and women and unions between the same sex by definition are not a marriage. Others believe that a homosexual set of parents are inferior at raising children or put children at harm. Their main purpose is preventing a perversion to marriage and protecting the legal family unit.

A very very tiny minority my have their purpose based on hate.
 
If two dudes I've never met get married, suddenly my marriage will be less meaningful. My wife will love me less, the kids wont get fed... cats and dogs lying together... brimstone? Maybe some brimstone?
 

I think you nailed it. In my life, it's just not worth getting shorts in a knot about, but I do understand others' concerns.

Marriage has been between husband and wife for 20,000 years, recognizing, I suppose, that in monogamy lies human civilization's greatest strength.

What I've always wondered is, in a gay marriage, what are their designations? They're not husband and wife . . . or are they?
 

with roughly 50% of marriages ending in the divorce, probably a quarter of married men I believe cheat on their wives, and we know that there are many, many loveless marriages ... so I think straights already took care of the sanctity of marriage ,,, as Newt. Remoinds me of a joke - "If you don't like the idea of men getting it on with other men, let them get married -- they'll stop." P.S. People should keep their religions out of public policy.
:rock
 
Life-partners. In some relationships where one is distinctly in the masculine role and the other distinctly in the feminine role, husband and wife are valid optional terms.







(IMHO)




.
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing their position. I'm just merely sharing it before people flood in with "because they are all intolerant bigots filled with hate and ignorance like the racists in the 60's!"

The fact is that, from my experience personally knowing those against SSM, their position is not one based on hatred akin to racism but rather supporting and upholding the definition of traditional marriage and not redefining that to include homosexual couples.
 

I know that, my question is why do they believe such things?
 

Then why are so many of them adulterers and serial monogamists? It would be considerably more believable if individuals like Newt Gingrich were not making such arguments for the "sanctity" of marriage. Do they really fail to see the hypocrisy?
 

It wouldn't be redefined, it would mean exactly the same thing, just your hoohoo and haha don't have to match up.
 


I was just saying that I've yet to come up against even one good argument for opposing gay marriage ... it's mainly a form of bigotry, but like other forms of bigotry, it too shall pass (wedding planners and caterers are already lining up for the new business) ...
 
CLAX1911 said:
I know that, my question is why do they believe such things?
Click to expand...

A myriad of factors, some base it on their morals, some base it on the belief that there isn't a need to redefine marriage, some believe that doing so would be actively harmful, and others may have other reasons. It's not possible to answer for everyone that is against SSM.
CriticalThought said:
Then why are so many of them adulterers and serial monogamists? It would be considerably more believable if individuals like Newt Gingrich were not making such arguments for the "sanctity" of marriage. Do they really fail to see the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Because they fall into a temptation? I don't know, ask them personally. Do you personally believe that redefining marriage to include homosexuality is defiling marriage or reducing the sanctity of it? Making excuses and clinging to the lowest denominator like saying "well some people already defile marriage by cheating and getting divorced" would suggest that "because the sanctity of marriage is already low we should lower it further by allowing homosexuals to call their unions a marriage legally."
 

This is true, not sure if its "exactly" what the OP is asking but it is true, this is what many people SAY or claim BUT the problem is

the sanctity argument is a complete BS strawman
moral beliefs between man and women are a religious issue which has nothing to do with legal marriage
studies show that all things being equal two caring guardians is what works

so with that said thats why its hard to logically believe that only a "very very tiny minority" base it on hate/bigotry.

also be clear im not accusing Digs of having any of these views (im sure you know that digs) I just thought his answer was spot on has to why some people have a problem with it but I totally disagree with his final conclusion.

those arguments fail and its why people assume bigotry/hatred. Its logical to do so. Now with that being said of course not all those against it base it on hate, that would be just as silly to assume but i cant come up with any logic what so ever to make a case that's its a tiny minority. Unless of course we want to throw in ignorance/dishonesty.

If its a choice between your list and hate/bigotry, im putting my money on hate/bigotry every time.
 
Last edited:
I don't like or feel comfortable around children. As a landlord, I am legally obligated to rent to parents, married or not, that have children even though I know the results will be noise, misbehavior, illegal skateboard use and property damage that will exceed the deposit. I believe having children is foolish and a bad investment unless you're very wealthy and can afford a trainer and a college degree.

I also believe that children to some degree = child abuse.

So I don't approve but I don't impede or denigrate people that make this decision. For the most part, it's their problem not mine (I chose to be a landlord in full knowledge of the problems).

Now, ask me if as a landlord I would feel OK about renting to a gay couple. You better believe it - I'll get my house back looking better than when I rented it!

Just saying......


 
Last edited:

and history proves that gay marriage as existed that long too
 

Sorry those reasons are absurd to me. Marriage wouldn't be redefined, what others do have nothing to do with personal morals.

digsbe, don't answer for anybody else, answer for you.
 

Do adults actually walk around wringing their hands about perceived threats to the "sanctity of marriage" ? Sounds vaguely like being in a claustrophobic episode of the "The Young and The Restless"...............just saying...................
 
CLAX1911 said:
Sorry those reasons are absurd to me. Marriage wouldn't be redefined, what others do have nothing to do with personal morals.

digsbe, don't answer for anybody else, answer for you.
Click to expand...

I support SSM. Like I said, I'm just sharing what I think those who oppose it most likely feel. My family is against it, I used to be against it. I was against it for moral reasons, I still believe homosexuality is sinful and immoral but I've changed my stance in that I don't think that should be an aspect of my morality that should be forced into law due to it affecting someone else's freedom and lifestyle. Not one iota of my stance was based on hatred for gay people and I've never met a single person against SSM who based their stance on hate. I know that is true for my family members as well and those in my church that are against it. I understand their mindset because I used to have that mindset and it's not one based on hatred.

They may be absurd to you, but to those that disagree with you your reasons are probably absurd to them.
 
Bonzai said:
Do adults actually walk around wringing their hands about perceived threats to the "sanctity of marriage" ? Sounds vaguely like being in a claustrophobic episode of the "The Young and The Restless"...............just saying...................
Click to expand...

Why be against gay marriage? Cons want to give women and the poor a break. Call it a temporary cease fire. But they'll be back waging the war against them again ...
 
windowdressing said:
Why be against gay marriage? Cons want to give women and the poor a break. Call it a temporary cease fire. But they'll be back waging the war against them again ...
Click to expand...

many "cons" are for equal rights, posting partisan nonsense like this is always a failure.
 

I disagree. I believe that these reasons you provide here are little more than excuses for anti-gay people to chant at protests to cover up the fact that their true motivation is hatred.

Time after time, those opposed to same-sex marriage have demonstrated that the limit of their capabilities is to simply reiterate these points over and over again, rather than back them up. They claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage will affect their families and then provide no evidence to back that up. They say that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage and don't even describe how, or what that means, in a country with incredibly high divorce rates.

No, the merits of these actual points and how they arrived at them have to be examined as well - and when one does so, it is clear that they are little more than excuses used to justify religious bigotry.
 
AGENT J said:
many "cons" are for equal rights, posting partisan nonsense like this is always a failure.
Click to expand...

In 2009, 80% of conservatives were opposed to gay marriage ... Are fewer than 50% opposed now? Couldn't find more recent numbers ...

And I'm so embarassed for posting partisan stuff ... I forgot that no one on these threads does it? mea culpa ... but in all seriousness J, nothing I said was inaccurate ... it's just that when you call a group on something, even if it's accurate, it looks partisan ...
 
AGENT J said:
many "cons" are for equal rights, posting partisan nonsense like this is always a failure.
Click to expand...

oh, before you call something "nonsense," do a little research, otherwise it looks like your post is nonsense ... but I'm glad you're for equal rights (sad that we can't assume everyone is, isn't it?) ...
 

thats why your not supposed to call a group anything :shrug:
 
windowdressing said:
oh, before you call something "nonsense," do a little research, otherwise it looks like your post is nonsense ... but I'm glad you're for equal rights (sad that we can't assume everyone is, isn't it?) ...
Click to expand...

no research is needed, what was posted is nonsense because many cons are in favor of equal rights for gays LOL

if you wish to avoid your problem in the future simply don't falsely group people all together,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…