Thread: Arguments AGAINST gay marriage

you being afraid of your religous freedom being taken away dose not make gay marrage a threat to religous marrage ther is no grounds to sue a church for not marrying you to any one tradition is no excuse for discrimination and your religous freedom dosent extend to making your faith law over others it violates are religous freedom

true im thinking about hear in the united states not england even their the fear is chuches wont be able to discriminate who can use their property they will not be forced to sanction any marrages let alone perfom then

im with you focing yourself on a church to use their buildings seems wrong

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

The fact that you have stated that, "They've all stipulated", does not make it so. Rulings by activist judges do not count.

Court rulings are what count in a society based around law. So are you going to ignore any law you personally disagree with because it was set by an "activist" judge?

Show us where the laws have any such stipulations, one example is all that is needed.

I gave you several you just contend the rulings don't count because they were made by "activist" judges. It's a merry-go-round.

This is quite true regarding the privacy argument. That same argument is used by pedophiles BTW.

In a relationship involving two gay adults there are two legally consenting gay adults. In a relationship involving a 40 year old man and a twelve year old child are there two legally consenting pedophiles?

Except when there is not two consenting adults.

This makes no sense.

First of all, you don't know me, so don't call me ignorant.

Um! Excuse me, you said my statement was one of an "ignoramous" before stating a wholely fabricated point, what else do you expect me to do?

Secondly, my statement is true as I stated it.

No it was not. Firstly it was sweepingly wide, incredibly vague and had no specific examples to back it up and where you could have stated a case, such as with regard to adoption agencies, you ignored a glaringly salient point with regard to funding.

Thirdly, I see no need to add your false qualifying statements.

They are not false statements. It is perfectly fair to withhold state funding from operations which refuse to comply with the law.

I can write my own sentences without the need of your intentional lies

Except they don't make sense and you have shown nothing to back up your claims just made blanket statements which you expect everybody to agree without any proof or substance.

Receipt of funding is not relevent

So you're good with your taxes going towards Pagan child sacrifice.

and is not true in all cases.

Well what are the cases, what is the context and where is the proof?

But with regard to funding, why is it you cannot see the bigotry in denying one group funding because of their religious beliefs?

So if an Humanist organisation was receiving state funding to set up a library to educate people away from religion, you'd be fine with that and you would object to efforts to close them down or to picket their buildings or offices?

Receipt of funding should not be contingient on one's willingness to reject one's own long held religious beliefs and practices.

There's a big difference between rejecting your religious beliefs and expecting everyone else to comply with them.

Because there is no point debating your strawman argument.

Just because you can't successfully refute a point does not make it a strawman. Strawmaning is not the act of putting your hands over your ears and saying La La La! So, I'll ask you again:

"Can you provide one single example of a non-public servant being successfully sued because they refused to officiate a wedding ceremony?"

I didn't call you an ignoramous.

So what other kind of person makes a statement that is: "so far over on the ignoramous meter there's hardly any point in replying."

Basic understanding of sentence structure will show that you are wrong on this one.

Not sure it will you know?

Unlike you who violated the TOSS rules by calling me ignorant just a few lines up.

I think you're stepping into muddy waters here. Had you not been so arrogant and condescending with your "ignoramous" quote we probably wouldn't be arguing this point.

Equivocation.

Nope they all consider themselves religious organisations, they can all limit membership to people who share their beliefs and ideals and none of them is forced to perform wedding "ceremonies" for people whose unions they do not condone. If you can prove otherwise then please do so.

How so?

Because your paragraph made no sense. In what way are people who agree with gay rights "conspiracy theorists"?

I don't think you understand the difference then.

Well then explain it through your eyes then. I'm for limited government, minimal taxation, a minimal debt burden and staying out of the lives of people who's business does not concern me. I'm also for equality of opportunity for all citizens (which is not the same thing as guaranteed equality of outcome).

It is not a partisan issue. The DOMA laws have passed nationally with support of Republicans, democrats, and independents.

Indeed, and have been declared unconstitutional by judges appointed by Republicans, Democrats and (probably) independents.

Right, I think I just pointed that out so, how is it you feel I missed it?

You neglected to mention that Prop 8 has been deemed unconstitutional at the District Court level; a ruling which was later upheld on appeal?

Originally Posted by JeffLV

I'm curious how you propose to fix it then. As the less people specifically tie children to marriage, then the less business government has being involved with marriage to support any purpose with regard to children. As is, the two concepts are all but divorced, or at least viewed as two distinct purposes for marriage (as nobody ever said that marriage has to serve just ONE and ONLY ONE purpose).

Yes, you are right that less people tie children to marriage. And that is why we have so much more chaos today. Used to be when someone got pregnant---the overall response was---put it up for adoption into a committed family, or get married. Child focused. Now the response is--go to the government, get sustanence and then find a good man to co-habitate with. And if that doesn't work--get another man to move in. Not really child oriented eh? Oh....and now people don't lament the poor baby that has been created. They lament how the woman or man has "ruined" their future. It went from child-focused to adult focused. I see the child-focused philosophy as healthy. The adult focused philosophy as not. One buildson the concept of responsibility and puts family above the self. The other lives on self-gratification and selfishness.

When I was an unwed mother--I remember being proud of it--doing it on my own (with government to sustain me of course). Of course my attitude has changed dramatically now that I have raised children in the environment they deserve---mom, dad and committed relationship. My younger children have clear advantages over my older.

When I was an unwed mother and I met a guy and eventually he moved in---there was no condemnation from anyone on how this might affect my son. It was "normal".
I WONDER--if someone had told me how selfish and self-serving I was---if I might have had a bit of an attitude shake up.

How we can change marriage and how we view it is simply a matter of changing our views of what is "ok". Right now self-gratification, and selfishness at the expense of the children is pretty much "ok". So marriage is ripe to rip apart.

As a society we can expect better from our family, and friends--and help people understand that every act of sex brings a potential child and that adults should take full responsibility for raising that child in a committed home if that happens. Adoption is very much underused at this day and age.

Its the "me, me me" and self-gratification and selfishness of straight people that have led us to this sad point where children are simply baggage to destroy or sling along without thought. And that change in society has led to Gay Activists to be equal in marriage. But it is not a good move forward (for many reasons actuatlly) but mainly because it leads us away from improving the situation we have now.

Originally Posted by CKW

Yes, you are right that less people tie children to marriage. And that is why we have so much more chaos today. Used to be when someone got pregnant---the overall response was---put it up for adoption into a committed family, or get married. Child focused. Now the response is--go to the government, get sustanence and then find a good man to co-habitate with. And if that doesn't work--get another man to move in. Not really child oriented eh? Oh....and now people don't lament the poor baby that has been created. They lament how the woman or man has "ruined" their future. It went from child-focused to adult focused. I see the child-focused philosophy as healthy. The adult focused philosophy as not. One buildson the concept of responsibility and puts family above the self. The other lives on self-gratification and selfishness.

I see it as going both ways. Consideration for children is important, but at the same time, unhappy parents in an unhappy marriage are not good for anyone (imo). Also, the circumstances that helped sustain marriages (i.e. the oppression of women) I would not describe as "all good" either, even though they did help achieve other goods (i.e. stable family units). It's a mixed blessing, and I don't think there's any going back. If marriage is to be used as a tool to support family units for children, it's going to need some major re-working, otherwise new mechanisms will have to be considered.

When I was an unwed mother--I remember being proud of it--doing it on my own (with government to sustain me of course). Of course my attitude has changed dramatically now that I have raised children in the environment they deserve---mom, dad and committed relationship. My younger children have clear advantages over my older.

There's something to be said for support networks and 2 parent families of course.

When I was an unwed mother and I met a guy and eventually he moved in---there was no condemnation from anyone on how this might affect my son. It was "normal".
I WONDER--if someone had told me how selfish and self-serving I was---if I might have had a bit of an attitude shake up.

Perhaps. I'd say this depends on the seriousness and frequency. My mother was married 3 times and divorced 2 times. The only "boyfriends" of hers that I EVER met were the ones she married. I honestly don't remember if I met them before or after they were married, but consideration for your children in the process is important.

How we can change marriage and how we view it is simply a matter of changing our views of what is "ok". Right now self-gratification, and selfishness at the expense of the children is pretty much "ok". So marriage is ripe to rip apart.

Easy as pie, right?

On that note, though, I don't consider gay marriage (or "adult-orientated considerations" in general) to be necessarily at the expense of children. When people put their adult-oriented desires BEFORE children involved, that's a problem... but children are not always involved, and there's nothing that says the desires and needs of the adults can't or should not be considered as well. The difficulty comes when there are already children born (or at risk of being born). Gay couples don't produce this risk... rather the only risk they have with regard to children is coming into custody of one without the same advantages as a heterosexual couple. And as mentioned, I don't consider a miserable marriage to be good for children involved either, so it's sorta like picking the lesser of two evils.

As a society we can expect better from our family, and friends--and help people understand that every act of sex brings a potential child and that adults should take full responsibility for raising that child in a committed home if that happens. Adoption is very much underused at this day and age.

Its the "me, me me" and self-gratification and selfishness of straight people that have led us to this sad point where children are simply baggage to destroy or sling along without thought. And that change in society has led to Gay Activists to be equal in marriage. But it is not a good move forward (for many reasons actually) but mainly because it leads us away from improving the situation we have now.

Considering that marriage itself offers many rights and conveniences that have little regard to if there are children involved, and make sense for any committed couple, it makes sense that many consider marriage for the purposes of the adults... to an extent, it's a self-created problem that extends from all of the rights and benefits granted to ANY marriage without regard to children.
And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as marriage itself doesn't have to serve just one and only one purpose. The problem only arrises when considerations for children come in conflict with considerations for the adults.

That said, just saying "if everyone just changed their views and put children first" does not fix the problem. What has changes is not a shift away from a focus on children, but rather a shift towards women's independence that has reduced the need to stay married, particularly when the women has children. I think people should be careful when getting married, to be sure (as much as possible) that they can be committed to it... it should not be something changed as often as you please. But as far as how you do this, I don't know. Birth control is meant to help fix this problem, allowing the adult to do what they want and only have children when they are ready. If you're old enough to have kids, you should be old enough to be ready and settle down with your partner and not just go for nightly flings. If you are divorced, there's no need to bring the boyfriend/girlfriend home every time to introduce them to the kid.

All and all, I really don't know how to fix the problem unless you want to return women back to second-class citizenship. Or men for that matter.

reason and a desire for freedom is whats leading to gay marrage thats all i get out of it a world wher you can do 1 more thing that happens to be fair and harmless

this is not an atack on children and it improve are nation by making it more just

Originally Posted by Colombine

Court rulings are what count in a society based around law. So are you going to ignore any law you personally disagree with because it was set by an "activist" judge?



I gave you several you just contend the rulings don't count because they were made by "activist" judges. It's a merry-go-round.

In a relationship involving two gay adults there are two legally consenting gay adults. In a relationship involving a 40 year old man and a twelve year old child are there two legally consenting pedophiles?



This makes no sense.



Um! Excuse me, you said my statement was one of an "ignoramous" before stating a wholely fabricated point, what else do you expect me to do?



No it was not. Firstly it was sweepingly wide, incredibly vague and had no specific examples to back it up and where you could have stated a case, such as with regard to adoption agencies, you ignored a glaringly salient point with regard to funding.



They are not false statements. It is perfectly fair to withhold state funding from operations which refuse to comply with the law.



Except they don't make sense and you have shown nothing to back up your claims just made blanket statements which you expect everybody to agree without any proof or substance.



So you're good with your taxes going towards Pagan child sacrifice.



Well what are the cases, what is the context and where is the proof?



So if an Humanist organisation was receiving state funding to set up a library to educate people away from religion, you'd be fine with that and you would object to efforts to close them down or to picket their buildings or offices?



There's a big difference between rejecting your religious beliefs and expecting everyone else to comply with them.




Just because you can't successfully refute a point does not make it a strawman. Strawmaning is not the act of putting your hands over your ears and saying La La La! So, I'll ask you again:

"Can you provide one single example of a non-public servant being successfully sued because they refused to officiate a wedding ceremony?"



So what other kind of person makes a statement that is: "so far over on the ignoramous meter there's hardly any point in replying."



Not sure it will you know?



I think you're stepping into muddy waters here. Had you not been so arrogant and condescending with your "ignoramous" quote we probably wouldn't be arguing this point.



Nope they all consider themselves religious organisations, they can all limit membership to people who share their beliefs and ideals and none of them is forced to perform wedding "ceremonies" for people whose unions they do not condone. If you can prove otherwise then please do so.



Because your paragraph made no sense. In what way are people who agree with gay rights "conspiracy theorists"?



Well then explain it through your eyes then. I'm for limited government, minimal taxation, a minimal debt burden and staying out of the lives of people who's business does not concern me. I'm also for equality of opportunity for all citizens (which is not the same thing as guaranteed equality of outcome).



Indeed, and have been declared unconstitutional by judges appointed by Republicans, Democrats and (probably) independents.



You neglected to mention that Prop 8 has been deemed unconstitutional at the District Court level; a ruling which was later upheld on appeal?

You said, "They've all stipulated that the only reason these statutes..." You have failed to prove this statement. It doesn't matter what liberal judges "stipulate" is what I mean. You haven't proven these groups or laws stipulate what you say they do. You failed to give one example of any such stipulation, and continue to claim that you did...where?

If you don't understand my arguments regarding sodomy, perhaps you should review them. I haven't the time to explain basic logic. Sodomy is still against the law when concent is not given.

"you said my statement was one of an 'ignoramous'"...exactly. I was addressing your statement, not you personally. Personal attacks such as yours are against TOS rules.

When you take an argument from funding to child sacrafice then you are probably losing the argument. Comparing Jews and Catholics to the democrat's terrorist wing the KKK is outragious and now you are just back-peddling. Your Humanist argument is yet another strawman.

No one is attempting to impose their religious beliefs onto anyone else and is yet another strawman argument. They are trying to protect their own religious beliefs.

Just because you can't successfully refute a point does not make it a strawman. Strawmaning is not the act of putting your hands over your ears and saying La La La! So, I'll ask you again:

"Can you provide one single example of a non-public servant being successfully sued because they refused to officiate a wedding ceremony?"

Another strawman argument.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. People who think there is are conspiracy theorists.

Prop 8, Prop 22, doesn't matter. The US Supreme Court will overturn the liberal lower court judges. Until then, we Californians will just have to keep passing more propositions protecting marriage.

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

You said, "They've all stipulated that the only reason these statutes..." You have failed to prove this statement. It doesn't matter what liberal judges "stipulate" is what I mean.

It does matter because their rulings are "law". They may be held in abeyance pending appeal but they are still law. If the Supreme Court declines to hear appeals those rulings will be entered as statute.

You haven't proven these groups or laws stipulate what you say they do. You failed to give one example of any such stipulation, and continue to claim that you did...where?

Just read the rulings in Golinski or Gill (DOMA) or Perry (Prop they have all stipulated that the only reason these laws exist is to promulgate irrational discrimination. I'm not making this up.

If you don't understand my arguments regarding sodomy, perhaps you should review them.

I have reviewed them, they make no sense

I haven't the time to explain basic logic.

Most likely because you can't

Sodomy is still against the law when concent is not given.

ANY sexual act is against the law when consent is not given. What the heck are you talking about?

"you said my statement was one of an 'ignoramous'"...exactly. I was addressing your statement, not you personally.

Except my statement was 100% factually correct so the use of the term "ignoramous" could easily be construed as the knee-jerk, emotional reaction of someone who's just been whooped and knows it all to well.

Personal attacks such as yours are against TOS rules.

Saying you are "the ignorant party' when this refers to a specific fact you plainly do not understand is not an insult. You may not be ignorant of the fact that ice cream is cold or that the sun is hot but that does not mean that you are not ignorant of the fact that nobody can be forced to perform a wedding ceremony that runs contrary to their religious or secular philosophical views. If I am the ignorant party and you can prove otherwise then please provide an example of this actually happening.

When you take an argument from funding to child sacrafice then you are probably losing the argument.

Nope I stand by my point. Again pointing out a far reaching comparison is a way of focusing down on a point. There's a good reason for government not to endorse any particular religion or philosophy and that's because doing so may encroach on the rights of others. Recognising same-sex couples right to marry does not force your church to endorse or perform same-sex wedding "ceremonies" or any of the members therein to marry partners of the same sex. It just doesn't. Fact!

Comparing Jews and Catholics to the democrat's terrorist wing the KKK is outragious and now you are just back-peddling.

No I am not. All these groups consider themselves as religious organisations. You may not like them , you may not agree with their viewpoints but their members do. My only point, and the one you are not getting, is the government can't be seen to be picking favorites when it it comes to providing money to groups whose stated purpose is to ignore the law.

Your Humanist argument is yet another strawman.

Again you can say it but why not, for once, try to back it up with an actual argument rather than a petulant dismissal? Why should the government advance monies to a church and not to a humanist or athiest group? What do you contend makes one more worthy than the other in the supposedly "neutral" eyes of secular law?

No one is attempting to impose their religious beliefs onto anyone else and is yet another strawman

If, for example, you are running an adoption agency which is in receipt of state funding and you refuse to provide adoption services to a gay couple in a state where SSM or Civil Unions are the law, the state has every right to refuse to subsidise you financially. Just as it would if you refused the same service to Jews or blacks or anyone else.

Another strawman argument.

Nonsense, you said same-sex civil marriage would lead to clergy being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Look at it this way. Your argument is that the recognition of same sex marriage would, by default, lead to a legal right to demand a religious wedding "ceremony". If this is the case then for all the years it's been legal, why is there not one single case of an heterosexual couple of any race, religion or creed successfully suing a church or other religious organistion for not performing their wedding? You'd think with the millions of weddings that have taken place you'd be able to point to just one.

There is no such thing as gay marriage.

In many jurisdictions homosexual persons of the same sex are recognised in marriage law so your statement is incorrect.

People who think there is are conspiracy theorists.

No they are not, this makes no sense. Do you know what a conspiracy theorist is. It is someone who imagines all sorts of stuff is happening when it isn't actually happening (like churches being forced to wed ANYONE they don't want to wed).

Prop 8, Prop 22, doesn't matter. The US Supreme Court will overturn the liberal lower court judges.

Is anyone who disagrees with anything you say a "liberal"? Maybe for some people being a "liberal" is not such a bad thing when it comes to social issues affecting the rights of innocent people.

I wouldn't be so confident of an USSC overturn. The arguments in these cases have been compelling and the defenses woeful. Cases have to be judged on merit, not just to conform with your prejudices.

Until then, we Californians will just have to keep passing more propositions protecting marriage.

Once such propositions have been deemed unconstitutional, they won't even make it to the ballot.