Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Stevepinto3]

Don't let the gay rights movement BS you into thinking that this is about love, or some kind of basic human right. The entire issue revolves entirely around money and benefits. While not explained in detail in law, the reasons why people get tax breaks for being married is the presumption that they are going to have and raise children afterwards. Making this easier is what those benefits are for. Homosexuals will never bear children, no matter what they might feel for each other, and if they choose to adopt there are already programs in place to help adoptive parents (people taking in foster kids for example wind up receiving checks from the goverment, leading to some of the nastiest rackets out there, even though the system does work as intended sometimes... the point simply being that there is compensation inherant in this kind of system).

One of the reasons why there is so much waffling on the issue of gay marriage, with states and politicians going back and forth, is because even those who support the principle, don't want to pay the cost when they figure out the racket. Homosexuals are a small minority of people, but especially at a time when most states are drowning under debt, all those people suddenly getting tax breaks hurts the bottom line. Especially when you consider that there is no justification for giving these people those benefits (as they were intended), most leaders don't want to pay that bill or have to raise everyone's taxes in order to cover that. It's one of those things that sounds like a wonderful political position, to garner left wing support UNTIL you see the bill.

So it's ok for straight people to cheat the system, but not gays. Gotcha.
Seriously, if this is the issue you're talking about, why not just stop giving any benefits to marriage at all? Instead we could just give support to people that have kids. I mean, you did say a gay couple could take care of kids on such programs, right? Problem solved!

Also, I call BS on your BS. Love IS a factor in it. Love is a important factor to straight couples that get married, and it's exactly the same for gay couples.

Now, understand also that the "other" benefits of Marriage are BS. Like it or not, society has been working on that problem for a while. Nowadays most hospitals and other facilities will allow a "life partner" to attend the ill just like a spouse for example.


All this aside though, the main point of marriage has always been simply for two people to declare a union and themselves "off limits" to others who are interested. Nothing prevents two homosexuals from exchanging vows before the authority of their choice, and wearing rings. Functionally, marriage, as it has existed before all of the politics, comes down to community acceptance and whether people acknowlege the couple as off limits to being sought as mates. Whether the rest of the gay community chooses to accept this and respect the vows is entirely their own social issue, and has absolutly nothing to do with goverment recognition. All Uncle Sam can do is change your tax paperwork so your cut to him is a little smaller.

And yet, this is a benefit afforded to straight people but not homosexuals. Again, compare to straight couples. What if you told them "Sorry, you can't get married, but you can still exchange vows if you want." It's not the same.

 

[b3nn3tt]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6q2180250341315/

I'm just going to leave this here...Doesnt really have to do with marriage but does explain alot

Just going to put this out there...if your gay blame your mom. SCIENCE DOES NOT LIE!!! (often)
A buddy of mine is actually heading this up at a local University its really interesting. Basically stress hormones mostly IGg are passed from a mother's placenta to her child. Depending on her environment this could alter the child's codon structure to either A. Alter Phenotype, but keep Genotype (i.e look like a girl but really be a man) or B. Change the chemical structure of the brain to well...like men. Most data comes from the U.S and Ireland during drought and famine times, but it consists of statistics stating that when food and supply shortages are prevelant more gay individuals are produced therefore lightening up the population. Sooo...yeah this might make a few people rage but, meh read it for yourselves. There is a lot more to it but unless someone asks ill just leave it at this.

Just from reading the abstract of that paper your argument seems flawed

For males, neither between-family nor within-family analyses revealed a maternal stress effect for either sexual orientation or childhood gender nonconformity

There are also a few problems with the methodology; self-report is not the best way to measure stress, and the stress reported for the heterosexual sibling were done from memory, which is even less accurate

OT: Can't think of any feasible reason why gay marriage wouldn't be ok

First the article is not the exact research its only a sample there are plenty of other papers out right now (in know the medical journal just recently published one) I just dont feel like finding them. Second it wasnt an argument? I wasn't putting a counterpoint to anyone's statement soo....ummm im sorry you disagree?? Its just a recent breakthrough in science and is being taught in neuro classes all across the states. If you feel it is wrong then i suggest you do your own research to oppose it.

Seemed like you were putting forward an argument, sorry if I misunderstood you. I was just pointing out methodological flaws in that study. There may well be more that are investigating the same thing, but if they're employing the same methodology then there will be flaws in those studies too

Oh no Im sorry the study follows National family records and birth Certificates of individuals who have claimed to be homosexual. In the U.S it would be the Census for the past 40 years in Ireland umm...im not too sure im not familiar with the area, but i would assume they would have a similar data base.

Ah, I see. Well, that is interesting. I would still question the accuracy of self-reported stress levels though. It might be interesting to look into testing pregnant women's stress levels, and then the prevalence of children who are gay, and looking at the correlations. I remain sceptical, but it is certainly a very interesting theory, and one that I won't rule out as a possible explanation

 

[Archtype]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

On the Christianity side of it, it is denounced multiple times in the Old and New Testament.

With all that being said, I don't think it should be outlawed because I don't think that anything should be outlawed that does not hurt someone else. You should be free to do what you want.

 

[b3nn3tt]

My problem with gay marriage is not an ethical one or a moral one, it's in the semantics.



When your menu reads "grilled chicken" and the actual dish is grilled beef, regardless of how good the grilled beef tastes, regardless if it's better than the grilled chicken, it still is and can never actually BE grilled chicken.


Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. No matter how much they love each other or how much they deserve the same rights, two men/women will never be a man and a woman, thus can't get married.


Simple. No?

But definitions of words change all the time. Why couldn't the term marriage be broadened to include homosexual unions as well?

It could in theory, it just can't be forced to change because people desire it to. You can't just wake up one day and add meanings to words or concepts that weren't there before and are somewhat contrary to the already established ones and expect people to just go along with it, these things slowly happen with the pass of time, you can't speed them up.

Very true, these things do take time. But don't you think a really good first step would be to allow gay couples to form a union and call it marriage? Not only that, but to also afford them the same rights as a married couple

Like I said, I have no ethical qualms, affording them the same rights is obviously a good thing. It would be a good thing for them but I have to consider how the older generations would feel, the ones totally set in their old ways and completely unacceptable of it. I feel the harm of completely destroying their world order is grander than the harm caused to gay people by calling their union something else.

We could just wait till they're all gone and we're at their place with our hopefully open(ish) minds and will to be tolerant.

But when would it be appropriate to change the definition of marriage? Would you just say that once everyone born before a certain date is dead, then we bring in a new definition? I don't think doing it that way would work, I think the only way to do it is a swift change where gay unions are called marriages from a certain date onwards

 

[Shycte]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

On the Christianity side of it, it is denounced multiple times in the Old and New Testament.

With all that being said, I don't think it should be outlawed because I don't think that anything should be outlawed that does not hurt someone else. You should be free to do what you want.

While I think it is great that you don't wan't to force your beliefs on others, I have some Questions...

1) You do know that homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom?

2) What about all the other things Levictus forbidds but no one cares about? Why aren't those as important?

 

[esin]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species

Try again.

 

[Archtype]

The reason I usually hear is that it 'destroys the moral virtues of society and the establishment of marriage'. This is the only non-religious or bigoted argument I've really ever heard, and there's a couple problems with it. One, marriage has never been sacred, up until the past century we mostly married for political or economic alliances between families, not for 'love'. Two, what exactly are these 'moral virtues of society'? I've heard an argument from my dad that basically can be summed up as 'homosexuality uncuts the moral fabric of society and leads to stagnation, I mean, look at Rome.' I've heard this from other people as well, so let's just clear this up: Rome did not fall because of homosexuality. Read a goddamn book. Secondly, by that logic, the Greeks regularly had all kinds of man sex and what did it get them? The beginnings of science, Western culture, and philosophy.

Um, scuse me but it does not matter if the majority of a society is married because of politics or not, something being holy/sacred could not give a rip if the people think it is or not.... It just is, or it isn't. And whether it is/isn't sacred is decided by a religions' deity. NOT by humanity.

 

[beer_nuts]

I can find no reason why it would hurt me or society in general if we embraced all kinds of love. I have biases but I'm not about to let them blind me.

paedophilia is a kind of love (philia = love).......ur gonna embrance that?

 

[Axelhander]

There is no good reason to disallow gay marriage. Not one. <-- That is not an opinion.

 

[beer_nuts]

Nope. And I live in the Netherlands, which was incidentially the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Yay for us! (Btw I'm not gay)

everything gets legalized first in the netherlands....awesome.

 

[daemoni]

I can find no reason why it would hurt me or society in general if we embraced all kinds of love. I have biases but I'm not about to let them blind me.

paedophilia is a kind of love (philia = love).......ur gonna embrance that?

thats not love, that is a psychiatric disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia

edit: yes, I do know the definition of philia, lets not bring semantics into this

 

[Mikkelet]

I'm split on this. Because of course I think people in love should have the right to get married, but if they decide to adopt, their child might become an easy target for bullying - but who knows? However, if we start allowing it now, in 10 or 20 years time, it may just be as normal as being kid from straight parents - but again, who knows?

 

[monkey_man]

I am fine with it. If they want to be a bound couple like straight people, why the heck not? They are only Human, right?

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as long as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

 

[Archtype]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

On the Christianity side of it, it is denounced multiple times in the Old and New Testament.

With all that being said, I don't think it should be outlawed because I don't think that anything should be outlawed that does not hurt someone else. You should be free to do what you want.

While I think it is great that you don't wan't to force your beliefs on others, I have some Questions...

1) You do know that homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom?

2) What about all the other things Levictus forbidds but no one cares about? Why aren't those as important?

1) Yes Ide forgotten about that example, my apologies. However, I will still hold to its unnatural nature because outside of the animal kingdom it can serve no purpose. (Animal purpose theoretically could be establishment of dominance)

2) Regardless of if Leviticus forbids other things or not, it also reinforces the denouncement in the New Testament. And considering most Christians consider themselves to be under the New Law, that is all that matters.

 

[Rafe]

(Before reading, please note that I AM in favor of gay marriage, in case you're very thick and don't get that right away)

You might hear people go on about how "Gay marriage is wrong", and "How it shoud be illegal" and so on. But I've yet to hear an objective reason for the case. They sometimes try to justify their position with "It would hurt regular marriage", but this is far fetched at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Fortunately these forums tend to be pretty open-minded on the matter, but if you happen to disagree with me, I'd very much like to hear a good, solid, factual reason to support your position.

EDIT: Lol, I finaly caught on to the error in the title X). I originally wanted it to say "would be" instead of "is" but forgot to delete the "be".

I think gay marriage should be allowed... But if the marriage is held in a church, it overrides the intrinsic and sacred beliefs of the particular religion.

Okay here me out. Most major religions are against gay marriage full stop, it violates their entire religious viewpoint and the foundations of their beliefs. If homosexuals desire a marriage in a church, then the religion in question should have every right to refuse or accept.

Though I'm not religious, I respect their right to uphold their beliefs by refusing homosexual marriage. Also, Government intervention to 'force' religions to host gay marriages (which has happened) is reverse discrimination, which asserts that they are in the wrong. Priests and so on would, to them, be forced to perform a 'sin'.

Another different case which elaborates is Catholic adoption agencies in the UK being closed down for refusing to adopt children to homosexual couples. The discrimination is simply switched round so that the Catholics suffered the full front of the tyranny of the majority for attempting to uphold their sacred views. It infringes on their liberty to refuse. I can only imagine same-sex couples would apply for adoption in Catholic adoption agencies in the first place either to make a statement or close them down.

Well anyway you wanted to see a reason for disagreeing with gay marriage, though this is only disagreeing on the grounds of respecting certain religious beliefs.

 

[Discrodia]

The typical reason something isn't allowed (that doesn't involve common sense stuff, like murder and stealing) is because one group feels the need to enforce what they believe is right upon everyone else.

Ergo, it's just not fully accepted (at least in the US) that some percentage of the population is gay, and that that's an integral part of their nature. Additionally, most politicians today grew up in an era where homosexuality was almost a crime, or a shameful social stigma, as did the bulk of the voting population. With homosexuality becoming more and more accepted and prevalent, however, pretty soon the only objections will be from religious organizations who commonly run weddings. And they have a good point, for marriage via church is an inherently religious ceremony, and the church shouldn't be forced to do something it objects to. I do believe that homosexual couples should have the same right to tax breaks as married couples, and they should be allowed to be legally wed by the state. Alternatively, remove the tax breaks for married couples anyway, so we don't have problems like this in the future.

I understand some people do not believe homosexuality is right, and that's their belief to hold. But I don't think those people deserve the right to deny other people the happiness (or, as divorce statistics show, instability =P)/ economic incentives of marriage just based on their beliefs.