What logical reasons are there for opposing same sex marriage

btownrunnin wrote:

My ex-wife and I got a no-fault divorce, and I remarried last year. We share custody and are equally active in the the lives of our two well-adjusted kids. Because of these two facts, I can tell you that you have absolutely no clue of what the hell you are talking about.

I'm sure that it's better for your kids than if you'd had a good marriage and stayed married. I'm sure your divorce had absolutely no effect on them. Glad you are fulfilled, that's the important part.

Why is everybody against polygamy?

Everyone is talking about it like it is a bad thing.

You sound like a 10 year old who just learned his parents don't love each other anymore.

Grow up.

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

First of all, marriage does not equal children. Or really sex for that matter (see post-nuptial shutoff thread).

Regarding same-sex couples and "bedrocks of society" and mental illness, it's called enlightenment and evolution of society. People open their minds and empathize and realize that we can change for the better.

It's not surprising that you wouldn't think that procreation and the proper rearing of children are intimately intertwined with marriage. Marriage has become meaningless in the minds of many and they do not understand its purpose nor the repercussions to society of not having healthy families (meaning a mom and dad raising their children together).

There is plenty of evidence showing that homosexual behavior is both mentally and physically unhealthy. Not opinion, scientific evidence. What you think is "enlightenment and evolution of society" is floating with the stream of current pop culture. If this were 100 years ago you might be talking about how the shape of people's skulls shows the hierarchy of racial superiority or something else that was popular but unfounded. People in every age think they are "advanced," but change is not always a change to something good. Sometimes it's a regression.

Curious Cat wrote:

Title says it all. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition amid all the religious drivel. It appears as if the right side just wants to pick and choose what government controls. Rather than stand against big government controlling their lives, they would like to be the ones telling others what to do, such as who they can marry or if they can have an abortion.

Someone please explain.

Well you can use that abortion logic on the left. They want the government to control everything. They dont' even want to let people drink a coke without paying a tax but want zero regulations whatsoever about someone butchering a 6 month old fetus.

So yes, both parties aren't consistent.

politics guy wrote:

Curious Cat wrote:

Title says it all. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition amid all the religious drivel. It appears as if the right side just wants to pick and choose what government controls. Rather than stand against big government controlling their lives, they would like to be the ones telling others what to do, such as who they can marry or if they can have an abortion.

Someone please explain.

Well you can use that abortion logic on the left. They want the government to control everything. They dont' even want to let people drink a coke without paying a tax but want zero regulations whatsoever about someone butchering a 6 month old fetus.

So yes, both parties aren't consistent.

Sorry are you against legal abortion?

Butchering sounds like back alley abortions, which is what will happen if there are no legal abortion options.

Is that what you were talking about?

I take it you're not married?

Don't get it wrote:

Why is everybody against polygamy?

Everyone is talking about it like it is a bad thing.

1 Is Enough wrote:

I take it you're not married?

Don't get it wrote:

Why is everybody against polygamy?

Everyone is talking about it like it is a bad thing.

In my mind yes, but the state is tyrannical and is trying to break me and my goat up.

rojo wrote:

Read this carefully. I think it's totally absurd that we'd allow a restaurant to refuse service to gay couple. A public place should be open to everyone, but i do have a problem forcing a photographer who is deeply religious to photo a gay wedding. That's absurd to me.

What a shame for the poor bigoted photographer. I am crying in despair for him.

What about a gay photographer being forced to photo a deeply religious wedding?

rojo wrote:

Scalia's 'threat to democracy' refers to the killing off of states rights. The feds now control everything.

Or killing off the Constitution... If we're gonna legalize gay marriage, we have to do it the right way, though a law or amendment. The job of the Supreme Court is not to legislate their opinions, but to uphold the constitution. Both of their major decisions these past two days weren't supported by the Constitution at all. Might as well throw away that outdated manuscript.

We could do away with government involvement in marriage entirely, but that wouldn't be good enough for liberals.

Nikon wrote:

rojo wrote:

Read this carefully. I think it's totally absurd that we'd allow a restaurant to refuse service to gay couple. A public place should be open to everyone, but i do have a problem forcing a photographer who is deeply religious to photo a gay wedding. That's absurd to me.

What a shame for the poor bigoted photographer. I am crying in despair for him.

What about a gay photographer being forced to photo a deeply religious wedding?

He shouldn't have to do it either. What's your point?

logical reasons: good morning! go outside, look at the sun, look at nature, That is logical proof that someone made these things we enjoy every day. Logic says it was a supreme power! Look at men, look at women. Logic and nature shows they were created, rather than coming to be by chance. Logic and nature declare that 2 person of opposite sexes complete each other.

Straight Up Logic wrote:

The first question we need to answer is this: "Does society have the right to define which parties are permitted to marry?"

I posit to you that the answer is "yes" -- and I further posit that you agree with me. That is, unless you think that people should be able to marry their siblings, or you think multiple spouses should be allowed, or maybe, just maybe, you think someone with a harmless animal fetish should have the ability to court the barnyard fowl of his dreams and experience the dignity and beauty of state-sanctioned matrimony.

First off, I appreciate the response.

As times goes on, it is my belief that people will change. For better or for worse, if you look back at history it is what occurs.

Now moving on to the topic of marriage equality, using the fact that times change, it seems obvious that SCOTUS will interpret the constitution in accordance with these times.

There will always be an outlier here or there. Regarding your example of someone wanting to get married to a barnyard animal, that is why SCOTUS is employed. To determine what is reasonable and what does not make sense. Down the road, although it may seem absurd to marry a barnyard animal today, down the line, SCOTUS may decide that it does no harm and that the right to marry barnyard animals is guaranteed by the constitution.

This ruling does not appear to be SCOTUS saying "eff it" more or less it is the decision that marriage, homosexual or straight, is guaranteed by the constitution. Using the same morals that you touched on, society does and seemingly will always regard sibling marriage as immoral.

Although you gave a very extreme example regarding an 8 year old marrying a 60 year old, I will offer my rebuttal. Seeing as this is more of a coming of age example I believe we must first realize why an 8 year old is not allowed to simply marry a 60 year old. Regarding the brain and neural processing, we must use the information that science has provided. It appears to be very silly to allow someone lacking the mental development to make such a large decision. Hence why there is the Age of Majority and why one needs parental consent if they wish to be married at an earlier age.

Curious Cat wrote:

Title says it all. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition amid all the religious drivel. It appears as if the right side just wants to pick and choose what government controls. Rather than stand against big government controlling their lives, they would like to be the ones telling others what to do, such as who they can marry or if they can have an abortion.

Someone please explain.

Libtards can marry each other any time they please. This is great for everyone. Libtardds are happy and libtards can't procreate it is truly a "win win" for America.

I am for libtards marrying their pets and livestock too. This will keep them from sneaking around barns et al.

It is all good.

Actually your whole post seems to provide arguments why gay marriage should be allowed. Your concerns seems to be the effect on kids of being raised by single parent, families that are not intact as you say. These would include couples who had kids and never married or married heterosexuals who didn't stay together. You seem to be making a case for making a life long commitment and keeping a family intact. I would think, two being willingly to make a life long commitment to each other would be something that you would be very much in favor of.

OK to all of you who find gay marriage and gays themselves so horrible and dangerous, id like to ask you the following questions?

1- Do you think that being gay should be illegal?If so, what should the penalty be? Imprisonment? Forced reeducation?Deportation? Execution? quarantine?

2- if you do not think that being gay should be illegal then how should we differentiate them from the non gay since you do not believe that they should be afforded the same rights as those who are not gay. Should they be legally obligated to register as gay? Perhaps wear some sort of badge or article of clothing so that other know that they are not afforded the same rights as the non-gay?

3- If gays are not allowed to marry, should it stop there? Do you think that there are other rights afforded to the non-gay that gay people should not be allowed to have such as being around children?Giving medical assistance to the disabled? Serving in the government?

4-On job applications should a employer be allowed to deny giving a job to someone who identifies as gay? What about housing? Government assistance?

I await your answers and the opportunity to dialogue with you further. if you do not answer my questions i will assume that you simply are not able to come up with reasonable answers to my questions, which I find understandable.

Agreed. Liberals should legally be allowed to marry each other.

Freedom is American wrote:

Curious Cat wrote:

Title says it all. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition amid all the religious drivel. It appears as if the right side just wants to pick and choose what government controls. Rather than stand against big government controlling their lives, they would like to be the ones telling others what to do, such as who they can marry or if they can have an abortion.

Someone please explain.

Libtards can marry each other any time they please. This is great for everyone. Libtardds are happy and libtards can't procreate it is truly a "win win" for America.

I am for libtards marrying their pets and livestock too. This will keep them from sneaking around barns et al.

It is all good.

Yes even liberals can have a pet foggy Iike you... Don't give up Kermit!

if same-sex couples are going to be raising kids anyway, isn't it better for stability, etc, if the people raising them are married?