What logical reasons are there for opposing same sex marriage

What is the downside of 2 people of the same sex having relationships called legal civil unions, with all the rights of 2 people of the opposite sex?

I know I will be lynched for going against the tidal wave of groupthink in this nation, but .......

I don't view same-sex marriage as "extending a right that was previously denied it", which is how the supporters frame it. The whole idea of gay marriage didn't exist until this millennium; until recently, the term gay marriage would sound like an oxymoron to everyone. All we're going is redefining a legal word.

If we view this as a "rights" issue, then what we're doing now is "denying the right of 3 or more people in a loving relationship the right to marry".

What's that? You don't think that there can be mutual love between 3 consenting adults? You don't think it's possible for 3 adults to raise a child better than the average pair of adults can??? I'm using your own arguments here.

At the end of the day, I think marriage is overrated. There are very few male-female pairs who can live together for decades without getting tired of each other. The real divorce rate (when you add in couples who have practically separated but haven't technically divorced) has to be in the 80-90% range. I'm not disparaging anyone's decision to get married, but I'm saying that I couldn't see myself making the same decision. I take seriously George Washington's warning against entering "entangling alliances".

herbkarp wrote:

You know, so many of you had these long and reasonably well thought out and coherent responses as to why you thought gays did not have the same right to marriage as the non-gay. i assumed that your thoughtful posts indicated a willingness to dialogue, so I entered into the argument with what I believed to be reasonable questions for you. Outside of the obligatory "you are a libtard" response, nothing.

Come now, were my questions really too difficult for you? Or maybe they made you realize the utter folly and moral vacuousness of your position?

Let me make the question simpler for you:

If gay marriage is such a huge problem for you, what do you think a good solution to the problem would be?

This guy is a retarded troll and he just says crazy stuff about liberals. . . He sounds like a young teen but he actually is a middle aged man.

Just ignore him... If you feed him he goes nuts. He's kinda our pet loser here at Letsrun.

True Story.

pert wrote:

What is the downside of 2 people of the same sex having relationships called legal civil unions, with all the rights of 2 people of the opposite sex?

The supporters of gay marriage say "civil unions aren't full equality; they're the equivalent of Separate but Equal."

Don't get it wrote:

Why is everybody against polygamy?

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

The problem with polygamy is that if it were legal, all the attractive women would be married to Brad Pitt. With enforced bigamy, there is at least the possibility for an average guy to get a hot wife. The natural state of affairs, were society to not exist, would be for all the women to share the richest and most genetically fit men.

pert wrote:

What is the downside of 2 people of the same sex having relationships called legal civil unions, with all the rights of 2 people of the opposite sex?

OK then, what is the downside of 2 people of the opposite sex having relationships called civil unions with all the rights of what used to be called marriage, but now they cannot legally call themselves married.

Are comfortable with that for the non gays? You seem to be comfortable with that for gays.

I believe this is propounding a principle called "separate but equal"

Its been tried before.

jamin wrote:

Don't get it wrote:

Why is everybody against polygamy?

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

The problem with polygamy is that if it were legal, all the attractive women would be married to Brad Pitt. With enforced bigamy, there is at least the possibility for an average guy to get a hot wife. The natural state of affairs, were society to not exist, would be for all the women to share the richest and most genetically fit men.

Jamin, this is how it should be, and you know this.

All of the genetic lines of the nerds and ugly weirdos need to die out.

We only need the richest, smarted, more genetically gifted people in the world reproducing.

Like xfit_guy_the_real_1 and you.

herbkarp wrote:

pert wrote:

What is the downside of 2 people of the same sex having relationships called legal civil unions, with all the rights of 2 people of the opposite sex?

OK then, what is the downside of 2 people of the opposite sex having relationships called civil unions with all the rights of what used to be called marriage, but now they cannot legally call themselves married.

Are comfortable with that for the non gays? You seem to be comfortable with that for gays.

I believe this is propounding a principle called \"separate but equal\"

Its been tried before.

We need the government to make more designations.

Rather than pointing out the sexes of the couples, we distinguish by the total weight or BMI or the couples.

There should be two classes of marriage: BMI 60+ marriages, and BMI sub60 marriages. The latter gets full discounts to Walmart so we can get them to be equal.

You've set a terrible example of what it means to be committed to something and your actions send a message that relationships are disposable as soon as things get a little rough.

You're also kidding yourself if you don't believe that children do far better (on average) when raised by 2 parents.

You are a libtard wrote:

This guy is a retarded troll and he just says crazy stuff about liberals. . . He sounds like a young teen but he actually is a middle aged man.

Just ignore him... If you feed him he goes nuts. He's kinda our pet loser here at Letsrun.

True Story.

I completely understand that you are entitled to free speech but if that wasn't a troll post, what is the reason for it. It doesn't answer any question proposed on this thread and just makes you appear as if you are unable to come up with an intelligent response.

On the same note, the reason I am asking the question of "what logical reasons are there for opposing same sex marriage" is to have a better understanding of the topic. It seems obvious that those enlightened on all angles of a topic would have a better understanding of what is right and what is wrong, in regards to the situation. So by shutting out the opposition, you are figuratively taping a "disregard me because ignorance is bliss" sign on your chest.

Oh I am sooo sorry I didn't discuss the topic exactly like you would prefer!

herbkarp asked: " Outside of the obligatory "you are a libtard" response, nothing. Come now, were my questions really too difficult for you? Or maybe they made you realize the utter folly and moral vacuousness of your position? Let me make the question simpler for you:

If gay marriage is such a huge problem for you, what do you think a good solution to the problem would be?"

I said he was talking to a troll.

So STFU

I believe that it is logical for marriage to be all about raising children in the best possible environment. I believe that mothers and fathers provide different yet equally important training, nurturing, guidance, advice, role-models etc. to their children. I am very grateful that I had both a mother and a father who were married, faithful to each other and loving and caring to their children in the ways that men and women express their various strengths. I believe in such an environment children thrive.

mormon lad wrote:

I believe that it is logical for marriage to be all about raising children in the best possible environment. I believe that mothers and fathers provide different yet equally important training, nurturing, guidance, advice, role-models etc. to their children. I am very grateful that I had both a mother and a father who were married, faithful to each other and loving and caring to their children in the ways that men and women express their various strengths. I believe in such an environment children thrive.

People don't need to be married to be great parents like the ones you describe.

pert wrote:

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.

This is the only logical reason to oppose same sex marriage. I would do without the "we were created" part though. Man and woman is our species has been able to exist.

No. You don't need to be 6'5"+ to be a basketball star either. But it sure as sheit helps!

Statss whizz wrote:

No. You don't need to be 6'5"+ to be a basketball star either. But it sure as sheit helps!

I'm sure it does. But the government or NBA does not say you can't play basketball unless you are 6'5" or more does it? I still have a right to play.

Plus you could say that allowing gay couples to get married gives their children a better chance of having a good childhood using this logic.

rojo wrote:

ouqwkja;sljoi wrote:

There is no logical reason for government to deny marriage to a same sex couple.

The arguments on the right come down to : Ewww gross or Gawd told me it's wrong. Plus they believe in big government but only in enforcing their narrow minded views on the rest of society.

I could care less what people do in their bedroom but i'll bite on this one.

Is there a logical reason to prevent a man from marrying more than one person?

If you say yes, I say you are narrowminded. Polygamy here we come.

It is amazing how many people make this "argument". Leaving aside the question of whether or not polygamy is a bad thing the argument itself makes no sense.

If one can make an argument supporting polygamy then one can make that very same argument with or without gay marriage rights in place. Gay marriage is simply irrelevant. Therefore, so is this "argument" against gay marriage.

pert wrote:

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.

Hate to break it to you but that is not an argument of any sort and is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Conundrum wrote:

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.

Men and women are inherently different. By nature they inherently complement each other's efforts in a marriage including raising children. Two people of the same sex do not complement each other in this way. Men and women are different. So this situation is not optimal and should not be codified as some sort of right (especially based on the current opinion of a few lawyers as opposed to the law as others have noted).

My point in mentioning non-intact families and the negative outcomes they have is that this isn't good for the children (or anyone) involved either. If this issue is truly about human beings and their rights, wouldn't proponents of marriage redefinition at least want to reserve judgment until we have solid scientific data as to what happens to kids raised in these environments? I mention this especially in light of the facts regarding the mental and physical health of people who self-identify as homosexual (data which is widely available and scientifically sound). I know that's logical and isn't driven by emoting or groupthink, but give it some thought.