What logical reasons are there for opposing same sex marriage

Don't be fooled. Gay marriage is not about love and companionship it just symbol of social acceptance.

Politicians will do anything to get votes.

rojo wrote:

I could care less what people do in their bedroom

How MUCH LESS could you care? I could care 98.654% less, on DIRT QUACKMIRE.

Curious Cat,

I regret that you're bringing out the inner pedant in me, yet I feel no need to instruct you, other than to say that your reply (below) was muddled with non sequiturs and flecked with grammatical infelicities.

Sapere aude and good luck where ever you land.

You wrote:

"Well, thinking for myself, it seems easier to create your own little world in which you let no other insight in than be open to what others have to say.

The problem with this case is that it appears that the only reasons people are opposing gay marriage are they are very religious or just behind the time. Nothing bad will come from gay marriage. Satan cannot be blamed for gay marriage. This is the 21st century not the middle ages. However I am more than open if you have an argument that you believe would hold it's own.

Though I don't find remark regarding the Supreme Court justice's all to considerate. It doesn't really seem fitting to call the people deemed to be the best legal minds in our country "senior citizens parading around in black dresses"."

See your article and raise you wrote:

Perkunas wrote:

Hmm, what could possibly be wrong with these studies?

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/studying-the-same-sex-studies/

Here you go, Japanese Robot:

Decades of studies show some of the following things:

"Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures"

"Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents."

Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma"

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

This place is a site for Catholicism. Not biased at all right? They disproved 70 studies over 30 years so easily, just like they disproved their priests molested children until hundreds came forward. Oh wait, no they didn't. But child molestation is much better than gay marriage right?

herbkarp wrote:

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?

remove the power of the state to license marriages.

as jamin and others pointed out, it sure doesn't seem like the state is limiting the number of divorces. it is almost like the state receives money for issuing a marriage AND issuing divorces. counter productive?

sloinnorcal wrote:

herbkarp wrote:

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?

remove the power of the state to license marriages.

as jamin and others pointed out, it sure doesn't seem like the state is limiting the number of divorces. it is almost like the state receives money for issuing a marriage AND issuing divorces. counter productive?

Yes. Make it all or nothing short of slavery or chomo status. The government should know its role.

sloinnorcal wrote:

remove the power of the state to license marriages.

as jamin and others pointed out, it sure doesn't seem like the state is limiting the number of divorces. it is almost like the state receives money for issuing a marriage AND issuing divorces. counter productive?

It's money for the state and especially for the lawyers. The idea of legal marriage should be eliminated. If someone is a member of church that wants to marry them to their dog, then they can do that and be considered married to their dog by everyone who wants to consider them as such. We don't need the state to recognize marriages. I'm sick of the divisive mob rule in this country.

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.

[quote]rojo wrote:

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.

[quote]ouqwkja;sljoi wrote:

I have no trouble with polygamy between consenting adults. A constant issue with polygamy though is that it's usually just justification for horny old men to swap daughters with each other.

When you go down this path though, the root cause is the special treatment bestowed upon certain groupings of people. This would make the case for society to eliminate the special treatment of married couples (male and female). People could tie their assets together through corporations and make moral commitments however they choose.

So you are stating that your solution to this is that if state sanctioned marriage can't be between non gays only then no one should have it?

Did you think that removing the power of the state to license marriages was a good idea before gay couples asked for state sanctioned marriages?

If states no longer sanctioned marriages would you no longer be so troubled by gays?

Japanese robot wrote:

In fact, you might be surprised to learn that in my opinion my position presupposes they have more dignity as human beings than yours does.

You're right, I would be surprised, because so far it sounds like you don't think they should be treated with dignity.

You asked for studies showing if there was a difference in children raised by gay couples. You have been supplied with 70.

Then you tried to undermine all of those studies with a Catholic website that - surprise - doesn't like gays.

You're not a bigot because you disagree with me. You are a bigot because you want to treat gay people differently (worse) for no other reason than they are gay.

messi wrote:

Rojo, what about a white supremacist refusing to photograph a black wedding, or a black family portrait? How is that different than the overly religious homophobe refusing to photograph a gay wedding?

Last time I checked gays were here to stay.

Good point. I mean then you end up with a bunch of exceptions so I get why they force people to do it. Slippery sloper arguments are tough.

But they already selectively pick adn choose what they enforce. For example, a baker in Colorado didn't get in trouble after refusing to bake an antigay cake:

jamin wrote:

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.

Enforced bigamy? That's an interesting concept.

But I understand your point. And as Dick Posner suggested in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling, that distinguishes anti-polygamy statutes from those that prohibit same-sex marriage:

"But later in his [dissenting] opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women."

Posner is irresistible to 1Ls and laymen.

I stopped reading page 3 of the comments on this thread.

A lot of ignorance. And since, I am a fan of supreme court slip opinions since 1986. This is a historic decision that affects American human rights.

You'd be advised to read the slip opinion for same sex marriage.

Again, It is historical - search "14-556_3204", and read it. I read about

63 out 103 pages, J.ROBERTS, J SCALIA demonstrate their

strict textualism. J. THOMAS's dissenting opinion is way off base, wrapped

up in the Magna Carta.

J.KENNEDY's opinion is to the point, no more no less and echos the liberalism of his predecessors John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun and Thurgood Marshall. Can't wait to read the oral arguments of this case. "scotus-oral-arguments-4-28-15".

Anon wrote:

I stopped reading page 3 of the comments on this thread.

A lot of ignorance. And since, I am a fan of supreme court slip opinions since 1986. This is a historic decision that affects American human rights.

You'd be advised to read the slip opinion for same sex marriage.

Again, It is historical - search "14-556_3204", and read it. I read about

63 out 103 pages, J.ROBERTS, J SCALIA demonstrate their

strict textualism. J. THOMAS's dissenting opinion is way off base, wrapped

up in the Magna Carta.

J.KENNEDY's opinion is to the point, no more no less and echos the liberalism of his predecessors John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun and Thurgood Marshall. Can't wait to read the oral arguments of this case. "scotus-oral-arguments-4-28-15".

Oral arguments after briefings in scotus are not very exciting. Why are you excited?

Also Kennedy is a flip flopper. Weak sauce.

Roberts and his strict textualism?

Give me a break.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Enforced bigamy?

I meant monogamy haha. It's confusing because you would think the world bigamy would mean 2 people married to each other.

rojo wrote:

But they already selectively pick adn choose what they enforce. For example, a baker in Colorado didn't get in trouble after refusing to bake an antigay cake:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/04/colorado-bakery-that-refused-to-bake-anti-gay-cakes-did-not-discriminate-state-agency-says/

Baking an anti-gay cake is no different to baking an anti-black cake or an anti-Jew cake.