Hypocritical Arguments Against gay Marriage

1) "Procreation is necessary to extend the human race. Homosexual couples cannot procreate, thus they should be denied marriage rights."

Unless you require heterosexual couples to procreate, this argument is completely invalid. Furthermore, homosexuals will not procreate even if you don't allow them to marry, so there isn't even any logic in it.

2) Homosexuals spread HIV and other STDs much more than the heterosexual population, and they involve themselves in more dangerous sexual behaviors than heterosexuals.

While this may be true, allowing gays to marry will not change this. In fact, it may improve it. It could be safe bet to assume that a homosexual that is allowed to marry might have less partners than a homosexual that cannot marry. Also, this has nothing to do with the heterosexual community. Unless you intend to have sex with a homosexual, or someone else who has had sex with a homosexual, then it doesn't really matter if every single homosexual on earth had HIV, you would be okay.

3) All religious arguments can just be thrown out the window, because the church isn't legally supposed to have any influence over a state law.

4) "gays shouldnt be able to get married because they are a special group with special interests and they shouldn't receive special treatment."

Well special is defined as: Better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual . So, not allowing them to marry has ALREADY put them in a special category, by denying them the rights that other citizens receive

5) "If we let gays marry, sooner or later we will have to let people marry goats or toasters."

False. Marriage must be between two consenting adults, and neither a goat nor a toaster can consent to marriage.


Any more arguments I can shoot down, or are we going to go ahead and give these Americans the rights they deserve?

 

The normalisation and equalisation of homosexuality a will lead to the destruction of the human race. Obviously the more people know about gay rights and support such an abomination (53% of America!!!) the less NORMAL people (straights) will procreate. A majority of these will also turn gay based on the sheer logical persuasion of the homosexual agenda. Society as we know it will consequently collapse in an orgy of mano-et-mano and logical thought...

 

Well if I die of an orgy at least I will die happy!

 

Marriage is a heterosexual institution a commitment process for heterosexual couples.
No amount of hysterical wrist flapping will ever change that simple fact.

 

"That simple fact"? Why is it a commitment process only for heterosexual couples? It is just a bonafide civil union. A legal connection between two people, that is publicly and formally recognized.

 

I do not see any reason in that post why marriage should not be extended to same sex couples.

 

Except is six states...soon to be more...RIGHT?

Could you give some reasons beyond silly attempts at stereotyping?

 

A lot of people who value the heterosexual institution of marriage, do. We should respect their wishes.

 

Heterosexuals DO NOT own the concept of marriage; and NO ONE is asking them to extract 'value' or any degree of dedication from their own marriages.

I respect their 'relationships' very much... but not their "wishes"; what about the 'wishes' of those who are prohibited (for NO good reason) from entering into the institution of marriage?

If my "wishes" were a proper reason for restricting any particular right... then a LOT of people in this forum would be cited for much that they say. I do regard that some are frustrated with others possessing or gaining certain "rights"... but as long as they see no actual reduction in their own rights, that is also worth regarding (in the legal sense).

 

Marriage can be extended only to ALL people, if it extended only for homosexuals it is special right for homosexuals, even though homosexuals have nothing to do with marriage.

 

I guess your presenting these arguments here because you couldnt find anyone actually making them, to respond to.

 

hey!!! we agree on something

Let any 2 consenting adults be they Jane and John, Jane and Joan, or mom and son go before their church or whatever and get married. But, no institution stops any of them from cohabitating and that point seems to get lost in the drive to legislate thought.

 

If they gave them to any two consenting adults, it would cease to be special treatment for homosexuals, because they are homosexuals. Which is precisely what they want, special treatment because they are so special.

 

I would just like to say that seeing two hot lesbians kissing in public is, well, HOT!

Lesbian couple share Navy's 'first kiss' homecoming honors

BTW, I've been to a few gay marriages myself and I didn't feel uncomfortable.

 

ANY two consenting adults should be able to have marriage rights, but a side-effect your mother/daughter scenario is sadly the "ultimate" government endorsement of incestuous relationships, and obviously an even greater recognition than legalising sexual acts between family member, despite the mother and daughter's relationship not being of that nature.

That's why, sadly, it will probably be reasonably withheld even with SSM being the law of the land. The government doesn't want to be seen as encouraging/endorsing incest, which would be an unavoidable side effect.

 

Roll your eyes up to the title of the thread. "gay marriage". These people have no interest in marriage for any two consenting adults.

 

Gay marriage is a media term. It's actually "same-sex marriage", as I've always referred to it.

 

Just as the 6 states with GAY marriage call it. Doesnt change what it is. And HERE, "Gay Marriage" is the gays and their advocates term.

 

No we shouldn't. That is the reason America is not a democracy. With democracy the minority are shut away while the majority get their "wishes" respected.

 

extending marriage to homosexuals would then include ALL people.

and we've already proven that homosexuals in fact, DO have something to do with marriage.

 

Show me proof that "gay marriage" is written ANYWHERE into law else your opinion is meaningless.

 

No one here, besides yourself, has said anything about not allowing anyone to get married. Most of us want equal rights for ALL consenting adults but in this particular instance we are talking about gay marriage.

If you would like to talk about tree marriage or fence marriage or dog marriage then you should petition the mods to make the appropriate thread for you to post in but since we are in the "Gay & Lesbian Rights" we will talk about gay rights.

Good strawman though, actually not really, it sucks...

 

But even then! A tree or a dog cannot really consent to marriage. Do I like the idea of a brother and sister forming a union? Not particularly. But if they both consent then why not? If they want to get married but can't, chances are they are already doing everything a married couple is doing. But I consider incest to be a different story, and a different topic for argument. But I would guess incest couples are dwarfed in size by homosexual couples.

 

Usless arguments, As you know everything can be changed by political act.

 

Just because anything humanly possible can be legalised doesn't mean it will be. There are good reasons things like incestuous marriage or marrying your dog/a tree aren't permitted.