Gay Marriage: Arguments Against, Right or Wrong?

[Infected Mushroom]

"I'm going to get more involved with religion by recognizing X as a religion."

This logic is glorious.

Because clearly recognizing a religion equates to massive government involvement in religion.

he's saying that recognizing gay marriages means the government bureaucracy must work with more cases now with every single thing it does that relates to the term ''marriage.''

Hence in theory he is correct. If the government recognizes the right to marriage for more people... then the workload of the government with respect to marriage is increased, the government has to deal with more marriage cases, the scope of its involvement in marriage increases, it needs more resources and more bureaucrats to handle gay marriages...

So yes... if you recognize a new religion and do it completely, you are increasing the scope of government involvement in religion.

Every single time the government passes a new law regulating religion from that point on, it will affect a larger number of people because now the people who practice that newly recognized religion are included.

he's correct...

and to be even more direct. Merely having the government saying ''We now recognize gay marriages...'' that action alone irespective of whether additional things are done or not... that mere statement has already increased the scope of government involvement.

The government is now more involved... it was silent before.

[Dyakovo]

No it isn't. Government involvement isn't increased in any way.

Clearly it is it will take more beauracrats to issue more licenses

No, it won't.

[Llamalandia]

Ultimately its like this. The LGBT's are fighting the wrong battle, it shouldn't be about having govt get involved with tem more by recognizing there marriages but rather it should be about getting the govt OUT of everyone's marriage as much as possible. It shouldn't be progay marriage against antigay marriage, rather hte real fight is promarriage vs the govt.

[Infected Mushroom]

Clearly it is it will take more beauracrats to issue more licenses

No, it won't.

why not?

Assuming gay marriage is not legal... a certain number of licenses is issued.

Assuming it is legal... more licenses are issued because now there is an obligation to issue them to gays.

[Llamalandia]

Clearly it is it will take more beauracrats to issue more licenses

No, it won't.

Ok and why not?

[Llamalandia]

I beiieve the title of this thread is: What is the actual argument against gay marriage. Now i don't know if small govt is THE argument against it, but it's certainly one of my arguments against it.

[Highfort]

Ultimately its like this. The LGBT's are fighting the wrong battle, it shouldn't be about having govt get involved with tem more by recognizing there marriages but rather it should be about getting the govt OUT of everyone's marriage as much as possible. It shouldn't be progay marriage against antigay marriage, rather hte real fight is promarriage vs the govt.

Saying pro-marriage vs the government implies the government is anti-marriage.

[Llamalandia]

Ultimately its like this. The LGBT's are fighting the wrong battle, it shouldn't be about having govt get involved with tem more by recognizing there marriages but rather it should be about getting the govt OUT of everyone's marriage as much as possible. It shouldn't be progay marriage against antigay marriage, rather hte real fight is promarriage vs the govt.

Saying pro-marriage vs the government implies the government is anti-marriage.

Well ok, I should say pro marriage freedom vs govt marriage tyranny.

[Dyakovo]

No, it won't.

why not?

Because it isn't necessary. No state that has legalized ssm has needed to hire more people to issue marriage licenses.

[Highfort]

Well ok, I should say pro marriage freedom vs govt marriage tyranny.

That's an inherently rigged equation. That's like pro-life vs pro-death or pro-choice vs. pro-rape or pro-LGBT vs. anti-freedom. It's an inherently rigged slogan designed to demonize the government.

Since you seem to be onto that, how about government LGBT recognition vs. anarchy and rape?

[Dyakovo]

I beiieve the title of this thread is: What is the actual argument against gay marriage. Now i don't know if small govt is THE argument against it, but it's certainly one of my arguments against it.

That is an absolutely moronic argument.

[Llamalandia]

I beiieve the title of this thread is: What is the actual argument against gay marriage. Now i don't know if small govt is THE argument against it, but it's certainly one of my arguments against it.

That is an absolutely moronic argument.

Well then feel free to rebut it. Just saying that's stupid isn't enough in a debate genius.

[Highfort]

That is an absolutely moronic argument.

Well then feel free to rebut it. Just saying that's stupid isn't enough in a debate genius.

It's so moronic it's not worth rebutting. What exactly is your argument - that small government negates the need for us to recognize LGBT marriages? How the fuck does it do that?

[Llamalandia]

Well ok, I should say pro marriage freedom vs govt marriage tyranny.

That's an inherently rigged equation. That's like pro-life vs pro-death or pro-choice vs. pro-rape or pro-LGBT vs. anti-freedom. It's an inherently rigged slogan designed to demonize the government.

Since you seem to be onto that, how about government LGBT recognition vs. anarchy and rape?

Well the government does suck so yes, it is meant to demonize the govt. I'm sure plenty of lgbt people would agree that the govt is oppressive (I mean they used to arrest gays not that long ago, heck there's still fbi stings in airport mens rooms after all). Perhaps saying tyrannical was a bit much just seemed like the only thing that really fit. It wasn't meant to be entirely jingoist though.

[Llamalandia]

Well then feel free to rebut it. Just saying that's stupid isn't enough in a debate genius.

It's so moronic it's not worth rebutting. What exactly is your argument - that small government negates the need for us to recognize LGBT marriages? How the fuck does it do that?

Well, ok let me clarify, i'm saying that governement should be kept as small as possible, thus rather than expanding govt (by recognizing gay marriage) we should instead shrink govt by having them not recognize any marriages. The less the govt the more free we are.

[Highfort]

Well the government does suck so yes, it is meant to demonize the govt. I'm sure plenty of lgbt people would agree that the govt is oppressive (I mean they used to arrest gays not that long ago, heck there's still fbi stings in airport mens rooms after all). Perhaps saying tyrannical was a bit much just seemed like the only thing that really fit. It wasn't meant to be entirely jingoist though.

Your opinion is that the government sucks. My opinion is that your opinion sucks.

The government arrested gays because (surprise surprise) the people voted into office were anti-gay. I wonder who voted those people into office. It couldn't have been *gasp* the electorate? You know, the electorate that was anti-LGBT until pro-LGBT became popular.

[Dyakovo]

That is an absolutely moronic argument.

Well then feel free to rebut it. Just saying that's stupid isn't enough in a debate genius.

Issuing marriage licenses doesn't increase the size of government.
There. Rebutted.

[Llamalandia]

Well the government does suck so yes, it is meant to demonize the govt. I'm sure plenty of lgbt people would agree that the govt is oppressive (I mean they used to arrest gays not that long ago, heck there's still fbi stings in airport mens rooms after all). Perhaps saying tyrannical was a bit much just seemed like the only thing that really fit. It wasn't meant to be entirely jingoist though.

Your opinion is that the government sucks. My opinion is that your opinion sucks.

The government arrested gays because (surprise surprise) the people voted into office were anti-gay. I wonder who voted those people into office. It couldn't have been *gasp* the electorate? You know, the electorate that was anti-LGBT until pro-LGBT became popular.

Oh, ok so were just basing this whole decision of whether gays should be allowed to marry not on fundamental rights, but rather on what the electorate does or doesn't think is popular. Well good job. In that case I guess you don't mind all those ballot iniatives against gay marriage, after all prop 8 for example was the "will of californians". And you want to respect the popular will after all.

[Dyakovo]

It's so moronic it's not worth rebutting. What exactly is your argument - that small government negates the need for us to recognize LGBT marriages? How the fuck does it do that?

Well, ok let me clarify, i'm saying that governement should be kept as small as possible, thus rather than expanding govt (by recognizing gay marriage) we should instead shrink govt by having them not recognize any marriages. The less the govt the more free we are.

Marriage equality does not increase the size of government in any way.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, it won't.

Ok and why not?

Because following an initial rush, I can't imagine that a group that likely makes up a single digit in total percentage of the population (note that I'm not talking about all gay and bisexual people, here, but rather gay and bisexual people who are open, of age to marry, in a committed relationship, and desirous of marriage to their partners) would cause a significant enough increase in average issuance to require more hiring. You're grasping at straws, here, and it's undignified.

[Llamalandia]

Well then feel free to rebut it. Just saying that's stupid isn't enough in a debate genius.

Issuing marriage licenses doesn't increase the size of government.
There. Rebutted.

Except that it does. Given that gay people are what about 10% of the general population then allowing them to get married will required 10% more people (or effort) from the offices issuing marriage licenses. It's simple logic.

If it takes 10 people to issue 10000 licenses, how many people does it take to issue 11000?

[Highfort]

Oh, ok so were just basing this whole decision of whether gays should be allowed to marry not on fundamental rights, but rather on what the electorate does or doesn't think is popular. Well good job. In that case I guess you don't mind all those ballot iniatives against gay marriage, after all prop 8 for example was the "will of californians". And you want to respect the popular will after all.

LGBT rights is based around fundamental rights. All I'm saying is that your demonization of the government reflects on the people. There are no tyrants without slaves, and some people are intent on making everyone else their slaves.

Also, the electorate is stupid. They vote against their own best interest all the time due to lack of education. Do you think reducing government will somehow educate the electorate? No, all you'll have is a bunch of morons acting in their own self-interest and destroying each other over resources because they're too stupid to look beyond their own needs. If anything we need to expand the government to provide better education for the electorate, so that they understand why they're voting and what issues go for and against their self-interest.

[Llamalandia]

Ok and why not?

Because following an initial rush, I can't imagine that a group that likely makes up a single digit in total percentage of the population (note that I'm not talking about all gay and bisexual people, here, but rather gay and bisexual people who are open, of age to marry, in a committed relationship, and desirous of marriage to their partners) would cause a significant enough increase in average issuance to require more hiring. You're grasping at straws, here, and it's undignified.

Well it may not be a huge increase but it's certainly a non zero increase. I'm not saying this is going to blow any budgets by any means but it will require more people (or more manhours essentially to process).

[Dyakovo]

Issuing marriage licenses doesn't increase the size of government.
There. Rebutted.

Except that it does.

Wrong. As I've already demonstrated.

If it takes 10 people to issue 10000 licenses, how many people does it take to issue 11000?

10.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's so moronic it's not worth rebutting. What exactly is your argument - that small government negates the need for us to recognize LGBT marriages? How the fuck does it do that?

Well, ok let me clarify, i'm saying that governement should be kept as small as possible, thus rather than expanding govt (by recognizing gay marriage) we should instead shrink govt by having them not recognize any marriages. The less the govt the more free we are.

Okay.

Show me any legitimate source that proves a link between same sex marriage and increased government.