Gay Marriage: Arguments Against, Right or Wrong?

[Othelos]

False, there is not and never has been a universal approach to sexuality. Acceptance of homosexuality absolutely has been displayed in numerous historic societies.

Rarely as an alternative. Ancient Athenians could have male lovers, but they were still expected to be married and have children.

So? We don't live in ancient Athens.

[Alcmaria]

But it is the reason gay marriage isn't allowed: progressives raise their shoulders (they ask: why not?), whereas conservatives raise their hands (to object; why is this necessary?). And so far, the majority is conservative.

Nope. The majority is in favor of gay marriage.

Doubt it.

there are gay people who desire to marry.

Read: who want their relationship recognized by society. If society doesn't want to recognize it, it doesn't.

But there's good reasons as to why SSM should be legal.

I can only think of the aforementioned argument, and I don't find it very convincing.

[Seriong]

Rarely as an alternative. Ancient Athenians could have male lovers, but they were still expected to be married and have children.

So? We don't live in ancient Athens.

The question was whether or not any other societies accepted homosexuality.

[Threlizdun]

False, there is not and never has been a universal approach to sexuality. Acceptance of homosexuality absolutely has been displayed in numerous historic societies.

Rarely as an alternative. Ancient Athenians could have male lovers, but they were still expected to be married and have children.

You never said that the majority of societies embraced the concept. It certainly was rare, but such societies absolutely existed, which proves your previous statement about it being a relatively new concept false. Even if it was new though, it still wouldn't make any difference. The polio vaccine is relatively new, though it doesn't make it any less important.

[Seriong]

Nope. The majority is in favor of gay marriage.

Doubt it.

there are gay people who desire to marry.

Read: who want their relationship recognized by society. If society doesn't want to recognize it, it doesn't.

But there's good reasons as to why SSM should be legal.

I can only think of the aforementioned argument, and I don't find it very convincing.

The majority of people are actually in favor of gay marriage, however the majority of voters are not.

[MERIZoC]

Nope. The majority is in favor of gay marriage.

Doubt it.

there are gay people who desire to marry.

Read: who want their relationship recognized by society. If society doesn't want to recognize it, it doesn't.

But there's good reasons as to why SSM should be legal.

I can only think of the aforementioned argument, and I don't find it very convincing.

1: Whether or not you doubt a fact has no affect on it's impact. Facts are not democratic.
2: So what? It still should.
3: There is literally no reason not to.

[Othelos]

Nope. The majority is in favor of gay marriage.

Doubt it.

It's true.

there are gay people who desire to marry.

Read: who want their relationship recognized by society. If society doesn't want to recognize it, it doesn't.

Much of society didn't recognize interracial marriage, either.

But there's good reasons as to why SSM should be legal.

I can only think of the aforementioned argument, and I don't find it very convincing.

Hm. People are probably resistant to change or just homophobic.

[Othelos]

So? We don't live in ancient Athens.

The question was whether or not any other societies accepted homosexuality.

I know. He said it was unnatural because other societies didn't accept homosexuality as an alternative/legitimate 'lifestyle'.

[Mavorpen]

False, there is not and never has been a universal approach to sexuality. Acceptance of homosexuality absolutely has been displayed in numerous historic societies.

Rarely as an alternative. Ancient Athenians could have male lovers, but they were still expected to be married and have children.

Why stop at Athens? There were areas in Mesopotamia allowing homosexual marriage.

[Alcmaria]

The majority of people are actually in favor of gay marriage, however the majority of voters are not.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out, should've included that word in my argument.

Whether or not you doubt a fact has no affect on it's impact. Facts are not democratic.

It's true.

Ok, now I believe it.

Much of society didn't recognize interracial marriage, either.

I can't explain this.

So what? It still should.

People are probably resistant to change or just homophobic.

Resistance to change isn't malum in se. The pro-argument is: gay people want it, and the con-argument is: we don't want it. Let democracy figure it out.

There is literally no reason not to.

That's what I said: raise their shoulders.

[Othelos]

Resistance to change isn't malum in se. The pro-argument is: gay people want it, and the con-argument is: we don't want it. Let democracy figure it out.

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

It's not like white people are polled on whether they support blacks getting married.

[Seriong]

Resistance to change isn't malum in se. The pro-argument is: gay people want it, and the con-argument is: we don't want it. Let democracy figure it out.

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

It's not like white people are polled on whether they support blacks getting married.

Isn't that basically what happened however? Rights cannot be taken, one can only convince people to grant them.

[Alcmaria]

Resistance to change isn't malum in se. The pro-argument is: gay people want it, and the con-argument is: we don't want it. Let democracy figure it out.

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

There's no fundamental right to marry. It's a game made up by people, and if the players want to change the rules, it can be done. It's not like being married makes one a full-fledged citizen.

[Llamalandia]

Resistance to change isn't malum in se. The pro-argument is: gay people want it, and the con-argument is: we don't want it. Let democracy figure it out.

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

It's not like white people are polled on whether they support blacks getting married.

Well i'm sure they're polled but only as a matter of public interest. Of course I suppose if all the white people got together they could amend the constitution to make it illegal for blacks to get married. So i supposed in a sense there does exist a tacit approval of black marriage.

[Mavorpen]

There's no fundamental right to marry.

Nope.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[Rutuba]

Resistance to change isn't malum in se. The pro-argument is: gay people want it, and the con-argument is: we don't want it. Let democracy figure it out.

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

Of course they are. Human rights exist only because people believe in them, and adopted laws to recognise and protect them.

[Llamalandia]

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

It's not like white people are polled on whether they support blacks getting married.

Isn't that basically what happened however? Rights cannot be taken, one can only convince people to grant them.

People used to have property rights over other human beings. It was called slavery. These rights were stripped of them with the passage of the 13th amendment. SO rights were taken, but only so other rights could be recognized. Namely the right of people not be enslaved (even if they are a different color than you).

[Alcmaria]

There's no fundamental right to marry.

Nope.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Human rights aren't a popularity contest, though.

Of course they are. Human rights exist only because people believe in them, and adopted laws to recognise and protect them.

Like Rutuba says: writing it down in an official document doesn't make it fundamental.

[Mavorpen]

Nope.

Of course they are. Human rights exist only because people believe in them, and adopted laws to recognise and protect them.

Like Rutuba says: writing it down in an official document doesn't make it fundamental.

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

[Seriong]

There's no fundamental right to marry.

Nope.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

That necessitates that anyone cares in the slightest about what the UN thinks, or that the UN is somehow an authority on morality, or on the granting of rights.
Edit: That also grants no fundamental right to marriage, merely a right to not have marriage prohibited due to race, nationality, or religion.

[Llamalandia]

There's no fundamental right to marry.

Nope.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Original intent is important here. No one who wrote this conceived of marriage as being defined as being between two men or two women.

Only recently has the idea of gay marriage (like last 20 years) been met with much more than laughter and derision.

[Mavorpen]

Edit: That also grants no fundamental right to marriage, merely a right to not have marriage prohibited due to race, nationality, or religion.

They are, in fact, the same thing.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nope. The majority is in favor of gay marriage.

Doubt it.

Your doubts are without foundation.

[Mavorpen]

Nope.

Original intent is important here.

No it isn't.

[Alcmaria]

Like Rutuba says: writing it down in an official document doesn't make it fundamental.

Yes it does.

There are no "fundamental rights" that magically exist outside the scope of those granted by governments.

That necessitates that anyone cares in the slightest about what the UN thinks, or that the UN is somehow an authority on morality, or on the granting of rights.

Isn't "fundamental" supposed to mean that people have it regardless of what their governments think?