Gay Marriage: Arguments Against, Right or Wrong?

[Inventio]

Europe.

Thank you for naming the continent. Name a dam country

Not to intrude, but these countries are what he (?) was referring to.

[Grenartia]

1. Because allowing gay marriage would promote a gay lifestyle, 2. something societies are not comfortable with. And since the reason people want to marry is to have their relationship recognized by society, gay people are not allowed to marry in these societies.

1. No such thing as a "gay lifestyle". Also, define "promote".

2. Not all societies. Also, societies need to change. And "its icky" isn't a rational justification to be against freedom. To say nothing of the fact that society should never have any say in what somebody's freedoms are.

How would it promote a gay lifestyle? People are either gay or not.

1. Yes, but to be openly gay requires some degree of acceptance, which is higher when gay marriage is allowed. It wouldn't promote actually being gay, although 2. it might make some people doubt their sexuality, probably.

1. Arguably, yes.

2. Yes, and? Is this somehow a bad thing?

Homosexuality exists within humans, and is therefore natural.

As sexual attraction towards people of the same sex, yes. But not as an alternative "lifestyle" which can be treated on par with heterosexuality.

No such thing as the "gay lifestyle". Neither is there such a thing as the "straight lifestyle". Also, all lifestyles are social constructs, and therefore, not natural. To say nothing of the fact that whether or not something is "natural" is irrelevant.

Even if that does happen, there isn't a problem with that.

But it isn't necessary, either.

What isn't necessary?

What are you even saying?

That the concept that there are are diverse sexual orientations and that they should be treated as equal is relatively new to the human history.

And? Literally every concept beyond making stone tools, fire, clothing, and little trinkets is relatively new to human history.

So? Much of life is completely unnecessary. Things just happen.

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.

Except, rights aren't, and shouldn't be a popularity contest (and even if they were, and are supposed to, the majority is pro same-sex marriage). Also, we've demonstrated hundreds, if not thousands of times, why it is necessary. To say nothing of the fact that there's no reason to prohibit something that doesn't directly negatively impact others against their will.

Nope. The majority is in favor of gay marriage.

1. Doubt it.

there are gay people who desire to marry.

2. 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.

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

1. There are multiple polls that have been conducted (since 2012, I believe) backing that statement up. It is a fact.

2. Again, society needs to change. Also, individuals shouldn't be enslaved to the whims of society. Society is not superior to the individual.

3. Hospital visitation, medical decision making, funeral planning, automatic inheritance, etc. All are rights guaranteed by marriage. Also, let me go "conservative", as you put it, and ask you why is it necessary to deny same-sex couples their right to pursue happiness?

Let democracy figure it out.

Why should basic civil rights be a popularity contest? I mean, the logical and ethical implications of doing so are astoundingly disturbing. If we have to vote to recognize marriage rights, we also are implied to have to vote to recognize any rights. And that implies we also have the ability to vote to disrecognize any rights. If recognizing rights has to be a popularity contest, this also means that revoking that recognition is also subject to the results of a popularity contest.

This means that at any time, we as a society can vote to enslave and/or kill anybody. Even if said vote(s) fail, the very fact that said rights are subject to the fickle and ever changing whims of popular opinion is highly disturbing, and the very act is barbaric and uncivilized.

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.

Objectively [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v_Virginia]wrong[/url].

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.

Nope. Human rights are inherent to all people, and are derived from the ethic of reciprocity (aka: the Golden Rule), some basic form of which is found in every culture on the planet.

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.

No. But it does guarantee the recognition of it, however.

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.

Nope. The rights are already there, regardless of government. Government is only there to protect and guarantee the use of rights, but it never creates them.

Nope.

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.

But where does it say its only a man and a woman?

Nope.

1. Original intent is important here. 2. No one who wrote this conceived of marriage as being defined as being between two men or two women. 3.

2. Only recently has the idea of gay marriage (like last 20 years) been met with much more than laughter and derision. 3.

1. Actually, Article 29, Article 28, Article 7, and Article 2 can be used to justify recognition of same sex marriage.

Article 29:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality*, public order* and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 28:

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 2:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Underlines and asterisks added by me.

*Note that there's no rational basis for arguing that SSM runs contrary to any reasonable, secular form of morality (and non-secular moralities are irrelevant), and there's no actual threat posed to public order posed by recognizing SSM.

2. Irrelevant.

3. Can you please stop with the pointless smilies? Its getting rather annoying and borderline spammy.

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

No. That's stupid.

No, its not.

Yes it is.

You take marriage too seriously. There was a time it didn't exist; it's invented. The right to marry a person can't be compared with real fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech (which always existed).

I find it hard to believe that there was a time that people (if not all of them) decided to remain committed to another individual(s) that they loved. I mean, for fuck's sakes, it probably predates the human branch of the evolutionary line, considering even certain of the Great Apes mate for extended periods of time (arguably making marriage the oldest right). The concept of state recognition of marriage, along with the guarantee of certain rights crucial to couples, yes, that was definitely invented at some point in time. But regardless, that does not invalidate the concept.

No, I don't. And quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about what you or I think about its importance. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are, in fact, substantial from an objective standpoint and helps society in general.

1. Actually, rights and benefits of marriage can usually be obtained through other means anyway. Plus sometimes there's penalites (especially in taxation) it really doesn't make much sense that govt has anything to do with marriage. 2. Basically the only role for them should be to make sure people aren't cousins, minors or already married. Beyond that the government should largely f off.

1. Except, you know, those other methods require more time, money, effort, and involve lawyers. You can get married in less than five minutes at a courthouse if you (and your partner) so choose, for usually only the cost to file the paperwork (which is minimal), IIRC.

2. You forgot to include making sure the process is objective and convenient (which the 'free market' fairy can't really do as well as government).

No, they really can't.

Aside from differential tax treatment, most of the rest can be gained through mutual adoption, power of attorny, wills, living wills etc. In fact before civil unions and gay marriage this was in part not an uncommon strategy employed by gay people.

Except, you know, all those things cost a lot more money, take a lot more time and effort, and require lawyers, such that it was really only the well-off same-sex couples would've been able to get them. And even then, there's no real guarantee.

It's seriously like arguing that the government getting rid of anti-sodomy laws is government getting more involved in the bedroom.

"I'm going to get more involved in marriage by butting out and letting people marry who they want."

Does this mean that by this logic, that deregulation is government getting more involved in the market?

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.

Because you don't have to hire more people to handle the distribution of those licenses. The demand for them is not that crushing. In fact, in terms of the amount of money per person who handles marriage licenses (and paperwork) compared to the number of licenses handed out, you're actually getting a bigger bang for your buck over any given period of time. After all, they're not spending every second of the day handling that shit (and probably still won't after SSM gets recognized).

If you're baking and selling pies at the rate of once every 2 hours, but can triple that rate if you need to, and demand suddenly doubles, you don't have to hire another person to help you bake and sell pies. You can STILL handle the demand. Same basic idea here.

The less the govt the more free we are.

Not inherently at all. And the inverse of your statement isn't inherently true, either.

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?

It depends on the workload and available time those 10 people have.

No.


If anything, it's about equality.

And everyone will be equal before the law if the govt doesn't recognize any form of marriage. Besides gay marriage discriminates against unmarried gays too, as it doesn't treat them as equal to married gays.

Except, if government were to recognize the marriage of any consenting adults, it would be purely their choice, and their choice alone about if they get married. There's no real distinction because the only couples not getting the guarantees of marriage are the couples who choose not to get married. Also, as for singles, they're really not being discriminated against because there's no real way to discriminate against them when the only rights they're being 'denied' are the ones that can only be enjoyed by multiple people (and that's not due to the "ebil gubmint", but rather reality, facts, and logic).

I am sincerely conflicted. On the one hand, I really want to keep you on my ignore list. On the other hand, I want to take you off so that I can read comedy gold like this in the future.

Huh there's an ignore function, hmm oh well i get that progressive liberals can't stand open honest debate and dialogue. Feel free to be as closed minded as you like.

Except, you know, its there to keep people from having to put up with people who hate them/cause drama, keep from seeing porn/gorespammers' bullshit, not having to see what trolls are saying, etc. Not at all because people "can't stand open honest debate", even though the shit you're spewing can hardly be called "honest", and the use of the service is hardly limited to only "progressive liberals".

banned in my nation

Not the question that was asked, and NSG is OOC.

Just curious, but why do you put a smilie at the end of every post?

Basically I just like to. Smilies are fun so why not?

Because 99% of the time you do it, they convey no information and no context. They're pointless. And they often cause people to misread your posts. I know of many people who are convinced that you're a smug troll purely because of your smiley posting habits. And I can't blame them.

To say nothing of the fact that your overuse of them desensitizes us all to everyone else's legitimate use of smilies (including the few times you legitimately use them), thus making them useless. In essence, your overuse is negatively affecting, in fact, undermining, the non-verbal communication of everybody who has to see your posts.

And on a practical note (if for some reason, the above weren't enough), the simple fact is, that anybody who wants to respond to multiple of your posts in a single thread has to go through manually, and trim out your smilies, or else they get the following message: "Your message contains too many smilies. The maximum number of smilies allowed is 10."

[Great Bear Lake]

Sorry to say but you are a small country so I would not talk to much

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

[Rio de Fuego]

I'm pretty sure this is the worst debate thread I've ever read on any site. Christ, global warming is happening. The summers grow more intense.

Fris, just fucking kill me. Please. I want to fucking kill myself with how we can't get a straight answer from this guy. JUST KILL ME. DO IT BIDEN.

Considering his policies, I think we can only get a straight answer

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Europe.

Thank you for naming the continent. Name a dam country

The Netherlands, but they call dams "dikes".

Which brings us back to the gay marriage thing in a roundabout way....

[Valentir]

Sorry to say but you are a small country so I would not talk to much

Hey, this forum is out of character. You're just you, not your nation.

Hey, why aren't you working? Don't you have Federal Work to do Mr. Vice President?

[Kelinfort]

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Why should society give a shit about religion? I mix my fabrics and eat pork.

[Rio de Fuego]

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Wrong

[Keventle]

Sorry to say but you are a small country so I would not talk to much

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

maybe you should give him a religious reason. You might get some where.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

"One non religious"

"Well gay mostly goes by religion"

Ah yes.

[The Time Alliance]

Fris, just fucking kill me. Please. I want to fucking kill myself with how we can't get a straight answer from this guy. JUST KILL ME. DO IT BIDEN.

Considering his policies, I think we can only get a straight answer

This guys on a roll.

[Highfort]

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Well, there we go ladies and gentlemen. The impotent argument.

You can't cite one reason not pertaining to religion. As a nonreligious person, why should I give a shit about what your or any other religion thinks about gays? I think they're all bullshit, so religious reasoning is irrelevant to me when it comes to gay rights.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

I'm pretty sure this is the worst debate thread I've ever read on any site. Christ, global warming is happening. The summers grow more intense.

Fris, just fucking kill me. Please. I want to fucking kill myself with how we can't get a straight answer from this guy. JUST KILL ME. DO IT BIDEN.

Seems a bit extreme. Just invest in sunscreen.

[Rio de Fuego]

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Well, there we go ladies and gentlemen. The impotent argument.

You can't cite one reason not pertaining to religion. As a nonreligious person, why should I give a shit about what your or any other religion thinks about gays? I think they're all bullshit, so religious reasoning is irrelevant to me when it comes to gay rights.

Not only is it based on religion it's not even correct

[Yumyumsuppertime]

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

All of them?

Not so.

[Nature-Spirits]

This is NSG, not IC. That means you and I are speaking as people, not nations. Stop bullshitting and give us a straight answer, or we just won't take you seriously.

What is ONE NONRELIGIOUS, VALID REASON why gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

What does that even fucking mean? No they don't.

[The Time Alliance]

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Well, there we go ladies and gentlemen. The impotent argument.

You can't cite one reason not pertaining to religion. As a nonreligious person, why should I give a shit about what your or any other religion thinks about gays? I think they're all bullshit, so religious reasoning is irrelevant to me when it comes to gay rights.

Look. If you can't site a reason without religion then you have no true argument.

Don't get me wrong. I'm religious and understand your beliefs and respect them.

[Great Bear Lake]

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Wrong

Then what religion allows gays.

[The New Lowlands]

Because it's icky!

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

Well, there we go ladies and gentlemen. The impotent argument.

You can't cite one reason not pertaining to religion. As a nonreligious person, why should I give a shit about what your or any other religion thinks about gays? I think they're all bullshit, so religious reasoning is irrelevant to me when it comes to gay rights.

It is easily countered by Catholicism, but I doubt he'd be willing to accept anything from the Catholics as a valid counter-argument.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Wrong

Then what religion allows gays.

Unitarianism.

[Keventle]

Fris, just fucking kill me. Please. I want to fucking kill myself with how we can't get a straight answer from this guy. JUST KILL ME. DO IT BIDEN.

Seems a bit extreme. Just invest in sunscreen.

i'm requesting we back the dollar by sunscreen

[Kelinfort]

Wrong

Then what religion allows gays.

Episcopalians, Anglicans, Catholicism, Judaism(Conservative and Reformed), numerous Protestant sects, among others.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Because it's icky!

No, because gays cause hurricanes and 9/11.

[Great Bear Lake]

Well gay mostly goes by religion . All religions say no gays

All of them?

Not so.

Good job the gays made a religion