Trying to understand the anti-gay marriage people

Post Reply New Topic

There's one reason why gays shouldn't marry.

well, it is actually selfish, you could argue wether that is good or bad or pointless, but you couldn't argue not be the case.

There is this issue that some would find offensive, stating that homosexuality is "not normal", gay people would find that assertion offensive, as that would imply prejudice and a form of discrimination from their perspective. Any comment made towards a minority group that implies a stereotype or a misleading idea, would obviously become an offensive statement to them, and yeah, usually the term 'politically incorrect' would come forward, but given that they are a minority, and how their social situation would be, it is very understandable why the would feel and react like that.


That would be like saying women are selfish for wanting equal rights, and that black people are selfish for wanting equal rights.


I have seen people critizicing democracy, suggesting it doesn't work, or that it isn't a real democracy, gay marriage could be debated wether it should be subjected to that democracy, I tend to think that it shouldn't, on the other hand, if it wasn't, it could be argued by some then perhaps some violence against gays would increase for those who would be unhappy with such ruling.

If that is actually about mere selfishness, why not stating "I don't care" instead of expressing being against it and voting against it? the issue seems to be more than just that.

Yes, you can express it, anyone is entitled to their own opinion, although sometimes it wouldn't be without the use of some logical fallacy that I have actually seen when speaking a case against gay marriage.

Also, I have seen few members here who are libertarians and they don't seem to have any problem at all with gay marriage.

Heck, if the issue is about taxes as you have expressed before, or something like that, my opinion on it would be, "forced altruism", as some would call it like that, would not be a bad thing, rather a good thing.

Last edited by greenblue on 15 Dec 2008, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your last name wouldn't be Blagojevich, would it?

Actually, that is one of the few real questions I've ever seen raised. Although I'm a supporter of gay & lesbian marriage, I think that this is a rational Q.

States enact laws to bring institutions, corporations and their rights and limitations into existence. The state should never make laws for frivolous purpose, or just because it makes some people happy and doesn't seem to impact others that much at first glance. The state should only make laws that affect fundamental rights and institutions (marriage is an institution) when absolutely necessary. So a strict constructionist might say: there has to be positive reasons that are compelling, that impact society as a whole, to create new rights or expand institutions.

I think that gays and lesbians have a lot of good arguments that expanding the institution of marriage to include their unions would be a compelling positive for society. But they're not really making those arguments, are they?

Maybe they should? (Last post on this subject because I'm not lesbian, just a bystander).

why not make marriage non poltical...
have a religion that supports,allows, and does seame sex marriage..
problem solved

Thank you. Now, if only someone would provide an answer that is relevant to the question...


No. I did live in the Chicago area for several years, however ...

Unlike the OP, I'm trying to understand the pro-gay marriage people.

Perhaps a little background on me will help: I'm a Christian, born and raised, and I grew up with the doctrine of biblical literal inerrancy, so the idea that the verses that appeared to condemn homosexuality as a sin did in fact condemn homosexuality as a sin was not an interesting point of controversy, just boring and obvious. But I never really had a problem with gay people or anything, and I figured most of them wouldn't know and/or believe that it was a sin anyway, and doing something that would be a sin without knowledge that it is bad in any way isn't really a sin. It might be dangerous or stupid or bad for you, but it certainly wouldn't be evil or anything.

Then I grew up, got a little more theological sophistication, questioned the idea of literal inerrancy, and eventually abandoned it as incorrect. And then I became convinced that more than likely, the people saying that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation as a genetic thing were right. Then the whole pro-gay marriage California supreme court decicion hit the news, so I decided to give it some serious thought.

I reasoned that since Christianity instructs that sex should take place within a marriage, gay Christians would face a dilemma: either become celibate, or have a gay marriage (and honoring it, remaining faithful to their partner, etc., etc.) Not even the most pro-celibacy branches of Christianity find it acceptable to mandate celibacy, so in the absence of homosexuality as either a sin or a lifestyle choice, I thought that gay marriages would then be morally necessary.

Then I decided to look at some pro-gay marriage websites to confirm my new opinions, and was immediately disabused of them instead. It didn't have logical argumentation, it had political correctness. They didn't go on about how to prove to sceptics that they were right, they went on about how anyone who didn't think they were right was wrong. They tried to set up a top ten list of the worst arguments of the other side, and why they were wrong. The original arguments made good sense, thier counterarguments were useless. They were preaching to the choir, and not very well, at that. So I reversed my opinion.

With that said, here are my questions for the pro-gay marriage people:

Why is it, if marriage is so important to you, that the only benefits you can think of are things like tax breaks and minor legal whatsits? If that's all you want, why not just go for civil unions or something? Why don't you ever, in your ranting, take the time to rant against Hollywood for not taking marriage seriously?

Who should have marriage in your eyes, and who shouldn't? Are you trying to redraw the line, or erase it? If redrawing the line, who do you say no to? Polygamy? Group marriages? Bestiality? If erasing the line, would you please at least acknowledge that your "it won't affect anybody" argument is worthless?

And would you please stop calling yourselves a "civil rights movement" if you can't act like one? Martin Luther King, Jr brought firey, passionate speeches about hope in front of large crowds. Susan B. Anthony brought solid, logical arguments before Congress. Ellen Degeneres tried to needle a not-very-deft presidential candidate with a trick question. And failed.

That's because you aren't versed enough in history, if you read enough about other cultures you will come to the conclusion that the basis is not merely conditioning. People can be influenced by culture, no doubt about it. But it is not the sole source of someones beliefs. Just because children are born to christian parents, it does not follow that they will accept christianity. People in societies where such behaviour as you assert was "normalized" were divided over such behaviour internally from group to group. It's not merely conditioning, many people who are heterosexual would be revolted if forced to perform sexual acts on a person of the same sex and they don't like seeing it or allowing such a culture to spread because it threatens their vision of the world and values. There is natural aversion to homosexuality in the population, the same way people hate one another because they don't accept their beliefs/values/lifestyle/ideology, etc.

I can understand your issues with elements of the gay marriage movement, but your reasoning for opposing gay marriage is ad hominem. You made, from your Christian standpoint, a striking and seemingly valid argument in support of gay marriage. The folly of some of those who support gay marriage in no way undermines that argument.

wow we have our first idiot on the matter

Wrong Planet rules say



Please find ways to refute arguments that don't involve attacking the poster.

fine I can change the word to bigot, because thats what he is

Thanks for the assumption, Zak - but you are not qualified to determine my knowledge of history, thank you. People are influenced by cultures, and many cultures did not possess the neuroses that modern society does in regards to sexuality. Aversion is a learned response brought on by fear, not a rational response. Hatred is easy, it takes no effort... it says more about the mentality of those involved than human nature, in my opinion. You're welcome to your beliefs, but please keep them as your own and do not attempt to paint others in ignorance because they have an different opinion. Poor form.


M.

My argument is based on 2 assumptions - the verse meanings and the existence of an orientation - neither of which I researched much. I just made a gut judgement, and in both cases this gut feeling was based on the quality of the arguments on both sides. So the argument wasn't that solidly established.

Then when I looked at the pro arguments and the pro side's presentation of the con side's arguments, and was de-convinced. I care about the quality of the arguments and about who is right, not whether any particular representative of any particular side was a moron. Honestly, my whole post was basically trying to troll for people on the pro side, hoping for better arguments. (And, of course, I needed to rant a bit )

That's still attacking the person, not the idea. You also haven't explained what was supposedly dumb and/or bigoted about the post.

Your argument was valid as in the conclusions followed from the hypotheses, I'm not especially speaking of the soundness of said hypotheses. I'm not really one to judge those hypotheses anyway since I wasn't brought up with religion and thus I don't know Christianity very well compared to you or many other people. I at least thought it interesting and substantial.

You shouldn't base your stance specifically around the strength of other people's arguments, you should instead care about your own and whether it holds up to scrutiny.