here's an argument against gay marriage that i've not yet heard

i thought about this in my law & society class a couple weeks ago...
traditionally, marriage has been between man and woman. if this were changed to allow man & man or woman & woman, where would it end? eventually would people be allowed to marry animals? kids allowed to marry kids? adults allowed to marry minours? people allowed to marry inanimate objects?

i have nothing against homosexuality, but is it really a smart thing to allow homosexual marriage? discuss please.

 

Why would that change anything? Just make it people allowed to marry people, minors are already ruiled out due to various other laws and such. Besides, if someone wants to marry an inanimate object, so what?

 

Your source please alleging that same-sex marriage advocates promote people marrying animals, etc.

Are far as children marrying, that exists in many opposite-sex marriages. In some cultures people are pledged to each other when they are still babies, marriages arranged by their parents.

How about letting adults marry who they want?

 

But what is marrage but an abstract, antiquated, and impractical concept?

 

Looking at it the other way, why don't we do away with multi-racial and multi-ethnic marriages. They have opened the door to gay marriage. Let's get rid of anything different or out of the ordinary.

.

 

if we let gay people marry, wont their children be born gay?

 

word.
i dont hold this point of view... ive just not heard it before.
what the fuck do i care about the sanctity of marriage

and the bible does state that inter-racial marriages are wrong, i wonder why pro-sanctity people dont argue that as well.

 

That argument is hollow and plain sickening to read.

It's calling homosexuality wrong (well, obviously), and it's belittling the consent of two adults. It's strange that people would go so far as to compare gay marriage with beastiuality (there's no consent from animals, to begin with)...

Two adults (humans, mind you!). Their lives. Their fucking business.

(i know you don't hold that opinion, chuck.. )

 

Well, that's usually the last ditch justification of those who oppose it, and well... Rather indefensible. Besides, marriage is nothing more than a legal arrangement.

 

i find it to be rather humorous, in one of those uneducated types of ways.

not historically... marriage was started as a religious thing, i honestly dont understand why the state deals with it at all, it is something like a serious mixing of church and state if you think about it. churches should be able to marry who they want to marry -- any government involvement should be deemed unconstitutional. in that same sense, married couples should not receive tax deductions just for being married. leave it to the churches and keep the government out of it, and that pretty much takes care of the whole gay marriage argument* and any other marriage argument really.
i believe if that were to happen, divorce rates would be much lower as well, since you'd have to be religious to be married by your church, and real religious people wouldn't divorce.

*in my opinion gay marriage is only an issue because homosexuals want the same monetary benefits that married couples have.

 

I don't feel like getting into it currently as I'm tired, but marriage is, and always has been, very much a legal thing. Not to mention there are marriage type things beyond just in christianity.

 

LOL...well, I guess I see that...

That's basically what it comes down to, I believe. But it's the principle of the thing.

 

this really isn't a new argument.. just too absurd to actually be used...

i think it was ellen degeneres who did a stand up show a looong time ago where she brought this up and imitated a person bringing their goat home to mom and dad.. just to show how rediculous it is. despite what some ppl may say... there's a HUGE difference between animals and humans. dating outside your species being the next logical step after dating your same gender is taking it a bit too far...

 

isn't it crazy though that two ppl's combined income get more monetary benifits than somebody living by themselves even though it's cheaper to live in a two income household (one bedroom apts are cheaper when the rent is split between two ppl)? was that instituted when traditional marriages only had one bread winner?

 

i think it was only a legal thing since pretty much every pre-american government was so deeply rooted in some form of religion.
pilgrims, for example... those people who were found to "be" witches were tried in a court that used the bible as its rule of law. that same court than married people... this can be traced back to jesus times in pretty much every country ever.
since our government is supposed to have a seperation of church and state, you'd think that marriage would be seperated from government too.

 

took the words out of my mouth.

 

Gay "marriage" has been legalised here...I say "marriage" because its only a civil ceremony...but it gives gay couples the same rights as straight ones.


Which makes sense I guess.

Not that this affects me one whit....

 

Its a pretty simple Logical Fallacy: Slipper Slope.

 

Yeah, what he said.

it's called slippery slope, it's used for a lot of things, and these kinds of arguments are even labeled as logical fallicies because they assume one event will inevitably lead to a chain of unrelated events.

If we legalized marijuana, then we'd have to legalize heroin and your daughter would be on the street giving handjobs for her next fix.

It's pretty much a sort of argument you lean towards when the thought of gays getting married makes you cringe but if you don't wanna outright say you 'hate them gays.'

 

Another thing about the whole conservative anti-gay stance is their usually aginst abortion.

Surprisingly, gays have record low abortion rates.

You'd think they'd be buddying up with the gays, but nooo.