What is your argument against gay marriage

I assume there has to be at least a few people here against gay marriage, and since a district court in MA last week ruled DOMA unconstitutional in the fact the feds have to recognize a state's gay marriage, and the ruling in Argentina this week legalizing gay marriage there, I'd like to hear your logical reasons on why gay marriage should not be allowed to happen.

Rules:
1. Can not mention god or the bible or your argument is null and void. If you think god doesn't want gay marriages to exist, the answer is simple, don't marry someone of your gender.
2. Will of the people, it should be voted on, ect. Sorry, that will also kill your argument, don't bring it up. Basic rights are not something that can be voted on, a liberal democracy is founded on both democratic voting rights and protecting the rights of the minority.
3. If you think liberal democracy means liberal as it's normally used in politics on the left right spectrum, get out.

 

I would say most people that want to be married want to be married in a church. We know what the church has to say about this.

 

i hate how gay couples are always matchy matchy.. both wearing the same shirt like they're on a team or something! whats wrong with them?

 

I don't think marriage has any redeeming qualities, traditional or gay.

 

I have no argument. It's none of my business.

 

I have no problem with gay couples and feel that they should be afforded all the same rights and privileges of hetero couples. But I only have issue with the use of the term "marriage".
Ever since it's inception the institution of marriage has been a means of solidifying and protecting the family with the intent being the survival and perpetuation of the societal or cultural group in question. Intrinsic to that concept is the idea of procreation. Since same sex couples are not able to pro-create with one another, than I think such unions fall short of the intent and purpose of marriage.

Along those same lines, sexual bonding and sexual activity at it's most rudimentary level is for one purpose only, continuation of the species. That is the natural goal and end result of sexual pairing. Given that I also don't care for it when homosexuality is deemed to be "normal". It is because it falls short of the basic reason and goal of sex, pro-creation. If it were normal then simply by the definition of the word "normal" homosexuals would outnumber heterosexuals and we would not have the population problems or the human race may have died out long ago and been supplanted by other species for whom homosexuality isn't the norm.

I have no problems whatsoever with homosexuals, just lets be more honest with the terminology used.
That is my opinion on the subject.

 

dont have none. cause I dont believe in writing to confirm a Pair is together..

whether homo sexuality looks like to us humans, in the animal kingdom. they just BE.. gonna die anyways whats the point in creating a new species MATING .. if the Pair is currently living and functioning together in an environment, surviving and loving. what is the point?

im to highh to contusion.

 

Just sayin'

Btw, it is normal.

 

The whole argument is a ruse anyway.


The smaller, the more isolated the family unit becomes...... the more they are influenced by immediate family rather than extended.


Yes, I was born to worship at the house of cock, but I was also born to ween girls off their dads, and to be a whole lot quicker at spotting the female pedos.

At the same time, there are others that use the same label as me, they also worship at the house of cock, but they are not like me, they were born to ween guys off their mums, and to be a lot quicker at spotting the male pedos

Irrespective of how we are born, our instincts especially in regards to sexuality are a lot sharper. Integrated and normalised, out there amongst 'you' lot in the suburbs. It also means we are going to be able to see what 'you' dont want us to see, What all the others cant see. And dont think we dont know, you sick little fuckers

 

I missing something here..

 

Actually in regards to procreation, the judge in the district court in Mass used the fact historically marriage has never been about procreation. Procreation was a necessity of life for most people who weren't traders as more kids = more hands to work the land. Historically for most of its time in the western world, as well as in other parts of the world now, marriage also had nothing to do with love but was a tool to cement political and economic relationships by forming family bonds.

The human sexual dynamic goes far more than procreation, and it goes outside of humans. Homosexual behavior is exhibted in thousands of species, as well as masturbatory behavior. Our genetically closest relative is the bonobo who practice what could basically be described as free love, sex is widely used as a form of trade and to solve disputes. Bonobos are also known to frequently engage in bisexual activity, both male and female ones.

Also in regards to procreation, at least on the lesbian side of gay marriage, lesbian parents can still become pregnant from donated sperm, and a recent study tracking the children of lesbian couples from birth to their high school years showed they did better academically and socially with fewer behavior problems then that of their straight couple counterparts:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?blogid=46&entry_id=65267
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37553783

 

its an insurance scam, a cry for social acceptance, and an attempt to make an imaginary bond physical by forcing friends and relations to acknowledge the relationship thru gift giving.

And it doesnt matter the orientation, thats just marriage!

 

Should we be mentioning monkey behaviour?

 

Yes, since most of human sexual behavior, as well as that of our genetically closest relatives has in fact nothing to do with procreation but is pure pleasure.

 

ok., Now its a topic..

 

You see now, you didn't read the words I actually typed.
Odon; Please highlight where in my post that I mentioned God or the Bible.

If you notice the context in which I used the term "normal" is the mathematical definition. In that I am correct. Homosexuality is not the norm, heterosexuality is. If it were the norm, then my comments concerning population and survival hold as valid, considering the definition of normal that is implied in the context of my statement.


MadcapSyd; My comments about marriage as a means of insuring the family unit encompasses the entire first portion of your post. My comments are taking into consideration all forms of heterosexual marriage, from stone age tribal couplings up to modern marriage. The concept of the bible or religion has nothing to do with it. It was a means of securing the future safety, resources and continuation of a societal group, whether that group is comprised of 13 citizens or 13 million. Mate pairing results in greater likely hood of offspring survival. With greater offspring survival you gain a larger population base. With a larger population base you gain more access to resources and labor to utilize them. Inter-marriage between different societal groups also benefited both in the security and growth of their groups.
See the pattern emerging.
The institution of marriage helped ensure the stability of that population base and thereby the stability of the group as a whole.

As far as the rest, you are anthropomorphizing the idea of sex and applying meaning and emotional responses to it that have nothing to do with what I stated. I did say at it's most rudimentary level sex is for one purpose only, continuation of the species. That level that I am talking about includes plants and one celled critters, not just higher mammals. In that I am correct, the primary purpose of sex is procreation, everything else is just icing on the cake.
At that level of consideration homosexual sex is not normal, rather it's counter productive and suicidal too the species.

My initial post was about the cultural and sociological origins and intent behind the institution of marriage.

The second portion dealt with simply the biological function and purpose of sex.

Neither gave any indication whatsoever about my personal feelings about homosexuality.

You guys sure read something different than what I wrote.

 

Who "started" marriage and defined marriage in the above way?

 

The thing is, marriage has never been about survival. When the human race was at a point where survival was a daily threat, the concept of marriage didn't exist. Human emotions pre-date the institutions created by state and religion and mates were pairing off before marriage. The human animal in cultures all around the world, primitive to advance are generally monogamous creatures even when the social mores of a culture don't look down on polygamy.

Marriage has for its entire history only been about two things, creating socio-economic bonds back in times when divorce was extremely hard to acquire, so a marriage was essentially a life long contract. No matter which one marriage is about, the same reasons apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexual couples.

The other point brought up was the institution of marriage being historically male and female, and this is historically wrong. Everyone knows homosexual tendencies ran wild in ancient Greece and Rome to the point that there was no word for it, it was considered the norm, but the Romans also had same sex marriage. Heck Nero himself was said to have married one of male slaves.

As for sex, yes on the most basic level sex is for reproduction, but in humans and numerous other animals the dynamics of sex have evolved to a point where reproduction is just a small part of the sexual act. Homosexuality can't be counter productive to the species either. It's been observed frequently enough and widley enough that scientists now consider it normal sexual behavior(in the animal world as a whole, not just in regards to people), it's especially frequently seen in social animals, if anything it serves some kind of evolutionary role. Procreation goes on despite whatever sexual tendencies an animal has. The giraffe for example, homosexual pairing in fact appears to be the norm, and unlike many other species in Africa, the giraffe is currently thriving well in terms of numbers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

 

We should then...ok.