Oh and for the record, nonsensical ramblings and quotes from an outdated book of bronze-age jewish mythology do NOT count as "rational" nor do they count as an argument.
So, with that simple restriction in mind, I would like anyone to provide me with one single argument against same sex marriage.
Or do you simply not believe that same sex couples love each other the way that heterosexual couples do?
2006-08-23 09:35:43 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ok we've already heard from the idiot brigade I hear.
Apparently some of you read as well as you think. Which is to say; not at all.
For your information, most states even deny civil unions to same-sex couples. And that of course, is a direct violation of the foundations of the USA. "with justice and liberty for ALL" not just SOME.
Marriage is a legal institution first and religious second, if at all. Remember that, it's not only 100% true, it's important.
So to deny someone the ability to enter into a legal contract where both parties are agreed, is illegal, more, it is immoral. Morality being something most of you christians wouldn't know if it fell on your head from 10 stories up.
Let's hear from the next idiot...
2006-08-23 09:43:37 · update #1
Well so far the answer seems to be "no there is no rational argument against same sex marriage"
Just some utterly laughable crap spouted by people who shouldn't be allowed to drive and vote let alone have access to the internet...
2006-08-23 15:57:44 · update #2
Sorry.....got no reason at all.
I tried to think of one, but I can't.
2006-08-23 09:40:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes you live in a free country, what you seem to forget is what many here will you remind you is our laws are based on Christian values. (not a christian by the way) So that's the first "rational" argument.
When two people get married they share life and all things with it. I assume as a good person a gay couple would want to have a child to raise as their own. Now what parent can a child live without? The man? The woman? Mom's and Dad's both play a vital role in child development, to purposely put a child in a home without one or the other is not fair to the child, that's "rational" argument number two.
It is aginst the law, period. I do not agree with the nations laws agains drugs, but again I don't make the laws our christian society did. So if I break the law I go to jail, "rational" argument number three.
You only asked for one. You can stick your head in the sand and look at things through your own misguided views or you can look at the truth of the subject. You can label me a homophobic and say "he just hates gays". Not true at all, I have family, friends, coworkers, etc who are gay. Most are great people like anyone else, free to do what they wish behind closed doors. Remember freedom is not free, and freedom does not mean you can go against the rules that the majority instill upon our country, that's how America works. We have to stop catering to the whims of the minority.
2006-08-23 16:57:13 · answer #2 · answered by davenarmy66 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I can offer no rational, moral reason why two persons of legal age should be barred from entering into a civil marriage agreement if it is their wish (unless they are already married). As I highly value the institution of marriage myself and believe in the ethic of reciprocity (Golden Rule), it would be immoral for me to deny others the right to marry and enjoy all those privileges granted to spouses by our society that my spouse and I enjoy.
2006-08-23 19:46:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see...so, for you, ANY argument against same-sex marriage would be irrational and idiotic? Ahh, well, we live in an irrational and idiotic world, my friend...
I wish they'd just let you girls marry your boy friends already, so you'd all go back into the kitchen where you belong!!
You know, if you'd just be content to keep it to yourselves, fewer people would really care, ya know? Legalizing it in Washington won't make it legal in heaven, anyhow, and who cares if you can file a joint tax return? If the church were gonna whine about it, they should have spoken up BEFORE the gov't gave you kids to raise...too late now!!
Yes, homosexuality is a sin, and yes, it is against nature, but hey, that is irrational and idiotic, right?
Next thing, some idiot will want a legal marriage license so he can marry his goat...and why not? Who are we to say that he and his goat don't love one another?
Oh, well, at least the goat can pull the kids around in a cart, and keep the grass nice and short...
2006-08-23 16:45:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
In same-sex marriage, is there any actual sexual act?
Is it rational for a man to stick his penis in a bag of s**t?
Disgusting. And that (anal sex) goes for heterosexual marriages also!!
Besides the "sex" in same sex marriage, how does one address such a 'couple'? It certainly cannot be Mr. & Mr. After all, at least ONE of them is not a man. As for two women, ONE is not a woman.
You know, it might be better for two lesbians and two homosexual to have a double wedding, one of the male to each female, and then they share an apartment : What rational argument do you have against this?
2006-08-23 17:16:11 · answer #5 · answered by flandargo 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The results in such a union are only death. No life can spring form same sex couples. Marriage as preformed by God in the Book of Genisis most of the time leads to new life.. Life=Good, Death=Bad....Jim
2006-08-23 17:07:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Common sene: a penis is not supposed to be in another mans rectum. It's unhealthy from a medical point of wiew even.
Common sense you say, you seem completely devoid of common sense since these thing are known even by small kids and most primitive people as well.
But just keep your head stuck up there, perhaps you even think it's supposed to be there.
2006-08-24 05:12:39 · answer #7 · answered by zorro 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's it...set "limits" to the debate. lol
One of the classic ethical tests of any behavior is this: If everybody did it...would it still be ok? If everybody was a homosexual, what would be the implications to the human race? Of course it would die out in short order. Therefore homosexuality is unethical. And it is unethical because its practitioners rely upon everybody else to do otherwise in order to perpetuate the species.
2006-08-23 16:45:46 · answer #8 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Since I am not an idiot, I do not qualify to reply intelligently. Sorry. Take care.
2006-08-23 16:54:23 · answer #9 · answered by SK 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree! I think people focus on little issues like stopping people from marrying who does everything as if they are married so they can avoid the bigger issues...
genocide in Rwanda, Ethiopians starving. They don't care
2006-08-23 16:43:29 · answer #10 · answered by Tiers 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because homosexual relationships do not produce children. In legal terms, a marriage protects children conceived and born from a husband and wife.
2006-08-23 16:46:25 · answer #11 · answered by DL 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋