Are there logical reasons to oppose gay marriage?

Question

You can of course answer with b/c it is against God or it is immoral, but I am looking for other reasons.

Ok.They are two consenting unrelated adults who want to marry only each other and not their goat and not a chicken or their brother or have a whole harem of husbands or wives.

Um not stop taking it out of context.You and your mother are related. Two consenting un related adults.

replace not with no sorry for the typo.

Answer 1

Find an argument for gay marriage that I cannot use for bigamy, incest, etc.

O.K. Me and my Mother are two consenting adults who want to marry each other. Why can't we? By your standards we should be able to also.
**************************************************
All I'm stating is that once you change the definition of marriage, there is no stopping it. Gay people CAN get married, so long as it's with someone of the opposite sex.

If you're argument is that the definition of marriage is two consenting adults who love each other, then anyone can argue that they can marry their relative. Why can I not marry two women? If we are all in agreement and we all love each other, why can't we all get married?

What is your argument for changing the definition of marriage? Every argument leads to other types of marriage such as incest bigamy etc.

***********************************
I also can't believe how Separation of Church and State has been so distorted. Separation of C&S was designed to keep the government out of the church not the Church out of the Gov't. There is nothing that says people cannot make laws that coniside with their religous views.

************************************
*******************
"I certainly hope this person is kidding, because if they aren't, we should all be very afraid. There is a vast difference between two consenting adults engaged in a loving relationship and incest or bigamy. They are very different things and frankly there is no logic in this answer what so ever. "

Explain why it is different? Is it because you think incest is wrong, unnatural, immoral? I think gay marriage is wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Why is your standard better than mine? If you want marriage to be b/w two consenting adults who are the same sex, what difference is it that someone wants to marry multiple wives or their relative? Again, I'll say it again. Any argument that can be used for gay marriage can be used for big./incest. Why homosexual and not incest? Once you open that door there is no shutting it.

Answer 2

Yes I can other than what has already been said. The US is a democracy and that means that usually the majority makes the status-quo. The majority of people in this country are heterosexual and believe this is what marriage should be. As seen by the recent state referendums in the last election. I'm not positive but I believe every state that put it to the voters ended up with marriage should be between a man and a woman. If put to a vote in all states I believe the majority would show the same. In fact if one looks at the entire world one would see the majority believe in heterosexual relations only.

Answer 3

First and essential, marriage was once typically the sale of the girl to the person (or the switch of accountability, therefore the dowry). So the arguement for marriage being a devout asset is mistaken from the begin... if we wish to shield the sanctity of marriage, then we would greater reinstitute females as estate. As some distance as fertility, there was once a contemporary initiative that addressed this trouble, the target was once to get it at the pollwith the hopes of voiding all marriages that did not result in an offspring inside one 12 months. Obviously, given that the arguement is that marriage will have to simplest be among guy and females for productiveness explanations, then any guy and girl married that select to not, or CANNOT (through infertility) produce an offspring will have to be null and void. The functional fact is that no, there is not any logical or empiracle purpose to oppose homosexual marriage, it's simple and functional devout domination/descrimination at its high-quality. As an apart, in the event that they wish to continue marriage as a religous paradigm, then it will have to now not be identified via govt and civil unions will have to turn out to be the typical, you are not able to have it each approaches.

Answer 4

In my opinion, NO. I continue to be in awe of this debate. There is no logical reason why two people, regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to engage in marriage. Anymore, than we should tell people of different races or religions that they cannot marry. I can certainly understand and appreciate that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. So if someone doesn't believe in same sex marriage, don't do it, but they should not presume to think their ideas are better or above everyone else's, and insist we should all act the same way.


*****
"Because Gay Marriage is forbidden in the Holy Bible and the Bible defines marriage being between A Man and a Woman."
******************
Please note, that our country, or the world for that matter is not governed by the Bible. I respect your right to your beliefs, so don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't tell other people that they have to believe in the same ideals and faith that you do.

************
"Nature has paired men and women for mating. Marriage is a blessing of a union under god (who created man and woman). "
***********************
With all due respect to the writer of this answer, it continues to be the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage.
Homosexuality is not a choice, any more the Heterosexuality is a choice. It is something that occurs biologically, therefore it is nature, in fact that creates the Homosexual.

I know this answer is getting long but I had to answer this one.
*************
"Find an argument for gay marriage that I cannot use for bigamy, incest, etc."
*******************
I certainly hope this person is kidding, because if they aren't, we should all be very afraid. There is a vast difference between two consenting adults engaged in a loving relationship and incest or bigamy. They are very different things and frankly there is no logic in this answer what so ever.

Answer 5

To talk about a "logical" argument against gay marriage is to analyze the issue in a way that does not resemble legal arguments. When one is talking about legal arguments, then the question isn't about which argument is "logical" or not, instead it is about two other modes of analysis: "compelling" or "rational."

Under the Massachusetts Constitution, discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, and sex is presumptively irrational and when the state courts look at cases involving those discriminations they adopt a very critical mood and ask themselves whether or not the government has a "compelling" reason for those discriminations. Hence, in regards to laws banning interracial marriage, there was no compelling reason to deny racially mixed couples the right to marry.

However, the Masachusetts Constitution does not refer to "sexual orientation." The reason it does NOT refer to sexual orientation is because the people of that state never took the view, as demonstrated by a statewide referendum amending the state constitution, that sexual orientation is "like race" or "like religion." And given the fact that it does not refer to sexual orientation, then the courts were not SUPPOSED to analyze the case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Health as if the state government has to come up with a "compelling" reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Because government discrimination against gays is NOT PRESUMPTIVELY IRRATIONAL, the legal standard that the state courts were supposed to apply was the "rational basis test."

The "rational basis" standard is virtually the opposite of the "compelling" standard. The "rational basis" standard does not presume that government discrimination against -- say, left-handed people -- is irrational. It presumes that government has legitimate reasons for why it engages in unequal treatment of persons. "Rational basis" does not presume that government is irrational. It does not presume that government is being run by hateful people. "Rational basis" is a standard that allows government to impose inequality upon people any time there is a rational explanation as to why.

This is where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court got it wrong. The procreation argument -- which is not even based on religion at all -- is a perfectly RATIONAL argument for why the state gives marriage licenses to only opposite-sex couples. There is a perfectly RATIONAL correlation between the concept of opposite-sex couples getting married and the fact that they will, most of the time, procreate.

Answer 6

A complicated question. Depends on what your values are. In purely secular terms, most gays who do get married want to be able to share in the tax breaks and insurance and wills that traditional married couples get, joint coverage protection, make sure their partner is taken care of. I don't think(emphasis on think) most of them do it
to be right in the eyes of god. Which is kind of the the traditonal reason for hetero marriage. Also the whole institution is geared around birthing and raising children and taking care of them while keeping track of paternity. So it seems sort of silly and antagonistic to be gay and want to get married when a legal union would allow for shared assets. I mean whats the freaking point? Your doing something that it says not to in most religons, the institution itself is just a name, any kids will be adopted. So why try to cement things with a religous ceremony? It just seems like stirring the pot for no reason.

Answer 7

logical reason? no.... Although i personally find homosexuality extremely disgusting, and I am against it. That gives me absolutely no right to take away the rights of gay people. America is supposed to be the land of opprotunity and diversity where your race, religion, and sexual orientation shouldn't matter. If a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then good, alright they deffinently should never be forced to, but if a gay couple wants to be married, a judge should be forced to marry that couple. I don't understand how the simplistic "separation of church and state" got so messed up.

Answer 8

Yeah you really made me think right there.I oppose gay marriage (my "logical" explanation) because humans were merely not meant to have same sex intercourse.Mammals have the same type of sex principal as the female and male have opposite genitals for intercourse.As do humans.You never see a mammal
of the same gender having anal sex with another mammal do you?But as curious as humans are they experimented and well
they went the unnatural way.If there are 2 lesbians then it might not really be considered a sexual relationship because nothing
really happens.But basically what I am saying here is that it is unnatural to the principal of being a mmmal.Sexual realtionship in the end is meant for reproduction that is why 2 people of the opposite sex get together so they can reproduce.Well what about gay marriage?What is really the whole point to it since
nothing happens except perhaps for mental comfort if a person is
extremely in to homosexuality.It is of no use.to us as a society is it?Sure there are hetrosexual (male to female) people who may have intercourse to have some comfort or fulfilment of sexual desire but that desire is perhaps meant to stimulate intercourse and fertelize cells in the end.Its just the desire that stimulates
and in the end it is meant to happen.As for homosexuality it
is in my opinion unnatural and really leads to nothing and
as I explained even if a mammals desire is not for children their needs for the opposite gender will lead to it.Homosexuality leads to nothing and we as a human race would accomplish more without such unnatural and rather experimental things.Again I am not prejudice I am answering the question.Another reason I have obviosly relates with my first one and I am going to talk about how
homosexuality is a joke a sort of experimental curiosity in humans.Females turn to gay marriage because of this reason.
They cannot fulfill their desires with the opposite gender as teens
without pregnancy so as teens some females will turn to homosexuality as a solution.So what I am saying here is that
homosexuality is a sort of disorder or a mental unbalance.
Im not saying homosexuals are stuiped or strange but rather
a little unbalanced mentally.Already I said thatas mammals we were meant to be hetrosexual. There have been cases of such homosexual behavior in Penguins but not really love or wanting
sex but simply a notice that they are friendly to each other or they are playing with each other as many young elephant males will do that.But not once has an animal had an orgasm or any stimulation in the genitals from it.So seeing that animals which are the most natural and ideal among us who does the basic things all life on Earth does they are hetrosexual.So basically humans being homosexual is an unbalance in the brain as their
needs are different and do not lead to anything.In China it used to
be considered a mental unbalance but thats the best way I can put it.Their mind patterns do not follow the path to which sex is
done for life but it lads to a path of unwanted experiment.Humans were built for the normal intercourse not that.So the problem to us as a whole is that homosexuality is of no use to mankind.Now
I will come to my final reason and the most scientific one which you may have wanted.Homosexuality is unclean when it comes to gay intercourse.As I said earlier when it comes to females I do
not consider it real homosexuality but it is somewhat unnatural
but a final option for some woman.So yes anal sex is very unhealthy and the meaning of gay is basically coming to this act.
From anal sex MRSA skin disease is common.Its a type of bacteria which comes when seamen and other fluids are peirced
threw the anus and blood flows in the area.This ofcourse will result in the infection.From MRSA toilet use is not an serious
concern and the chances of it spreading are somewhat likely
but most of the time it is a issue only to the individual and
anal sex is possible even between hetrosexual couples but in gay marriage its the only option perhaps besides oral sex which is even more of a health risk.MRSA is not common with regular
time to time anal intercourse but in gay marriage anal intercourse is the only option.Although I do not consider it a serious health risk.but there are other issues like blood clots or
infection because of rips in the anus as well as urine injected inside.The most famous health issue is AIDS/HIV.The anus is
much larger compared to vaginal sex.Aids is likely in both
but experts are convinced that the risk is greater with anal sex
As more genetic material can pass spreading the virus.
Well thats all th practical reasons i can find.

Answer 9

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it is about more than two consenting adults, it is also about children. It is harmful to children to be raised by homosexuals. You said above that it's wrong for that guy to marry his mom because they are related. You violated your own rules by condemning that type of marriage because you believe it to be immoral.

Answer 10

Although we are being told "people are born gay," and it would seem that being gay defies a rational choice, in this homophobic society, science hasn't proven people are born gay.

If you think people don't make irrational choices every day, you should spend a day with me in court.

The marriage benefits conveyed on married people, by the State and Federal governments, are based on our policy that marriage is sacred and the best environment for children.

The argument that divorce should be made illegal holds no water, since when parties divorce, the marriage benefits are lost and child support must be paid.