Gay Marriage Challenge?

Question

I have given public speechs, written papers, had dabates, and answered numerous questions about gay marriage.
I have not found one argument against that I couldn't dismantle. can anyone give me one?

(please don't waste my time with religion. 1st amendment thats the only answer I have to give on that one. and yes I can go into detail as well.)

post it on here if you allow messages so I can write back
feel free to e-mail as well
I'll add some of the answers to the question details.

espreses-
you don't have e-mail so I will have to respond on here.
no one said we are changing just to say we ahve changed something.
this is about equal rights.

nc_thakaali-

churchs are private institutions- they can't be forced to do anything or host/preform any cerimony
thats not what this about.

not having gay marriage violates the 1st amendment because Buddism allows gay marriage and there are gay friendly christian churchs who would also allow it.

even in history marriage may have been blessed by clergy, but it was all political. joining of lands and money.

look how many atheists marry

True Patriot-
marriage is about consent. two adults of any gender can consent.
children and animals can't.

Antiochus Wilson (f/k/a cvq3842)-
Interracial marriage analogies are used often because the same arguments against interracial marriage are being altered and used against gay marriage.
and they are similar- two groups of citizens who want equal treatment and marriage.

Poly-amorous marriages are very different from same-sex marriages. no one is debating changing the classical dual partnership- just including same-gendered pairs.

Besides the deformities that comes from incestuous relations, incest will never be legalized because there is the issue of consent and possible coercing

Sexually orientations are recognized as traits people are born with and have no control over- so it is unfair to prevent them from marrying someone they love and are attracted to.

TOM S-
Doctors (medical and psychological) agree that sexual orientations are not a choice and are all equally healthy.
and it doesn't matter what others think is 'hot' or not

holbrook91- I already addressed your arguments

marl t- prostition is linked with drugs, minors, and the possible spread of STDs.
Marriage doesn't carry these risks. all that is changing is who is married.

Michael E-
The dictionary actually lists a number of definitions- including a gender neutral one that has the term Homosexual Marriage in parentheses.
Definitions change yearly when the new dictionaries are published.
Before 1978, the legal definition of marriage was between people of the same race.
Now the legal definition can be once again changed to not be discriminatory to gender.

Rose Red- already adressed

MY REBUTTLES:

APA says no sexual orientation is healthier than another. it is also agreed that it is not a choice- there are brain scans to prove it.


Sexually orientations are recognized as traits people are born with and have no control over- so it is unfair to prevent them from marrying someone they love and are attracted to.

Humans make word and make dictionaries to govern themselves with- but they have the power to change those words and definitions. Nothing is set in stone.
Its a non-issue.

Lifestyle is a broad and disputed term. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice- but listening to gay music is a lifestyle choice. As Chsel has pointed out, even interracial dating is an alternative lifestyle.

Not calling it marriage is a problem-
1- as of now the law gives benefits and rights only to those who are MARRIED
2- calling the same institution two different names based on the persons involved is a form of discrimination.
It brings up the 'equal, but separate' problem faced between blacks and whites.
3- There is no reason it shouldn't be called marriage. That’s what it is

Animals have homosexual relationships.
Male Geese even have same-sex parenting where a male takes his egg and raises the gosling with his male partner.
Primates, which are the animals closest to us, also have homosexual relationships- some that define the whole pack.
if we decided that marriage is only about pro-creation we'd have to dissolve the marriages of anyone who won't have children and forbid infertile couples from marrying.

Churches are private institutions- they can't be can't be forced to do anything or host/perform any ceremony

Not having gay marriage violates the 1st amendment because Buddhism allows gay marriage and there are gay friendly Christian churches who would also allow it.
Even in history, clergymen may have blessed marriages, but it was all political; Joining of lands and money.

Other forms of relations are not even close. No one is debating changing the classical dual partnership- just including same-gendered pairs. Besides the deformities that comes from incestuous relations, incest will never be legalized because there is the issue of consent and possible coercing

societies have accepted homosexuality. Gay marriage was legal in parts of Africa, heterosexual love was frowned upon in Greece (homosexual love was considered pure), Rome was very similar to Greece, and other societies have had similar views.

Answer 1

If the government can tell certain groups or individuals that they can't get married, who is to say that it won't stop there. What is stopping the government from telling interracial couples, or anyone else for that matter, they can't get married? After all, they can define what marriage is. They can make it to say what they want it to. They can define it between one male and female of the same race, or even to go so far as the same religion. Besides, the definition of marriage has changed from time to time. It went from being a business relation to being between two people who are in love. Whose the government to say who you can and can't love anyway? Granted, they are not telling you directly but they are denying you the right to marry, which straight couples have, someone you love. I would even go so far as to say if it is between two adults of consensual age, even if they are related, they can get married. It goes against the very laws of nature. But, man has proven time and time again we like to break those laws. You can't deny one specific group of people their rights, just because you think it is wrong. The government can't go around and tell people how to live their own lives when it comes to things like this that are self governance.

Answer 2

A worthy challenge - I wish I could do it justice. I have posted on this many times in the past, but can't today.

I would point out, though, that I believe the analogy to interracial marriage is not appropriate. Society has done its best to wipe out racial discrimination (as it should) but there are differences between men and women that the law does recognize. I don't think the issue here is straight and gay as much as it is men and women. They are different - equal, but not identical. Racially segregated facilities are illegal (as they should be), but single-sex bathrooms, etc. are not. So I can certainly see how racial limitations on marriage would be illegal and limiting marriage to opposite sex partners would not be.

Also, I don't know of any argument FOR same-sex marriage that couldn't also be used for polygamous marriages, or even adult incest in marriage. Once we say "man and woman" is not necessary (and that mariage has nothing to do with childbirth, to address the incest point), it seems that there is much less reason to enforce the other requirements (number of partners, degree of relatedness).

These are arguments I would use to point out that I don't think it's appropriate for courts to impose this, rather than the people acting through legislatures. the people can change the rules any time they want.

Religion has been used to justify many instances of "enforcing morals throught law," including the abolitionist and civil rights movements. We just had a federal holiday in January for someone who injected his religion into politics - and I'm glad he did!

Interesting question, though! Good luck with the debate. You may have spurred a question of my own!

Answer 3

Nature has already set some common systems for the animal behavior. Yes, there are few exceptions but those are not common. To be a gay is also the behavior of some human being under some exceptional conditions and circumstances. But it is not common and so an anomaly in the normal natural process.

Gay marriage simply makes unwanted social problems by displaying some unexpected 'scenario' in the normal and common lifestyle of human being and the society which is not supposed to be welcomed by any sane person under whatever logic. Because, to be gay and gay marriage is not a life saving issue. It is just an abnormal behavior of some persons.

Accepting gay marriage is just like accepting incest. Logically, we may justify many things but may not be ethically.

My question to you is that if logically, you justify and support gay marriage, with the same logics, can you also justify the marriages between brothers and sisters, father and daughters and mother and sons? If you can justify that, I can challenge that no sane person in the world would ethically accept that. And if you can't justify those marriages, you should not support a single abnormal relation like gay marriage.

Answer 4

gay marriage challenge

Answer 5

Simple. Historically, the term marriage has been specifically defined as a public/legal bond between members of the opposite sex. In order to "dismantle" the argument, you have to rewrite the definition...making the word meaningless.

It's like saying the word "pug" will now describe all dogs. Sure you can do it, but how do you now specify that bred which used to be specifically a pug? This is the real argument. I have absolutely no problem with a homosexual union with all of the bells and whistles of a marriage....just call it something else....hell, SPELL it some other way: "mairrage", perhaps.

Edit: Thank you for proving my answer correct, Wolf.

Answer 6

Challenge? You don,t say. A guy see,s 2 women together, ask any of them what goes through there minds, it,s Hot, 2 Guy,s together, it,s disgusting. That's just the way it is, As for 2 people of the same sex getting Married, Anyone who knows why there are 2 different sexes in the world will know that this is just a joke, Sure you can be close friends, And most of the people who call themselves Gay are just confused, there is only a very small percent of the population, that truly, has medical issues, when picking what gender they are, everyone else is just sick and twisted. You have your opinion, and I have mine, And mine is the only one that counts.... Now, Pucker up, and I will make all those, strange thoughts of yours go away..

Answer 7

Marriage
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Webster's is a little hard to dispute.

The history of views on homosexuality is a little hard to dispute as well.
Society has always seen homosexuality as impure or worse. Not just conservative Christians.
Homosexuality has been considered immoral since biblical times- not considered immoral just by Christians. The Muslim tradition states that homosexual sex is particularly odious. Tibetan Buddhism bans homosexuality but does not condemn the homosexual. The Hindu religion, the oldest continuously practiced religion in the world describes homosexual sex as impure.

Why are we interested in lowering a moral standard that has stood since the beginning of time? Just because people want to say homosexuality is an alternative doesn't make it moral or right or normal.


Edit- I am going to need a lot more than just your word about animals and homosexual partnerships.
Post some links or e-mail them to me.
I happen to be a country girl and the closest to a gay animal I have ever witnessed is my crazy dog trying to hump my father-in-laws lab who wanders over. You have got me beyond curious

Lets not use the Greek and Roman empire as an example of an ethical society that condoned homosexuality. They also condoned pedophilia and watched people slaughter each other for entertainment(kinda like cable TV)
In the Greek tradition boys (yes boys- not men) were chosen as lovers and men were expected to have wives. chek out the links below about the glory days of man-boy love that is being used to defend homosexual behavior now.

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/pedophilia.htm
http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html



amen red rose

Answer 8

If you cater to the needs of the few versus, the needs of the many then you open the floodgates to all sorts of things.


Imagine then pedophiles or bestiality people now desire to marry children as young as four, or a horse. So now we have to respect these people for their sick views. You go out with your husband or wife to a nice dinner and in walks the pedophile with his 9 year old boy, or you could picture a woman walking in with her pony. They proceed to order their food an decide they want to have a make out session there. So you can imagine how happy you will be when your evening is ruined having to watch such a raunchy display. Where does it stop after ruling marriage with animals and children is ok? Marriage to a TV, or marriage to a blow up doll? Who knows I am sure some lawyers out there would be more than willing to argue these types of rights.

Answer 9

Govt should not have a place in marriage. Gay or Straight.

Libs hate america: If you think it's sick then why are you curious in what people do in their bedroom. You got into some pretty deep detail there.

Above me: Women who can't have children can't multiply, which means they are pretty useless too right?

Edit: I believe that marriage should be allowed but I don't believe that there should be any special privliges. Marriage is suppose to be about love, not better healthcare or lower insurance.

sway_26: So is interacial dating, I guess we shouldn't allow them marriage because of their ALTERNATIVE lifestyle.

Answer 10

I beleive in destiny but I still think you have to fight to save your marriage. Especially if you have children.
This ebook is a good resource to understand causes of your marital issues and to learn some important tips --> http://savemarriage.toptips.org