How to argue against those who want to ban gay marriage?

Question

The following is an article that takes religion out of the gay marriage argument and makes it rather secular in an attempt to take out all the moral issues that gay marriage brings up and just tries to show how it will impact society. I am personally a supporter of gay marriage, and I was wondeirng how others would respond aganist this article?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Answer 1

I feel that gays should be entitled to have a "union" with all the legal ramifications connected to it. This way they would not be taxed twice on their possessions, would be eligible for one another's health insurance (their children would also), and this would treat them as equals (which they are) under the law.

Answer 2

Honestly, I really don't believe that the state should have a say. The article is basically saying that gays shouldn't marry because it doesn't do anything for their country. Well, a whole lot of people shouldn't be married! Marriage is about love and commitment, not the financial benefits or downfalls for the state. Of course first cousins aren't allowed to get married, you want to know why? Visit any small Amish community, where they have married amongst themselves for years, and see the problems that so many children now have. There is nothing wrong with a homosexual marriage because these are people too. Just because they are the same sex doesn't make their love any different. They should be allowed to marry just as much as the poor woman with 5 kids, who wants to marry a poor man with 4 kids, and then they want to have 3 more, and rely entirely off the government. Oh and bullsh*t that kids need a mom and a dad to be "properly developed". Uh welcome to a single parent home, with mom and grandma, or dad and uncle! Single parents raise kids just as well, and they often involve friends of the same sex. Oh, and gay/lesbian couples are restricted. They aren't given the same rights, and many people will deny them these rights, such as a will. They can't receive certain benefits without being married. Sometimes, you cannot even get into the hospital room without being married or directly related. So a gay/lesbian's S/O would be kept out of their dying S/O's room, just because they couldn't get married because some stupid people decided that gay/lesbian people couldn't have the same rights as others, just because they are different.

Answer 3

I must admit I didn't read the article, but here is my argument to all opponents of gay marriage: Firstly, the "marriage is between a man and a woman" argument is ridiculous. This is always based on a religious (generally Christian) viewpoint, which totally fails to recognize that marriage, including gay marriage, has been around for millenia before Christianity or any modern religion existed. Native Americans and African tribesmen have had gay marriage since the beginning of recorded history. Modern religions, especially Christianity, seem to enjoy the idea that they somehow have a monopoly on the term "marriage," and so all marriages must conform to their rules even in a country that protects its citizens from such dogma.

More importantly, though, let's take a look at the homophobe perspective: "I don't like homosexuality. I think being gay is morally wrong/unnatural/disliked by God." This being the case, you would think that people with anti-gay sentiments would absolutely be in favor of gay marriage. Given the choice, would it not be better for homosexuals to pair up--and keep their allegedly sinful behavor between themselves--than to stay eternally single, whereby they are free to engage in their "immoral" practices with whomever they choose, whenever they please?

Whether gay marriage is instituted does not affect homosexuality at all. It will not "go away," and no moral cleansing will result simply from denying homosexuals equal rights. The only outcome is that we restrict the rights and freedoms of a significant portion of our population, so the argument becomes, "Keeping equal rights away from American citizens is okay, so long as they do not share my same lifestyle." Viewed in this way, there are not many people who would persist in their anti-gay marriage views.

Answer 4

First off, I can't believe that he is a doctoral student of anything. He had a typo and it was not corrected (scoial). A simply spell check would have corrected that or, as any good student would do, to read over the artical they created. The idea of GLBT not being good adoptive parents is not well based. Why do we need a male and female figure? Should single parents have their childern removed from their homes and given to married heterosexual couples? Comparing it to incest is not acceptable. Incest is a choice, homosexuality is not. This artical states that the only reason for marriage is procreation. Do we really need more childern? Homosexual couples could be a blessing due to the fact that they can adopt.

Answer 5

sorry but this article is written by a moron...of course married people get benefits(both financial and other) and why shouldn't we? we pay the same taxes. ----that is how I would respond to that article...I'm Canadian and gay and the fabric of the universe seems to be intact in Canada still....and the economy is doing well.

Answer 6

i'm sorry rhonda, i know you probably are trying to be equal and repsectful...but i'm guessing that you support unions because you believe marriage is sacred, that's cool because you expressed a need to treat everyone fairly, but not everyone follows your theology, and i can't possibly see how it's fair to allow non christians, or non religious couples to marry in the eyes of the law, and not gay people. if you allow one (non religious heterosexuals) and not the other (gays) it's still not equal because you are insinuating a difference between the two that makes one superior...if i'm wrong, i'm sorry...but i'm pretty sick of the union thing-it's a step in the right direction but it still implies a difference between two groups of people, and i still think it's discrimination...

Answer 7

u respond to it by saying that taking away gay marrage will slowly take away human rights and by takeing away gay marrage u are breaking the um one of the amendments it is are right to love wat ever it may be, also when it says the thing about the kids not being able to grow up right is wrong if 2 women raise a boy 2gether that boy will be able to kno how to treat a woman he does not need a man in his life who ever wrote that thing is an a$$ hole

Answer 8

Sorry, couldn't get through reading the whole thing. Costly to the state, are you kidding me?!

Answer 9

Who is ANYONE to tell someone who they can or cannot love? Nobody has that right or authority.