<p>Prohibition of same-sex marriage denies the innate equality in every human being, and proposes that heterosexuals deserve rights restricted to homosexuals. </p>
<p>And how the hell does same-sex marriage lead to bestiality? Prime example of a non-sequitur argument right there.</p>
<p>^^ no one knows how it happens...but it does. my cousin was neighbors with a gay couple and when they got married (when it was legal) he started getting urges to give beastiality a try.</p>
<p>i was BORN gay
you were TAUGHT religion</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You're using John Locke's theory, an idea relatively newborn that is still debated and cannot be empirically determined? Doesn't that display cultural bias? My point is, supporters of homosexuality rail against what they see as a "culture" suppressing some people's innate, and completely arbitrary, persuasion. What these supporters don't realize is that they themselves, by using logic as StellaNova demonstrated above, are imposing their own absolutism upon the world. So it's really two sides of the same coin, with gay-marriage supporters making the most egregious mistake because they are being hypocritical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No...</p>
<p>The entire argument for allowing gay marriage, at least on this thread, is that free love exists and people should be allowed to marry whomever they truly love, without barriers, because love is all-so-universal. If that argument can fly, then what's stopping someone from marrying a chicken if he truly loves it?</p>
<p>"Gender roles existed in every continent even before they had contact. Hell, even the Native American tribes liberals like to hold up as standards had gender roles; men were always the hunters. Gender is NOT a construct. Period."</p>
<p>There are several tribes in Africa, S. America, Australia, etc. who had such gender roles, but they also had a sort of mixed gender. I forget the name of it, but oftentimes men would take up female roles -- they'd still be men, but they'd be viewed in the culture as women. They'd do "women's work" and they'd marry and have sex with men. And it was totally fine by these cultures. It was less common that women would "become men", but it is a fact that such a switch of gender roles was present even in little tribes. Saying that men were ALWAYS this and women were ALWAYS this is an incorrect statement. There's always been a blurring of the line -- even with animals. I babysit this family who has a book about these male penguins, I think, who were a couple and it was totally fine by the zookeepers and other penguins and all. So if tribes and animals can blur the rules of the genders, why can't we?</p>
<p>"Wrong! If the state government allows gay marriage, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society. This will eventually lead to the moral decay of society because the slippery slope will allow people to practice bestiality and have no regards for proper decency."</p>
<p>Who defines the norm?</p>
<p>Years ago it was illegal and against the norm for interracial marriage, but that's allowed now. Is that another example, in your opinion, of the moral decay of our society?</p>
<p>"underaged drinking harms no one. doing drugs away from others harms no one. It actually benefits people, as they get income and thus a living from it."</p>
<p>You could argue that underaged drinking harms people, because if that underaged drinker decided to drive and got into an accident, he could potentially harm others. The same with doing drugs, if he happened to have his mental capacities so altered that he lost sense of right-and-wrong reality, then he could also potentially harm others. </p>
<p>Also in high school, we had a former drug dealer come visit our AP Psych class and he talked of how a fellow dealer got put into a tree-grinder machine (do you know what I mean?) so in that sense, drugs can also be harmful, although they provide an income.</p>
<p>I support gay marriage, but can't stand the argument that "gay marriage is OK because we all have our own morals and it's wrong to enforce moral standards". We have to have some objective morality. I support gay marriage because every homosexual I know is a moral and respectful person. If gays really were all promiscuous, faked a lisp, and constantly violated public indecency laws, then I would never support gay marriage. I support gay marriage because most gays are moral people.</p>
<p>"How is faking a lisp immoral?"</p>
<p>It isn't really, but it's part of how gays are depicted in the media.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No...</p>
<p>The entire argument for allowing gay marriage, at least on this thread, is that free love exists and people should be allowed to marry whomever they truly love, without barriers, because love is all-so-universal. If that argument can fly, then what's stopping someone from marrying a chicken if he truly loves it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly.... whomever, not whatever. You can't marry a being that is not a moral agent and cannot consent to such an arrangement. We're talking about consenting adult human beings here. Your slippery slope argument definitely does not work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and constantly violated public indecency laws, then I would never support gay marriage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So even though such laws are constantly violated by heterosexuals as well, you don't want to ban heterosexual marriage huh? Thats an interesting standard to have to deprive a group of people of their rights.</p>
<p>I just said that that stereotype wasn't true. And no one has a right to be immoral. Homosexuals generally are not immoral.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is, supporters of homosexuality rail against what they see as a "culture" suppressing some people's innate, and completely arbitrary, persuasion. What these supporters don't realize is that they themselves, by using logic as StellaNova demonstrated above, are imposing their own absolutism upon the world. So it's really two sides of the same coin, with gay-marriage supporters making the most egregious mistake because they are being hypocritical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Supporters of gay marriage aren't trying to impose their standards on anyone. If gay marriage were legalized, no one would be forced to partake in or even support it. You could go on with your life just as you did before. If they were trying to ban heterosexual marriage, you would have a perfectly valid point, but they're not taking rights away from anyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If that argument can fly, then what's stopping someone from marrying a chicken if he truly loves it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For one thing, a chicken can't sign a marriage contract. Chicken =/= human, therefore chicken rights =/= human rights.</p>
<p>I'm gonna basically go on a rant about this entire issue. So sick of peoples' ignorance, insecurity, and homophobia. Here are some arguments against gay marriage I've heard, and I'll respond to each briefly:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Who are you to say who can and cannot marry? I have a big problem whenever the government is dictating peoples' private lives.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.
Sanctity of marriage? That's a religious concept. Last time I checked, there was a little thing called separation of church and state. Also, if marriage is so sacred, then why not outlaw divorce? Great, more government in our personal lives!</p></li>
<li><p>Homosexuality is a choice. People should just choose to be straight.
Anyone who believes this is an absolute ignoramus. We don't know unequivocally what causes homosexuality, therefore we must use logic and common sense before making statements like that. Study after study has shown that how one is raised has significant influence in one's sexual orientation. You cannot control your upbringing. Also, who the $&@ in their right mind would CHOOSE to be gay? "Oh hey guys, I'm bored, let's be gay! I love getting made fun of, beaten up, ostracized, prejudiced, and possibly killed!" If you're straight, did you suddenly decide one day, "Hey, I want to start liking the opposite sex, today, December 24, 2008!" No. It just happened on its own.</p></li>
<li><p>Homosexuality is a sin.
I refuse to respond to statements like this.</p></li>
<li><p>Homosexual marriage negatively affects my marriage!
The two factors affecting a marriage are Partner 1 and Partner 2. Those two determine how successful and loving a marriage is. If you seriously think that now Joe and Steve are happily married that your marriage "means less," you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage will usher in the moral decline of society! The polygamy, bestiality, oh my!
Slippery slope fallacy. I'm sure the rest of the population will just be tripping over itself to #&% a goat when gays are allowed to marry!</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage will be taught in schools as something that's "OK."
Prop 8 had nothing to do with education. Read the ballot. The prop 8 advertisements were full of more **** than Sarah Palin when she said she read "all" of published periodicals. I believe parents have the right to what their kids are taught about social issues like gay marriage, but seriously, God forbid your kid learns that not everyone in the world is a straight white Bible freak.</p></li>
<li><p>The Bible says gay marriage is wrong!
OK then, let's apply biblical law to modern times! In case you haven't noticed, 2000 BC =/= AD 2008. Stop picking and choosing laws to follow in the Bible. The Bible is open to interpretation, so you cannot apply your rigid interpretation to everyone else.</p></li>
<li><p>Marriage is all about reproduction!
So let's prevent old people from marrying and the sterile! </p></li>
<li><p>Gays cannot successful raise children without a father/mother figure!
Let's force single parents to give up their kids?</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage is unstable and therefore harmful to society!
Because the 41% first marriage divorce rate in America (caused by mostly straight marriages) isn't harmful to society at ALL! (Divorce</a> Rate : Divorce Rate In America). Also, no proof that gay marriage is unstable. Statistically, gays are more likely to preserve their marriages.</p></li>
<li><p>Now Churches will be forced to perform gay marriages against their will!
No, they won't. </p></li>
<li><p>Pastor/priest/etc. told me that gay marriage is wrong!
Stop being a lemming of the church. Think for yourself.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage is unnatural, wrong, gross, etc!
Doesn't really matter what you think about it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In summary: prop took away a HUMAN RIGHT. If that's not reason enough to support gay marriage, idk what is.</p>
<p>/rant</p>
<p>james you're amazing</p>
<p>gay pride!</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the state government allows gay marriage, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society. This will eventually lead to the moral decay of society because the slippery slope will allow people to practice bestiality and have no regards for proper decency.
[/quote]
There's a reason that the slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy. It's because it's stupid.</p>
<p>"Government" is not a faceless, remote entity allowing or disallowing anything. Government is the will of the majority of the governed (at least in the US). Voters (people) determine what is allowed or disallowed and it need not be fair or even rational. I find many things my government allows to be unfair from my individual perspective but I also recognize that I am in the minority in those beliefs. To change from being in the minority to being in the majority on these issues - and thus effecting change in what is allowed - I would need to help change the attitudes and voting behavior of others. Discussions like the one in this thread can help change attitudes and most pro-gay posters are constructive in expressing why they support gay marriage. Those posters who attack others for their non-support or demand 'fairness' on their terms may not be helping their cause. Such behavior tends to harden the resistance of others. Use history to guide your actions. Read up on how some of the changes - like women getting the right to vote - really happened. You'll find that well-reasoned, well-articulated arguments can sway the opinions of others over time.</p>
<p>This isn't even an issue for me. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. A man and a man do not fall under that category. I'm fine with them getting the financial benefits and whatever that a marriage would provide, but it is not a marriage. It really is a very black and white issue, and even Barrack Obama agrees that gay marriage will not be an institution in this country. You can't just change the definition of marriage on a whim. I'm all for civil rights and whatnot, but marriage as far as I am concerned is a non-issue.</p>
<p>jamesford, I hate you so much. Because of people like you who think that calling the majority of America bigots will lead us toward gay marriage it's actually taking us longer to obtain that human right. It's people like you who tore down signs, vandalized yards, and beat up old ladies in the name of No on 8. Go die in a fire.</p>
<p>Willow7, you have it exactly right. I'd add that gay marriage will only happen when the gross, flamboyant displays known as "gay pride parades" stop.</p>
<p>I support gay marriage, but sometimes I hate being on the side I'm on.</p>
<p>^ I know you really don't want him to die in a fire, but your burning hate for him seems unfounded... jamesford provided a list of arguments against gay marriage and then responded to each accordingly. Nowhere does he suggest that the majority of Americans are bigots; he's attacking "peoples' ignorance, insecurity, and homophobia," that is, their ideas, not the people themselves. Isn't arguing about ideas in a logical and amicable fashion is what debates are all about?</p>
<p>And what makes you think that he mobbed in the name of prop 8? Being outspoken doesn't suggest lack of self-restraint.</p>
<p>In addition... most groups of persons in America parades. It's a form of acknowledgment, support, and sometimes defiance. Mardi Gras parades are just as gross and flamboyant, but no one seems to get sick watching them.</p>