<p>BIGeastBEAST: So you think the state should be able to prevent you from doing something harmless just because they don’t like you or how you live your life? Why don’t you like it? Do you have to like the way people live their lives in order to allow them to marry? I’m damn sure you could find plenty of “disgusting” heterosexual couples. Lumping gay marriage into the same category as sexual deviancy is just silly (especially considering that it isn’t, by definition, all that deviant).</p>
<p>I guess I just represent the silent majority who prefer if homo’s kept their ass-grabbing in the privacy of their own homes.</p>
<h2>So you think the state should be able to prevent you from doing something harmless just because they don’t like you or how you live your life? ~ Legendofmax</h2>
<p>Yes, I do.</p>
<p>Homosexuality has no redeeming quality in our society, it’s just a bunch of creepy people going around acting like perverts. Enjoy the bathroom stalls and park restrooms…</p>
<p>Most people <em>do</em> keep their sexual activities behind closed doors, you know. You act like allowing people to marry logically leads to some increased frequency of public exhibitionism. That’s just unfounded and nonsensical.</p>
<p>^ No, it leads to a moral decay.</p>
<p>Alright so now you’re shifting your justification from one thing to another.</p>
<p>“Moral decay” is a pretty subjective thing – and, at any rate, there’s increasing support for gay marriage anyway, if you want to define morality as something that’s generally accepted as good/bad or right/wrong. </p>
<p>So, like it or not, support’s increasing. But that’s okay because none of it will affect you anyway.</p>
<p>Besides, you can’t even really pinpoint why it would lead to a moral decay, anyway, without resorting to more ignorant/crude comments about assgrabbing. Moral decay typically implies some degree of impingement, which is not present if gay marriage were legalized.</p>
<p>Yeah, we should just have a free-for-all in society.</p>
<p>Let people marry dogs and cats, polygamy, sibling marriages, all that…I’m sure that will only improve society as a whole.</p>
<p>Now you’re just throwing out strawmen arguments. Nobody is arguing in favor of marrying cats/dogs/siblings/multiple wives. Nobody is arguing for a “free-for-all” society.</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>If consenting adults can marry whoever they want, why not multiple wives/husbands?</p>
<p>If a man and a man can get married, why not 3 men? Or why not a brother and a sister?</p>
<p>It won’t harm anyone, right? Isn’t that your argument, that as long as it doesn’t harm anyone it should be allowed?</p>
<p>I already answered those things in a prior post.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065559370-post155.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065559370-post155.html</a></p>
<p>Lots of harm is caused by allowing those things. No harm is caused by allowing gay marriage.</p>
<p>Sorry not buying it.</p>
<p>If it doesn’t harm anyone, and it’s consenting adults, polygamy should be allowed.</p>
<p>Besides, it could be 3 women who marry…which would completely invalidate your post.</p>
<p>You’re being a hypocrite. Same sex marriage is just as ridiculous as polygamy.</p>
<p>You’re saying that siblings shouldn’t marry becuase of the reproductive issues (which I completely agree on), but same sex marriages can’t reproduce at all…they could adopt, but so could sibling marriages, right?</p>
<p>In an idealized form, I would personally NOT be against polygamy. If there were consenting adults and no forms of abuse, then I have nothing against three or people entering a marriage (morally/humanistically speaking). But that’s just not what happens in practice, and that’s why it’s illegal. It opens a door for people to commit pretty atrocious acts of abuse with the law as their justification. Same goes for incest, with the added penalty of genetic harm.</p>
<p>This is all different from same-sex marriages, which don’t suffer from the same problems.</p>
<p>You’re somehow implying that incest -> genetic defects = bad, therefore gay marriage -> no reproduction at all = bad. Genetic defects are obviously “bad” because they result in pain and suffering in many forms, but why make that jump from “no reproduction” to something bad as well? There’s nothing “bad” about being unable to reproduce other than, well, being unable to reproduce… which results in nobody being harmed. However, they can adopt just fine.</p>
<p>Siblings could theoretically marry and adopt, and this would probably be fine but difficult to enforce. Most of the time, people who get with their siblings are doing so out of abuse/rape. Legalizing sibling marriage would grant additional legal clout to the majority which are abusers. There isn’t a huge demand for legitimate, healthy sibling marriage under the condition of adoption and non-reproduction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse you? Me and my cat are going to get married some day whether you and your socially conservative buddies like it or not!</p>
<p>Hehe, my mistake – I hope you and Whiskers are very happy together!</p>
<p>Hey, why stop at 3, why not 100 people? Or better yet, why not a whole town?</p>
<p>All cosenting adults…it’s not harming anyone, so it’s none of your business right?</p>
<p>… did you not read my post, dude? I already answered that.</p>
<p>If you are wearing about taxation, wait till you see the amount of fraud that happens as a result of gay marriage. </p>
<p>Once anyone is able to marry anyone, you are gonna see an abundance of it.</p>
<p>From health care, to SSI and everything else in between.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is unfounded speculation. And besides, there’s nothing inherent to homosexual marriage that makes it more susceptible to fraud compared to heterosexual marriage. Is this currently a problem with heterosexual marriages?</p>
<p>It wouldn’t necessarily be gay people doing it, that’s the problem…when ANYONE can marry ANYONE and get financial benefit from it, there will be a problem.</p>
<p>For example, it would be very easy for two women who are just friends to get legally married (which will take about 10 minutes) and then be able to use each others health care, pension, SSI, and most importantly CITIZENSHIP. </p>
<p>You see this problem in some marriages, usually in citizenship…but once anyone can marry anyone, you will have serious problems.</p>
<p>You’re basically creating a legal loop-hole so anyone can share benefits, and there is no way to prove it’s a shame, because ANYONE can marry ANYONE, there are no controls.</p>
<p>There’s nothing stopping a man from marrying a woman to commit some sort of fraud, you know. If you really want to get married for the sole purpose of tax benefit, there’s nothing stopping you. There isn’t anything to support the fact that fraud would go out of control if you gave homosexuals the right to marry. It’s like saying that you want to ban apples because they could be used as blunt projectile weapons. While it may be a possibility, it isn’t an overwhelmingly strong possible-downside that is enough to offset the gains. Same for gay marriage.</p>
<p>Besides, that doesn’t seem to be the crux of your argument anyway, since you have, in this thread, been primarily focused on the moralistic aspects of homosexual marriage. You’ve frequently referred to homosexuals in a pretty derogatory light.</p>