12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry


Pahoran
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. (You just imagined the penguins. Anyway, penguins are unnatural: they're birds, they fly underwater. Nuff said.)

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 24 2004, 11:16 PM

Your reasoning, Pahoran, doesn't really cut it. I know that list was mastered after the real list, but someone tried too hard....and it just sounded like it.

That was an awesome refutation! Great job! Way to go! Woohoo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 24 2004, 10:26 PM

THANK YOU!

Pah--actually, you have made some REALLY good point, and they certainly shoot the( ? ) out of many of the gay hater's arguments.

Let's remember the LDS Church led the way in America in the arena of alternative marriage styles!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANK YOU!

Pah--actually, you have made some REALLY good point, and they certainly shoot the( ? )out of many of the gay hater's arguments.

Let's remember the LDS Church led the way in America in the arena of alternative marriage styles!!!

Yes, and now they put out millions of dollars that could be going to feed the homeless people in Canada into opposing alternative marriage styles in an effort to appear mainstream Christians. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 24 2004, 10:54 PM

Pah--actually, you have made some REALLY good point, and they certainly shoot the( ? ) out of many of the gay hater's arguments.

You gotta love an argument that seeks to demonize the opposition rather than address their point. They are just people who are opposed to changing the legal definition (and granted privileges) but they are "gay hater" and homophobes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow@Feb 25 2004, 12:06 AM

You gotta love an argument that seeks to demonize the opposition rather than address their point. They are just people who are opposed to changing the legal definition (and granted privileges) but they are "gay hater" and homophobes.

As opposed to equal rights advocates? Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 11:01 PM

Yes, and now they put out millions of dollars that could be going to feed the homeless people in Canada into opposing alternative marriage styles in an effort to appear mainstream Christians. Go figure.

And there's another brilliant argument (note: sarcasm alert). Geeze Paharon, whoever you really are, instead of spending money on a computer and internet access, you could have fed a family of 4 in the Sudan for 3 years; instead of buying a leather belt, you could have used twine and spent the difference buying bus fare to spend a runaway back to Iowa...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 25 2004, 12:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 25 2004, 12:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 11:01 PM

Yes, and now they put out millions of dollars that could be going to feed the homeless people in Canada into opposing alternative marriage styles in an effort to appear mainstream Christians.  Go figure.

And there's another brilliant argument (note: sarcasm alert). Geeze Paharon, whoever you really are, instead of spending money on a computer and internet access, you could have fed a family of 4 in the Sudan for 3 years; instead of buying a leather belt, you could have used twine and spent the difference buying bus fare to spend a runaway back to Iowa...

I spent that money supporting Christian terrorism. Doesn't that count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 25 2004, 12:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 25 2004, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 11:09 PM

As opposed to equal rights advocates?  Yes.

Yeah,

I am dying to hear that theory. What "rights" are you talking about. Where did they get those rights?

That's right. Mormons are not humanists. I forgot. Please forgive my ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pahoran+Feb 24 2004, 11:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pahoran @ Feb 24 2004, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 25 2004, 12:11 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 11:09 PM

As opposed to equal rights advocates?  Yes.

Yeah,

I am dying to hear that theory. What "rights" are you talking about. Where did they get those rights?

That's right. Mormons are not humanists. I forgot. Please forgive my ignorance.

Holy Smokes,

What poster using an assumed name that starts an implied argument that he has no idea how to finish? Who on earth could it be?

BTW, moderators, Pahoran is a poster, now banned and formerly known by another name. 1 guess who.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

I may be responding to someone who's already gone, not to mention engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but here goes:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. (You just imagined the penguins. Anyway, penguins are unnatural: they're birds, they fly underwater. Nuff said.)

Not a serious argument. I agree. If men acted according to their unrestrained natures, human life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

One of the main reasons the institution of marriage exists is because of society's interest in providing a stable environment for the raising of children. Since it is reasonable to expect that a man and a woman sleeping together regularly may produce children in the ordinary course of things, whether they intend to or not, it is appropriate for a society to set up in advance the legal framework that will apply to the union, so as to regulate that environment.

The fact that some marriages do not produce children doesn't change the rationale for recognizing marriage as a legal institution, any more than the fact that some people will never pay capital-gains tax means that those tax laws shouldn't exist. The framework is there for when it's needed, and often it can't be known in advance whether marriage's child-sheltering institutions will be needed. Couples who don't intend to have children may change their minds. Couples who thought themselves infertile, by reason of age or otherwise, may not be.

The (relatively minor) exceptional category of elderly couples who are pretty much definitively infertile, to whom the primary rationale of marriage of providing a stable environment for childraising almost certainly doesn't apply, affirm the institution of marriage by their participation in it.

You would have us say that because exceptions exist -- i.e. some people to whom the chief rationale for marriage doesn't apply -- therefore the rule shouldn't exist, either. That reminds me of a very liberal lawyer I once worked with, whose favorite tactic in arguments against a particular rule was to think of some outlandish exception wherein a person might be hurt by it. Obviously, not every exception can be anticipated. Set up the rule, and if there are significant exceptional cases, make rules to accommodate the exceptions.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

See the above about exceptions to the general rule. Reasonable people may conclude that, in the aggregate, there are significant differences between men and women, and children are enriched by an environment where they experience a mother and a father who each provide their unique attributes. Occasionally, because of divorce or death or other circumstances, the ideal may not be possible. I do think that adoption law, as a general rule, should favor married two-parent couples over singles.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Unless you accept the argument that ALL homosexuality is genetically determined (which is a stretch), then it's possible that environmental influences may affect people's developing sexuality. One of the environmental factors that could reasonably be expected to have an effect is the acceptance of something by society. If something is viewed by society as acceptable, society will get more of that thing. Look at the use of racial slurs. It's (generally) not illegal to use them, but you're much less likely to hear them than you would have been fifty years ago. Because society doesn't accept their use.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Ah, the bootstrapping argument: "We liberals have so diminished the meaningfulness of marriage already that you might as well let us tear it the rest of the way down." I guarantee you it wasn't social conservatives who enacted Nevada's marriage laws, or instituted no-fault divorce, or created the social atmosphere where marriage is taken lightly.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

A perfect example of the tendency of the living to think themselves superior to the dead: Every traditional arrangement must be inferior to the contemporary wisdom. "Divorce is illegal"? When was that? Certainly, divorce used to be a lot harder to obtain, but it's been legal in some form or another for pretty much all of recorded history. And it's far from clear that the present state of divorce law is the ideal, given the pain it tends to cause. For every divorce that benefits both parties, there's at least another that does more harm than good. "Women are property" -- OK, the Romans got that one wrong. That hasn't been true for a long time, although women's rights did take a long time to develop to their proper place. "Blacks can't marry whites" -- Anti-miscegenation laws are a relatively recent invention (most didn't exist until the 19th century) that ran their course over the span of a few generations.

How about "The punishment should fit the crime"? Or "no punishment may be inflicted unless a law has been broken"? How about the canons of statutory interpretation? The common law? The Golden Rule? All of these things are at least centuries old. Sometimes, the fact that an institution has stood the test of time suggests that it may be a good idea, having been "naturally selected" from among other institutions that were found wanting and discarded.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

Couldn't agree more. On the legislative side, we have the abolition of slavery, the 13th through the 15th Amendments, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- the basic framework of civil rights in this country. On the judicial side, we have Brown v. Board of Education -- which itself built on a trend, pushed along by representative institutions, of greater civil rights (like President Truman's integration of the military). On the other hand, the judicial side also has to answer for the Dred Scott Case, the Slaughterhouse Cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Lochner decision.

I happen to think that democratic government, expressed through republican institutions, works pretty well. As a default rule, I tend to favor the means of government that maximizes the degree to which decisions are taken by the consent of the governed. That inclines me to prefer the decision of a popular majority to the decision of a judicial elite except in exceptional cases.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

The values of pretty much every major religion, actually. The laws of a country ought to reflect its general moral sense. We have laws forbidding cruelty to animals because a majority of the people feel that it is wrong. The sense that a marriage between a man and a woman is the most moral sexual arrangement doesn't have to arise from any particularized religious tradition any more than animal-cruelty laws do.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Interesting choice of deviant sexual behavior there. If I made that argument, you'd jump on me for "comparing gay sex to bestiality," or something equally juvenile. I do notice that people on your side are desperate to avoid the slippery-slope argument -- that's why whenever someone points out that a sexual ethic based on consent could lead to acceptance of [insert bizarre sexual practice here], he's instantly accused of "comparing" gays to people who indulge in that practice -- a colossal logical fallacy engaged in with enthusiasm by people who take pride in calling themselves "critical thinkers."

The main argument for acceptance of homosexual sex is that it's a consensual sexual practice, and that gay "marriage" is also a matter of consent. But if you make that argument, you are making the same argument for every other consensual sexual practice, or consent to a formalized sexual arrangement. You make it very hard to argue against marriages between multiple parties (hello, Tom Green!) or close relatives (provided, say, they are tested for possible genetic defects that might be expressed in their children).

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

Well, let's see: If you listen to environmentalists, we haven't adapted to longer lifespans; the population of the earth is said to be outstripping its "carrying capacity," and we'll all be starved or globally warmed to death. And frankly, I don't think we're adapting all that well to the changes we've made in society's view of marriage already. Childbearing without marriage, which has become much more acceptable in the past half century, is probably the greatest single cause of poverty in this country. So yes, I do think that maybe we ought to give a little more thought to altering such a fundamental societal institution. A little more thought, that is, than is required to post twelve smart-arse straw-man characterizations of the argument against such a change.

The idea of the "precautionary principle" is generally espoused by the political Left. It's the idea that new technology or practice shouldn't be adopted unless its proponents can offer conclusive proof that it won't cause any harm. Of course, it's virtually impossible to prove a negative, and the idea is counterproductive, but it's interesting that the same people who demand absolute proof that, say, genetic engineering won't cause any harm, are willing blithely to accept an unproven modification of an ancient social institution.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Constitutional law does recognize that different treatment for men and women is sometimes justified by differences between men and women. Laws making distinctions between men and women (i.e., Selective Service) are evaluated under an "intermediate scrutiny" standard, as opposed to the "strict scrutiny" standard applied for racial distinctions. That's because the distinctions between men and women -- and between marriages between men and women and same-sex couples -- are real, while the distinctions between races are insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest curvette

I would think most people who care about family values would prefer to see homosexuals in monogomous, long term relationships than the promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember one thing. Homosexual activity in any sense, in any degree, is abominable before God. The purpose of marriage is for the sanctity of Celestial progression. Does anyone remember Soddom and Gamorrah(not spelled right)? That should be it right there! Now, do I think there should be a law prohibiting them from such activity as marriage. That's tough, one thing we must all do is ask, do we allow drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography...etc? The answer to the latter is yes. So one hand you would have to say "Should we take away the rights to things that don't damage us personally?" However, as Latter-Day Saints we must stand with our conviction. Marriage is SACRED, an institution presented and preserved for the building of Family. Can a homosexual "couple" produce(without adoption) a family? That would be no. Can a homosexual "couple" be married in the Temple for all eternity...no. Can a homosexual(male) couple hold the priesthood while practicing said sexual lifestyle? The answer again is no. If we are to break through the barrier of Satan's influence we must prevent the opportunity of promoting and further recognizing homosexuality as a union of sorts before ever festering beyond control of the means by which it was brought forth. In short all man has the agency to live WITHIN the law, part of that agency is to MORALLY influence through process of Democracy, that which the LAW entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest curvette

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Feb 25 2004, 07:30 PM

Does anyone remember Soddom and Gamorrah(not spelled right)? That should be it right there!

Marriage is SACRED, an institution presented and preserved for the building of Family. Can a homosexual "couple" produce(without adoption) a family? That would be no.

Please quote the scripture that states that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality.

Also, if marriage is only an institution for the building of a family, why should infertile people be allowed to marry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share