The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[fated]

Gee, that sounds like what I used to hear growing up in the segregated South. That racial separation was necessary for the good of both races, and to maintain public order. And that miscegenation was unquestionably detrimental to society.

You're entitled to your opinion, but like the old segregationists, I think you're on the wrong side of history. The homosexuality taboo is crumbling. I'm convinced that legal discrimination against it will eventually disappear.

This is a typical shaming argument to avoid the point.

By keeping marriage about biological children of both partners, at lest partially, it is perfectly reasonable to exclude gays without being prejudiced whatsoever.

Obviously there is no necessity to change the definition away from this as most people would agree with this.

Making marriage merely based on emotion, makes it a senseless law or, in other words, bad jurisprudence and a waste of resources.

If instead, it is to protect children from broken homes and society from these children (an argument understandable to the current culture) it is sensible, becomes about heterosexual sex, and highlights the difference, which is children.

Logical.

 

[Freodin]

The point is that hatred for gays and illogical discrimination is not needed to reject the idea of gay marriage.

I´m not sure I got all your posts correctly... but could you just, in simply words so that an non-native english speaker might understand it, present your argument why you reject the idea of gay marriage?

 

[Chazemataz]

Why don't you make a Youtube video about actually UPSETTING subjects taking place in the world right now that could maybe possibly concern you, and/or cause actual harm to other people:
-the failing economy
-a war on two fronts
-rise of Islamic extremism
-the current healthcare disaster
-the African rape epidemic
-violent and/or gang related crimes

But no instead you choose to rail about why two people shouldn't get tax breaks. Don't you have anything better to do than insult other people's relationships? What, are you suddenly the epitome of moral perfection that you deem fit to put down other people's love in a world where love is so scarce in the first place? Why not attack divorce or adultery, why homosexuality which is so controversial in regards to it being sinful in the first place? Who is shoving gay marriage on you, do you not realize that homosexuals and their adopted children live together as it is and just desire hospital visitation and tax breaks?

edit: also, yes you are fully entitled to your opinion on the issue. I just do not see much of a point, since you cannot compare it to something like gun rights or evolution or marijuanna. You are talking about a group of people that was treated like degenrates for most of history. Youve heard stories about how terrible some have been treated, and their families for how they were born.
This is headed the way of Jim Crow laws. People always tend to favor the oppressed, and as long as the GLBT community paints themselves as being oppressed, put down, hated, and discriminated against you're on the losing side of history, sorry.

 

[fated]

I´m not sure I got all your posts correctly... but could you just, in simply words so that an non-native english speaker might understand it, present your argument why you reject the idea of gay marriage?

By keeping marriage about biological children of both partners, at lest partially, it is perfectly reasonable to exclude gays without being prejudiced whatsoever.

Obviously there is no necessity to change the definition away from this as most people would agree with this.

Making marriage merely based on emotion, makes it a senseless law or, in other words, bad jurisprudence and a waste of resources.

If instead, it is to protect children from broken homes and society from these children (an argument understandable to the current culture) it is sensible, becomes about heterosexual sex, and highlights the difference, which is children.

 

[fated]

Why don't you make a Youtube video about actually UPSETTING subjects taking place in the world right now that could maybe possibly concern you, and/or cause actual harm to other people:
-the failing economy
-a war on two fronts
-rise of Islamic extremism
-the current healthcare disaster
-the African rape epidemic
-violent and/or gang related crimes

But no instead you choose to rail about why two people shouldn't get tax breaks. Don't you have anything better to do than insult other people's relationships? What, are you suddenly the epitome of moral perfection that you deem fit to put down other people's love in a world where love is so scarce in the first place? Why not attack divorce or adultery, why homosexuality which is so controversial in regards to it being sinful in the first place? Who is shoving gay marriage on you, do you not realize that homosexuals and their adopted children live together as it is and just desire hospital visitation and tax breaks?

Many things there are about rights that can be exercised by contract. And the rest is a plea for a program to protect gays, sort of like affirmative action, except without there actually being equality. This is an argument that I ussually get from Europeans, based on just being nice to gays, rather than dealing with details like children.

In this case, it is rational to deny gays marriage. And, I simply disagree.

A logical argument though.

 

[Freodin]

By keeping marriage about biological children of both partners, at lest partially, it is perfectly reasonable to exclude gays without being prejudiced whatsoever.

Obviously there is no necessity to change the definition away from this as most people would agree with this.

Making marriage merely based on emotion, makes it a senseless law or, in other words, bad jurisprudence and a waste of resources.

If instead, it is to protect children from broken homes and society from these children (an argument understandable to the current culture) it is sensible, becomes about heterosexual sex, and highlights the difference, which is children.

Ok, I just try to see if I understood you correctly: marriage should be about children (the biological children of both partners).

Could you now explain how you defend this definition of marriage in regard to childless heterosexual unions?

 

[fated]

By the way, does anyone have any statistics that show that gay sex is more benign for your health than smoking?

 

[fated]

Ok, I just try to see if I understood you correctly: marriage should be about children (the biological children of both partners).

Could you now explain how you defend this definition of marriage in regard to childless heterosexual unions?

It is unnecessary to do so. Even accepting it as part of the institution excludes gays. Indeed, if we assume legitimate jurisprudence, its clearly about heterosexuals having sex.

 

[Freodin]

It is unnecessary to do so. Even accepting it as part of the institution excludes gays. Indeed, if we assume legitimate jurisprudence, its clearly about heterosexuals having sex.

I know that it excludes gays. The question were are dealing here is, why should we continue to do so?

 

[Chazemataz]

Many things there are about rights that can be exercised by contract. And the rest is a plea for a program to protect gays, sort of like affirmative action, except without there actually being equality. This is an argument that I ussually get from Europeans, based on just being nice to gays, rather than dealing with details like children.

In this case, it is rational to deny gays marriage. And, I simply disagree.

A logical argument though.

You do realize these are people we're talking about, not facts or pie charts, right?
People who met somewhere, fell in love, went on dates, laughed together, cried together, and have the added issue of being discriminated against and hated for that love. For caring about and providing for each other.

And what about parents who treat their children with love, caring, and kindness? Should we take them away just because they have a different kind of love?

 

[Chazemataz]

Also, allow me to add: how are you getting hurt if gay marriage were to be legal everywhere starting tommorrow? Are fundamnetalist/conservative Christians being harmed by gay marriage being legal in New England & Iowa, and if so how?

 

[quatona]

This is a video where I discuss the logical reason as to why gay marriage should remain against the law

YouTube - The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should NOT be allowed

Phil

Well, if we accept your premise that marriage should be between one man and one woman, your conclusion that marriage shouldn´t be between one man and one man does indeed follow logically.
Now, people who disagree with you are most likely not accepting your premise as being valid, and in order to convince them you would have to convince them to accept your premise as being more than your personal opinion, in the first place.

 

[fated]

Also, allow me to add: how are you getting hurt if gay marriage were to be legal everywhere starting tommorrow? Are fundamnetalist/conservative Christians being harmed by gay marriage being legal in New England & Iowa, and if so how?

It costs money, but more importantly propagates the myth that marriage isn't for the benefit of children, parents, family, and society, and is all about some other lowest common denominator things. Which makes good laws regarding marriage more difficult to pass in the future.

 

[MoonLancer]

That isn't naive. That's the same old argument. You are playing, once again, the lowest common denominator argument for gay marriage. Your logic requires me to accept a lowest common denominator definition for marriage, even though many other definitions would fit marriage, including the one I've proposed.

What definition have you posted? Read what you posted. You have not presented a definition. You simply stated what you would like that definition to entail. Please present a definition. Its much harder to do and much harder to defend then talking about a hypothetical definition which would achieve what you want it to, without discriminating against the elderly, sterile and those of same sex.

 

[MoonLancer]

It costs money, but more importantly propagates the myth that marriage isn't for the benefit of children, parents, family, and society, and is all about some other lowest common denominator things. Which makes good laws regarding marriage more difficult to pass in the future.

Watch your language guy... I'm married, and i wont be having kids. Am i propagating a myth? Are you trying to revoke my marriage? What say you?

 

[fated]

You do realize these are people we're talking about, not facts or pie charts, right?
People who met somewhere, fell in love, went on dates, laughed together, cried together, and have the added issue of being discriminated against and hated for that love. For caring about and providing for each other.

And what about parents who treat their children with love, caring, and kindness? Should we take them away just because they have a different kind of love?

Commonly: Celibacy is healthy, and apparently so is married sex. It appears that this is inconsistent with gay sex.

If you need to have a discussion about sources, I'll just say that you can find them if you look, even if you don't like the people who wrote the one you find.

Now, were we, no longer about logic, but about an emotional appeal, which goes away from the threads intent, also, I answered that in my last post.

 

[fated]

Watch your language guy... I'm married, and i wont be having kids. Am i propagating a myth? Are you trying to revoke my marriage? What say you?

Yes. No.

Again with the lowest common denominator definition. By this argument you change what marriage is apparently, to equal something else, and then add a similar (not even identical) group onto it. This just adds another weak link, but give the illusion of group equality a bit better.

 

[fated]

What definition have you posted? Read what you posted. You have not presented a definition. You simply stated what you would like that definition to entail. Please present a definition. Its much harder to do and much harder to defend then talking about a hypothetical definition which would achieve what you want it to, without discriminating against the elderly, sterile and those of same sex.

People have various definition, I'm pointing out that logical definition exist that would exclude gays without being discriminatory.

 

[MoonLancer]

Commonly: Celibacy is healthy, and apparently so is married sex. It appears that this is inconsistent with gay sex.

explain in detail if two vergen girls or guys get married and start having sex. How is this inconsistent? You assume by the act of gay sex is somehow unhealthy. explain. Or are you saying gays have an uncontrollable urge to have promiscuous sex?

You don't have evidence for any of this, and your dancing the issue by avoiding specifics

If you need to have a discussion about sources, I'll just say that you can find them if you look, even if you don't like the people who wrote the one you find.

LOL "I have sources but i wont tell you what they are" that's classy.

Now, were we, no longer about logic, but about an emotional appeal, which goes away from the threads intent, also, I answered that in my last post.

You sir have presented no logic. Only vague innuendo. Why don't you boldly step up and present your points instead of refusing to address the issue head on.

 

[MoonLancer]

People have various definition, I'm pointing out that logical definition exist that would exclude gays without being discriminatory.

too bad you haven't even presented the definition your defending. that would help.