The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[Brieuse]

There is no scientific proof of why most people are heterosexual and some are homosexual,

Actually there is much scientific evidence towards the reasons people are homosexual or heterosexual. As to pinpointing the ultimate cause that determines whether a person will be homosexual or heterosexual, research is still in progress as there is not sufficient consensus.

We can't say there is no scientific proof, but we can say that there is not enough proof to be 100% certain.

 

[David Brider]

Actually there is much scientific evidence towards the reasons people are homosexual or heterosexual. As to pinpointing the ultimate cause that determines whether a person will be homosexual or heterosexual, research is still in progress as there is not sufficient consensus.

We can't say there is no scientific proof, but we can say that there is not enough proof to be 100% certain.

Fair 'nuff.

 

[quatona]

Sorry I havent been participating in this discussion until now. Its just there have been so many responses and I barely had enough time to skim over half of em let alone read the whole lot. I would just like to add to my video,

So you are not going to discuss the objections, but simply open a new discussion?

why do homosexuals want to change an institution

I´m not homsexual and I want this institution changed.

that is as old as the oldest known civilisations.

For similar reasons that this institution has been changed numerous times throughout history.

Why dont they just create a new ceremony especially for themselves, just dont call it marriage. Why do they want the one thing the law says they cant have? Just create something else and stop trying to change something that already is, and works just fine the way it is - male to female marraige

I´m not sure I understand why you bring up an argument that criticizes change of institutions in general. Institutions have always been subject to change, and I am pretty sure there are institutions whose change you have supported or would support.

 

[valuecard]

ill try and discuss some of the objections tomoro nite (i have been limited so far cause of time constraints)

 

[valuecard]

Ok, this is to address all those who have raised the following point. When I said as part of my vid that gay people can’t reproduce, and this is one of the compelling reasons that gay marriage is unnatural, people have responded by pointing out various groups of people who can’t reproduce such as couples who have fertility problems etc, and they have gone on to say “so their marriage is unnatural too, because they can’t reproduce either, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married according to you”
Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc
Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that “they once disallowed interracial marriages” (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! It’s perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL. If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.

 

[Psudopod]

Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc

Why is marriage reserved for male / female relationships in the sense that they can reproduce if reproduction is not important?

Either it is, and we bad all those who cannot or will not reproduce form marriage, or it is not, and we stop using it as a reason for preventing marriage to some groups.

Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that “they once disallowed interracial marriages” (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES!

You're missing the point. Previously, people were discriminated against on the basis of race and gender. We realised that race was a silly thing to discriminate against, now many people realise that gender is too.

The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! It’s perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL.

Homosexuality is natural as it occurs in nature. This is what natural means. Marriage is not natural, it's a human concept.

If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.

By your definition an infertile man and a woman would not be able to start a family and would be unnatural. I think you need to look more into the definition of both family and natural.

 

[CaDan]

Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that “they once disallowed interracial marriages” (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! It’s perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL. If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.

From the trial court memorandum in Loving:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.​

It has a sort of logic. When you have crazy premises, you can derive all sorts of crazy conclusions.

 

[CoderHead]

Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too).

Ah, but entire groups of heterosexual people CANNOT reproduce. They are biologically unable to procreate.

And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc

But these "individual cases" make up a group of the human population. So if you're looking at excluding groups and not just individuals, then there are certainly groups of heterosexual people who would be disqualified from marriage on the basis of their ability to reproduce.

Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.

Which means, of course, that your argument rests solely on the basis of marriage being available only to those people who intend to reproduce.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

... the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc

Do you have any evidence that marriage laws are based on the ability to reproduce? Or even the ability to raise children? Because if you don't have evidence, you're just arguing for a baseless opinion, which isn't a logical argument.

Since infertile people can get married, it suggests that marriage laws have nothing to do with the ability to procreate. You're "rule of thumb" is only in your head.

 

[CoderHead]

Do you have any evidence that marriage laws are based on the ability to reproduce?

Or maybe even the intent to reproduce? I'm not exactly sure what his point is, so I'm still kinda waiting for a reply.

 

[nolongerhome]

Ok, this is to address all those who have raised the following point. When I said as part of my vid that gay people can’t reproduce, and this is one of the compelling reasons that gay marriage is unnatural, people have responded by pointing out various groups of people who can’t reproduce such as couples who have fertility problems etc, and they have gone on to say “so their marriage is unnatural too, because they can’t reproduce either, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married according to you”
Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc
Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that “they once disallowed interracial marriages” (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! It’s perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL. If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.

I think you are very confused.

Apparently all the problems raised with your argument are "illogical". I think the source of the illogical arguments is actually you.

In the first place you are saying that marriage is legally (here you are clearly accepting that marriage is a social institution) between a man and a woman because they can reproduce together, but that the fact that specific men and women that can't reproduce in practice should still be allowed to marry because theoretically they can reproduce as they are of the opposite sex. That is pretty ridiculous. If the reporoduction element is so important, why is it the theoretical ability to reproduce and not the actual ability to reproduce that determines whether people should allow to be married? You are making this the fundamental principle of the relationship, but then choosing to ignore it when it doesn't fit with your argument. That isn't logical.

In the second place, after stating clearly that as a legal relationship marriage is a social, rather than natural, construction, you then complain that it is illogical to compare the changes this social construction has undergone in the future to the one being debated at present. Why? Well, we go back to point one.

I have to wonder why a social institution is necessarily defined by natural processes? If marriage is not natural (and it isn't, it is something humans have created), why must it follow what you see as a natural logic? It is clear in the history of the institution that for socially determined reasons the definition of legitimacy has changed (to allow for interracial marriage and non economic based marriages being two clear examples), is there any reason you can provide, other than the "its unnatural" argument (which coincidentally was the same argument used by people opposed to earlier changes to the institution of marriage) as to why we can't define a social relationship in any way that we like?

 

[King Nebuchadnezzah]

Or maybe even the intent to reproduce? I'm not exactly sure what his point is, so I'm still kinda waiting for a reply.

Using the intent argument falls flat also. You can have a heterosexual couple who has no intent to produce offspring...should they not get married also?

Other than from a religous standpoint, there is probably no reason to make gay marriage illegal. Once we start basing our laws on religious doctrine, we are in for catastropic problems!

 

[KCKID]

I'm surprised that this thread has gone the distance since the OP came up with no original argument whatever. It's simply a rehash of so many threads before it. Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?

The FACTS are that some people have an unasked for sexual orientation toward those of the same gender. Therefore, this is 'natural' for them and they should not feel guilty about it. The FACTS are also that this subject as presented by the anti-'gays' is just one huge beat-up that needs to be stopped once and for all!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm surprised that this thread has gone the distance since the OP came up with no original argument whatever. It's simply a rehash of so many threads before it. Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?

Because they know deep down that opinions without any logic behind them hold no weight.

 

[CoderHead]

Using the intent argument falls flat also. You can have a heterosexual couple who has no intent to produce offspring...should they not get married also?

Yes, they should. And the OP has already stated that. So I'm failing to see his argument against same-sex marriage in any form whatsoever.

Other than from a religous standpoint, there is probably no reason to make gay marriage illegal. Once we start basing our laws on religious doctrine, we are in for catastropic problems!

Agreed.

Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?

That would be fine, up to the point that the "I don't like homosexuality" crowd starts legislating...which they do. And so here we are.

 

[King Nebuchadnezzah]

This problem can be solved easily and quickly.
1. Get government out of marriage completely
2. Eradicate any tax benefits and subsidies to married couples or any particular group of individuals.

 

[Supernaut]

I'm surprised that this thread has gone the distance since the OP came up with no original argument whatever. It's simply a rehash of so many threads before it. Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?

Dogs always roam in packs. Strength in numbers. If they say "I" then they are singling themselves out and going away from the pack who uses arhaic literature to oppress.

The FACTS are that some people have an unasked for sexual orientation toward those of the same gender. Therefore, this is 'natural' for them and they should not feel guilty about it. The FACTS are also that this subject as presented by the anti-'gays' is just one huge beat-up that needs to be stopped once and for all!

Looking back on history, one can rely on the fact that eventually people will realize their mistakes and rectify them. We need to keep up the good fight and soon enough, we will be sitting back listening to our kids and grandkids talk about how weird it was years ago when the LGBT community was denied equal rights. Just like we've done in history class wondering how in the world we denied women equal rights, or blacks equal right, or how we could enslave entire races of people based on something they are born with : skin color.

 

[valuecard]

I make no secret of the fact that I dislike the act of homosexuality. I find it extremely repuslive. However, its not my personal dislike that makes homosexuality unnatural, its the fact that depending what you believe in (nature or God), life has been designed to come into the world via male sperm and a female egg (this is natural), it then follows that its natural for the male who conceiverd the child and the female whose egg was conceived would then raise their own child, as its technically part of them - again completely natural. This thread is about marriage. Marriage is an institute which has become the backbone of the family unit/family structure, and an attack on (natural) marriage is an attack on the natural family unit (ie mother, father, and child/children). When homosexuals fight for gay marriage (and then illogically they also seem to fight for the right to adopt children), they are actually fighting against one of the pillars and foudnations of stable society across the earth - the family unit (as it is in nature, mother and father and children)

 

[Supernaut]

I make no secret of the fact that I dislike the act of homosexuality. I find it extremely repuslive. However, its not my personal dislike that makes homosexuality unnatural, its the fact that depending what you believe in (nature or God), life has been designed to come into the world via male sperm and a female egg (this is natural), it then follows that its natural for the male who conceiverd the child and the female whose egg was conceived would then raise their own child, as its technically part of them - again completely natural.

And if you look at it from lifes perspective, homosexuality is also curbing the possibility of overpopulation.

Marriage is an institute

Marriage is a relationship. Not an institution.

Marriage is an institute which has become the backbone of the family unit/family structure, and an attack on (natural) marriage is an attack on the natural family unit (ie mother, father, and child/children).

So...are we discussing social "norms" or a made up institution?

When homosexuals fight for gay marriage (and then illogically they also seem to fight for the right to adopt children), they are actually fighting against one of the pillars and foudnations of stable society across the earth - the family unit (as it is in nature, mother and father and children)

So then, equality is unnatural, gay marriage and adoption rights are making society unstable? Howso?

How is embracing change and equality ruining a precious man made institution or these "pillars and foundations" as your post suggests?

 

[IzzyPop]

I make no secret of the fact that I dislike the act of homosexuality. I find it extremely repuslive. However, its not my personal dislike that makes homosexuality unnatural, its the fact that depending what you believe in (nature or God), life has been designed to come into the world via male sperm and a female egg (this is natural), it then follows that its natural for the male who conceiverd the child and the female whose egg was conceived would then raise their own child, as its technically part of them - again completely natural. This thread is about marriage. Marriage is an institute which has become the backbone of the family unit/family structure, and an attack on (natural) marriage is an attack on the natural family unit (ie mother, father, and child/children). When homosexuals fight for gay marriage (and then illogically they also seem to fight for the right to adopt children), they are actually fighting against one of the pillars and foudnations of stable society across the earth - the family unit (as it is in nature, mother and father and children)

So concerning how homosexuality is so unnatural, why do some birds form same sex pairings for the raising of their young?

And concerning nature again, would the parents of a cowbird be the ones that made and fertilized the egg or the ones that raised it? (Cowbirds lay their eggs in other birds' nests and leave the rearing to them.)

Which version of marriage is the pillar of stable societies across the earth? The polygamous ones? Or the ones with a bride price? Maybe the ones with a dowry? Or maybe the ones that are arrainged when the kids are 4 years old?