Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

  • 27-05-2013 04:09PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,528 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Please don't let this descend into a religion-bashing thread. I'm agnostic but I have no problem with people's beliefs so long as they do not affect others. Each to their own.

    I'm just wondering, are there any rational, articulate arguments against gay marriage that would make you think "Hmm, that's worth thinking about"?

    I'm all for gay marriage. I don't think a church should, by state law, be forced into accepting it. I think that's for each church to work on internally and, obviously, I believe that state laws should not be based on religious beliefs. But that's another argument.

    I just have not heard any arguments that did not revolve around the whole "Against the bible/reducing the sanctity of marriage" arguments. I mean, NOT ONE!!!


«13456712

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Apart from religion, I suppose it'd have to be....

    .... You know? I don't think there is one!

    Fancy that...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    I've never heard a valid anti-gay marriage argument tbh, it all either descends into using the bible, comparing same sex couples to paedophiles or sleeping with animals or family members. Maybe the reason nobody can come up with a rational argument against it because there isn't one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I've heard "It's not natural". Then you point out all the animal species that engage in homosexual behaviour. "I don't care, it's just not natural", but they refuse to say in what way it's not natural. I suspect that it actually means 'I think it's icky, therefore no-one should be allowed to do it'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭SEANoftheDEAD


    Grand so. Thats that thread finished.

    Next


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Grand so. Thats that thread finished.

    Next

    Give it time. Holy joe will be along soon to add the funny.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,926 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Grand so. Thats that thread finished.

    Next

    But we haven't had a chance to bash religion yet!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    The main secular reasons I've heard is that the word marriage defines marriage between a man and woman and so can't apply to gay couple which is a ridiculous reason.

    The other being that the benefits given to married couples are given because the union provides children which will become contributors to society in future. This argument makes a bit more sense but given not all straight couples can or will have children it shouldn't matter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,258 ✭✭✭RangeR


    All the people I've spoken to, who are against same sex marriage, say that the children concept is the biggest stumbling block. Adoption etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I'm so supportive of gay marriage I think only gays should be allowed to marry.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,258 ✭✭✭RangeR


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm so supportive of gay marriage I think only gays should be allowed to marry.

    Zombie post


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,926 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    So if we allow gay marriage, people will lose their jobs and others will begin marrying inanimate objects and animals?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    1) Gays will want to adopt
    (and turn their kid into a gay - ewww!)

    2) Marraige is a special thing between a man and a woman accourding to the Consitution
    (it isn't)

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    o1s1n wrote: »
    So if we allow gay marriage, people will lose their jobs and others will begin marrying inanimate objects and animals?

    Yes, we'll all turn gay, and mankind will be doomed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    In the same way as it was up to abolitionist to convince the state regarding the wrongness of slavery? The state took convincing, but hindsight has proven the abolitionists right, without a shadow of doubt.

    I'd say we're nearly there, and rightly so. Future generations will look back and wonder what al the fuss was about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    This has been done countless times. Successfully, too, in other jurisdictions.

    Also, saying something like "what are the limits?" is ridiculous. Either there are genuine threats that should be listed by the presenter of the argument, or there are not, in which case he's just scaremongering.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Duiske


    When you take religious arguments/bigotry out of the equation, not that they were particularly rational or articulate arguments to begin with, there's simply nothing left to argue about. And thats as it should be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Manach wrote: »
    if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    I'd say, men could marry women, women could marry men, men could marry men, and women could marry women.

    That'd be it.


  • Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Lucas Whining Garter


    "I think it's icky so I'll pretend it's about saving the kids despite studies showing kids with gay parents do super"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    That would only truly apply if the reasons for outlawing homosexuality had a rational basis.

    In those circumstances it would be the case that once upon a time we made a rational decision to outlaw homosexual marriage but for whatever reason, that no longer applies.

    That isn't what happened. The underpinning of all anti-homosexual laws is religious or otherwise irrational. It hasn't become any less rational over time, it's just that most people have become more rational and realise that the law was based on nonsense to begin with.

    That something has occurred for a long period of time (heterosexual-only marriage) is not a reason to persist with it. It's merely an incidental fact. "That's how it's always been", isn't a compelling argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,991 ✭✭✭DavyD_83


    I was thinking about this the other day. I have nothing against gays getting married.
    I was more wondering about the fact that gay married couples would also want to be entitled to tax benefits that other married couples get.

    I have nothing against this in theory, but it got me wondering why are married couples entitled to any of this anyway?

    Surely all the tax benefits that exist for married couples, are essentially designed to allow them to support a family and continue to create and raise further tax payers (aka children)

    In this case, should all current 'marriage benefits' only come into play when the couple has children.
    I would assume they should also be entitled to the same if they adopt or otherwise acquire (that word looks wrong) children.
    I don't see any real social benefit to households where only one individual works unless there are children to take care of, so why should the state subsidise them or make allowances for them .

    Anyway, short version of my rambling; shouldn't all 'marital benifits' only be available for those raising children (whether gay, straight or into donkeys)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭SEANoftheDEAD


    krudler wrote: »
    Yes, we'll all turn gay, and mankind will be doomed.

    It might actually be of benefit... slow down the worlds populations growth...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    RangeR wrote: »
    All the people I've spoken to, who are against same sex marriage, say that the children concept is the biggest stumbling block. Adoption etc.

    While that could be a secular reason, it's no more based on rationality than Leviticus-based arguments.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    It might actually be of benefit... slow down the worlds populations growth...

    My gay cousin and her wife have a daughter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I was thinking about this the other day. I have nothing against gays getting married.
    I was more wondering about the fact that gay married couples would also want to be entitled to tax benefits that other married couples get.

    I have nothing against this in theory, but it got me wondering why are married couples entitled to any of this anyway?

    In a marraige contract (usually) most assest will be in both names. It's not really fair to tax someone for taking ownership of soemthing they already own.

    it might also be a case of the decased party having been the sole earner: if the stay-at-home partner inherits an asset, like a house, but no cash, why should they be forced to sell it off just to pay the taxman?
    Surely all the tax benefits that exist for married couples, are essentially designed to allow them to support a family and continue to create and raise further tax payers (aka children)

    Anyway, short version of my rambling; shouldn't all 'marital benifits' only be available for those raising children (whether gay, straight or into donkeys)?

    I disagree with your premise in the first chapter - why can two people not just declare their love for each other and not want to bring kids into the world? They might not like kids, they might know they'd be bad parents and just make a responsible addition.

    Marraige is not solely about having kids.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    endacl wrote: »
    My gay cousin and her wife have a daughter.

    This gay has a son and two grandchildren. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    This gay has a son and two grandchildren. :D

    You better not make them gay too! *shakes fist*


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    This gay has a son and two grandchildren. :D

    By having children you're skewing the stats! Cease and desist. What's next?!? Voting? Driving licences? Where will it end?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Duiske


    It might actually be of benefit... slow down the worlds populations growth...

    Or think of the business potential. I just checked and spermbank.ie is available for a mere €24.95 per annum. :D


Advertisement