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

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Because, as the anti-gay marriage brigade have taught us, society is free to legislatively prohibit that which it finds morally undesirable.

The slippery slope is only slippery if you lube it up too much. Don't use so much lube.

auzzue wrote: »

Because when blacks got rights all the white people went out an became black and now we have a shortage of white people

yore wrote: »

Why will these things never change? In my opinion because the PC crowd are too busy mocking and pooh-poohing the people on the other side to actually try to get an idea of the underlying "un-comfortableness" they perhaps feel about it.

Of course, if someone says they don't like the idea, the response is to call the homophobic or stone-aged or religious freak etc. Instead of trying to address what might be their underlying concerns.

Divorce only came into this country recently. Anti-religion Nazis will try to have you believe that this was due to the evil church keeping the people down. What else could have been the reason? Perhaps people felt that it would denigrate marriage. To them, marriage is something special. By bringing in divorce they felt it was a slippery slope that would lessen the institution of marriage. in other countries, the US at least, marriage is often something that people enter into with a view of "This might be fun for a few years". Is marriage more of an institution in Ireland than say the US? I would say yes, it still is. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? Some would say it's good and some would say not. Of course, you will all be able to give me specific example of your friend blah blah but I'm talking on an overall basis. Of course, if you voiced an opinion against liberalisation of divorce laws, you'd be automatically mocked as some kind of religious freak even if you never in a church in your life.

Does allowing gay marriage change the definition of marriage? The answer is yes. Does it dilute the meaning of marriage? Yes of course, it expands the definition; now it has more meanings. If you are against gay marriage are you automatically a zealot or homophobic or small minded? No, you might be just trying to protect the institution of marriage (as you see it). Do you have the right to push that definition of something onto others? Well in effect you are not pushing your definition onto others, you are just maintaining the status quo. Do others, so-called "liberals" have the right to push their own definition to force a change? I would say no. What is a compromise? Maybe allow the gays to have different types of union. Have something new and call it something different rather than trying to force your changes onto everyone else!

yore wrote: »

Ande yet you don't see the irony in how your post vindicated mine .
I love talking to people who come with up these non sequitur arguments.

My post was about how the supposedly liberal people refuse to listen to the "other side". Your retort perfectly validates my post.

note I never took an explicit position in my post.


I don't think I voiced a position.


Bullsh1t. All I did was to try to tell you why others might be against marriage.


As I said, I never gave a position on it.

Next time, try to read and comprehend and take a few deep breaths before jumping in with your self-perceived righteous indignation.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't have a problem with sex and gender equal polygamy, no, but i'm sure many people do and there's no reason why legalizing gay marriage would lead those anti-polygamists to change their minds about polygamy.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

besides religious beliefs?

Well I find it hard to believe that every single person in this world who is against gay marriage only feels so because of their beliefs. There are alot of homophobes/gay bashers. They aint all people of faith.

So I think there has to be a number of people playing the religious card rather than simply coming out and saying they are homophobic.

auzzue wrote: »

Because when blacks got rights all the white people went out an became black and now we have a shortage of white people

yore wrote: »

You are entitled to celebrate how you like. As you should. It just shows that it actually meant a little bit more than signing a bit of paper. If you buy a house, you go to the bank to sign for the mortgage. You probably don't dress up in a suit and invite your friends.

But you probably dressed up for your wedding. And I am sure (and hope) that it was a special day for you and your spouse and I am also sure you enjoyed it.

So it meant at least a tad bit more than opening up a joint savings account!



Similarly, if you don't care about something at all and think it is irrelevant, do you not find it difficult to justify your choice in taking a "side"?
You must care at least a little bit!

(Unless of course you just like dictating stuff to people, despite your protestations to the contrary)

joseph brand wrote: »

Religion promotes homophobia, amongst some other unsavoury ideas, therefore . . . . .

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There is no logical link between homosexual pairings and polygamous relationships.

The fact is that if society can use its moral objection against homosexual marriage, then in the event of homosexual marriage being legitimized in the eyes of society, that society can continue to raise its moral objection against polygamy, unimpeded.