Ok, I made it sound too much like a bible, but anyway...
I recently watched most of a show debating about if gay rights are similar to the black civil rights movement (at least that's how it started). I say "most" because I grow tired of hearing the same arguments every time. There is literally no remotely logical argument anyone can present to me that I haven't heard before. Unless you're going to tell me something like "gay marriage will put the dairy farmers in Pakistan out of business," I've probably heard your story, regardless of what side you're on. That said, I've taken pretty high consideration to writing a book that would go over literally every argument ever presented toward this issue, but since my memory's pretty foggy for specifics, I need your help.
I'd appreciate it if you'd list whatever arguments you've heard, for and against, so that I have something to work off of. Preferably, I need arguments against it, because, having heard it all before, I could pretty easily get the counter-arguments for it. I'm not asking to actually debate it with you guys. That's what the book is for, so that I can calmly get all my thoughts together and it can be a reference for future debates (let me worry about getting that last part together).
Wow. A whole book? That's some pretty lofty ambitions. Good luck.
Well, besides the major arguments being heard of gay marriage being blashpemous religiously and that it could warp in a negative way the general preceptions of the family unit (Both of which I think are bullshit.) a more logical objection has to do with the tax issues.
Marriage possesses a number of tax benifits (Not much of which I know specifically), and the tax code for it was designed around the notion that the marriage would produce children. With a same-sex marriage, that's far less likely. (Artificial insemination and adoptions are possible alternatives, yes, but those things take time and money.)
look let's not call it marriage let's call it a commitment ok same thing just named different there prolem solved
Personally, I'm for it. I think gays use the fact that they can't marry as an excuse to sleep around and spread A.I.D.S.. Of course, the major reason the virus spreads more between gays is because of the anal bleeding, but I'd rather not think about that. Anyway, if you want an argument against it, well, here's my first one. I'll try to get some better ones later. When you have "his" and "his" towels, you don't know who owns which towel.
an A.I.D.S joke? really wise can't you try a little better
Quote:an A.I.D.S joke? really wise can't you try a little better
No, the towel thing was my lame joke. The A.I.D.S. thing is a fact. Didn't you ever wonder why it spreads more between gays than straights? Blood contact is surer than inter-sexual fluid, and unless you've got a really tiny dick, you'll get yourself some blood contact with sodomy. Just think about how sensitive the tissue there is. Just wiping too hard can leave red spots on the toilet paper. Sorry, am I getting a little too graphic for you? You see, in a way, this is a fact that's still a joke, a humorous observation, because my sense of humor ranges from corny to disturbingly sick.
it doesn't matter if children parents are gay or not the way children end up is due to the psicological aspects of the parents
and the thing about religion. ya have to think that the bible was written by people well maybe im wrong but i look foward to better relations between people the normal type of relationship go out bad.
Quote:it doesn't matter if children parents are gay or not the way children end up is due to the psicological aspects of the parents
Whoa, not so fast pal. I believe that a boy who would otherwise be straight can easily be turned gay by being raised by two gay parents, especially if they're girly gays (you know the type). If that's the lifestyle from the beginning, no sports, no fights, just decorating and Cher songs, my money is on the kid becoming a fag. For example, my parents are straight, but they've been showering my little brother with all kinds of gay influences (no sports, piano lessons, oldies music, acting classes, and way too much hugging and kissing). Now all the kids at school think he's gay, and he does act kind of gay, despite that there's this girl he really likes (and she likes him too). Logically, if straights raising gay-like can make someone metrosexual, gays raising gay-like can make someone homosexual. I'm not saying that gay and lesbian parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids, but there should be certain rules. Actually, lesbian parents can probably raise a boy or a girl without affecting the sexuality. You have the butch one and the girly one, so it evens out. It's just the gay males that are the problem. They should only be allowed to raise girls. Having them raise boys seriously could fuck with what would be the boy's sexuality, and that's not fair to him.
Time for the my words...
Marriage is not innately a matter of religion or of love, but of politics. In the modern age we don't like of think of it that way, because we like to avoid politics and political issues as much as we can, in addition to the fact that we like to think our choices are made for reasons like 'love'.
For thousands of years, marriages were conducted religiously, but they were rranged politically -- even Shakespeare saw that much. Romeo and Juliet, which was in fact based on an even older story, shows two children whose families are in a bitter (political) feud. Lord and Lady Capulet ARRANGE a marriage for Juliet with the higher-ranked Paris, but she gets infatuated with Romeo after a late-night meeting and they defy the politics of marriage. In the end, though, even their marriage has political implications, as their double-suicide ends up reconciling the differences between their families.
Politically, there are strong reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman only, and though there are some religions where men can marry multiple women, but that doesn't tend to change the politics, modern or otherwise, of the situation. The strongest reason, politically, to limite marriage to a single man and a single woman is the tax benefits they receive when they have children. The tax benefit received just by being married isn't worth excluding homosexual relationships, but once they start adopting children that benefit grows, as does the possibility that the next generation will see less offspring-producing marriages.
Religiously, there is a much stronger reason to limit marriafge to only a man and a woman -- divine regulation. This is why so many religious people get their panties in a bunch and hot under the collar when gay marriage comes up, they think that their god told them it's wrong to sleep with men. Now, in most religions this is true. Then they follow other passages to see that marriage was dictated by their god to be between a man and a woman. Again, in most religions this is true. And so most religious people fail to see that marriage is a political issue, and most would probably be happiest if all marriages were conducted under religious pretexts, which in our modern age is simply not the case.
I like to look at it differently. If marriage is a matter of religion, simply an institution brought on by religion, no government should ever need to recognize it legally, and we're left seeing that there is no reason why marriage should be allowed to homosexuals.
If marriage is a matter of love, as people in this age tend to think it is or should be, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals, because emotions do not recognize the physical body.
If marriage is a matter of procreation, there is no reason homosexuals should be allowed to marry, because they cannot procreate within their own relationship.
If, as it seems has been the case for well over 5000 years, marriage is not simply a matter of religion, of procreation, or of love, but is in fact a matter of politics there is only one simple answer. As homosexuals become an increasing contituency for modern politicians, the press will grow harder and harder for politicians to avoid making a decision, and they will have to either make homosexuality illegal (which would do wonders, just look at what the illegalization of marijuana has done) or they will have to legally allow homosexual marriages.
I am ignoring my own feelings in this case, which stem from the way I was raised much more than my own thought on the subject. This is my best effort at remaining objective in the issue.
People tend to have very strong opinions on this issue, especially the people who are against gay marriage. Today, I actually managed to convince somebody that it might not be such a bad idea. He was using the fact that marriage as in institution is based in religion, and religion is anti-gay, as his argument. I said that I believed that marriage had evolved into an institution of love, and the people at the discussion table told me I was full of crap. I said they had no sense of romance. Then I brought up the binding A.I.D.S. control argument, and the guy said he hadn't considered that, and it kind of changed his opinion on the issue. So to all you marriage wanting fags out there, you're welcome. :)