Why gay marriage is wrong. (No religion)

The whole “gay marriage” debate is predicated on the assumption that affective bonds trump the structural argument from nature for an other-sex prerequisite. What logical basis will remain for denying marriage to committed sexual unions comprised of three or more persons? In fact, the limitation of two persons in a sexual union at any one time is itself predicated on the idea that two sexes are necessary and sufficient for establishing a sexual whole. Once church and society reject a two-sexes prerequisite, there will be no logical ground for maintaining the sacredness of the number two in sexual relations. It is not surprising that litigants in polygamy cases in Utah and Arizona are now applying the moral reasoning of the Supreme Court decision in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case. Similarly, a committed sexual relationship between a man and his mother, or between two adult siblings, has as much right to marriage as homosexual unions. Incest prohibitions are predicated on the idea that it is inappropriate to validate a sexual merger between two persons who share too much structural sameness (here, of a familial sort through close blood relations). But an approval of same-sex intercourse cancels out arguments based on excessive structural similarity. Not even adult-child sex can be ruled out of bounds completely, and much less adult-adolescent sex, since some adults who have had sex as children are asymptomatic in terms of scientifically measurable negative effect.

By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. As one ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20). The modern word “homosexual”—from the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident desire for the essential sexual self shared in common with one’s partner.

Its also interesting that homosexual men, even those who bear effeminate traits, usually desire very “masculine” men as their sex partners. Why? Undoubtedly many desire what they see as lacking in themselves: a strong masculine quality. Such a desire is really a form of self-delusion. They are already men, already masculine. They are masculine by virtue of their sex, not by virtue of possessing a social construct of masculinity that may or may not reflect true masculinity. They need not seek completion in a sexual same. Rather, they must come to terms with their essential masculinity.

 

I can't take this argument seriously. The other scenarios, which you seem to think are inevitable if gay marriage were permitted, are morally unjustifiable. Homosexuality is not. Homosexuals are consenting adults, a child cannot consent in the same way that an adult can. Polygamy is the only example that truly might have some ground to stand on, but it is another example of (for the most part) consenting adults doing what makes them happy at no one's expense. I mean, if we were talking purely about polygamy in the sense that the media portrays it -- cults where men are idolized and often thought of with religious significance -- then yes, it would be morally unjustifiable. I think the rate of divorce alone goes to show that humans, by nature, are not monogamous creatures.

 

I can't take this seriously. But please continue to make me laugh.

 

Sweet copypasta bro. If you're going to plagiarize/rip an argument, at least find one that isn't fucking stupid. Gotta love religious pseudoscience


>>>You ripped from this page<<<

 

Doesn't really matter. He is just starting an argument with an argument.

There is nothing immoral about polygamy unless it harms the kids. There is a reason to ban sibling relationships because of the high risk of birth defects. Same applies to parents > child relationships. Kids also can not consent to sex the way an adult can. There also needs to be a legal age for age of consent. This is a practical matter not some moral matter.

 

It's not wrong. You should be allowed to get married with the one you love.

 

Gay marriage is wrong because marriage is a religious ceremony, the only reason any atheist gets married is because of the government/insurance (same in some cases) benefits you get from it. For example at least where I am if I get married my insurance drops a TREMENDOUS amount of money for the rest of my life. There are tax deductions associated with certain things for married couples.

Basically its kinda the black sheep of the constitution which stated that religion and state should be separate. Marriage (and by proxy gay marriage) is a religious ceremony, whatever religion should be able to control whether you are allowed to have same sex marriages or not. The current marriage system in the government should be destroyed and replaced with a system call it life partnership or whatever the most cheesy name you can call it and give it all the same benefits as you get with marriage.

So basically when filling out paperwork for the government when it says relationship status you put life partnered instead of married, ect. Then you let the churches decide whether they want to allow gays to marry because the ceremony is theirs and its the churches right to decide who takes part in such ceremonies.

I bet that's the first time anyone has ever heard me defend a church.

 

There is no need to defend the church in this matter as "marriage" holds more value and meaning than JUST religious ceremony such as the tax breaks, insurance issues, and hospital visitation rights as you touched up on earlier.

See, the problem with defending marriage as a strictly religious ceremony is that you then alienate homosexuals and those who don't want to partake in marriage from achieving the same rights as married individuals. Yes, there should be a "partnership" which grants all of the same rights but it has been tried and has failed.


also to OP

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. GG

 

This is the only answer that will dismiss the argument. It, however, is an opinion.

 

There are enough of these threads. +It's a gravedig.