End to Gay Marriage

I'd like to offer my sincerest thanks to sythe.org and every other site that helped me prep this article through intelligent debate. It's going to get published. Feel free to refute if you want; I'm open to more criticism.

Version 1 [Short Version]:

Version 2 [Long Version]:

 

Wow cool, where are you publishing it?

I'm not going to critique the whole thing, but maybe just nit pick a few things.

I'd be careful with this one, a lot of the founding fathers were explicitly anti-Christian.
If you're referring to some of the Ten Commandants (specifically the ones like Do not kill, Do not steal, etc), yes they are some of the principles of our country, but they aren't necessarily from religion. I believe our nation was built from the principles of natural rights (though, they did not carry them to their logical end), I mean, you can see plainly the influence of Locke in the Constitution.

Ok, so we can classify homosexuals as perverts. I don't necessarily agree with that definition, but I don't want to argue semantics, they're rather boring

So homosexuals cannot truly love each other because what they do is perverted? Even though I don't agree with calling them perverts, I still don't see why perverts can't experience true love.

Since he is the author of a book about Hep A, I'd think he interviewed mostly homosexuals with Hep A, who would likely have more sex partners for the same reason they got the disease.

Sure. Society might choose to look down on this kind of marriage, but that's no reason to prevent it from happening.

Sure. Society might choose to look down on this kind of marriage, but that's no reason to prevent it from happening.

Animals can't consent.

I don't completely understand what you mean, particularly the first part of the sentence.

Presumably it's to combat the claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

How so?



My perspective is basically this:
I don't believe the current government should exist and hand out marriage licenses to anybody. However, since it does, there is no reason to discriminate against two people who love each other. In my ideal society, two people (or more, I guess) could call each other married, but it would depend on the values of society to whether or not they accept the marriage as legitimate.

By the way, that's probably the only semi-thought out argument against gay marriage I've seen here in awhile, so thanks for provoking some discussion.


e: damn I only read your short version.

 

Meh.

1. You are here to end homosexual marriage, not homosexuality. So regardless of what you do, you will still have homosexual couples, regardless of whether they are married or not.

2. Consummation: As said before, it is NOT required in the majority of states. This is according to usmarriagelaws.com - therefore it is NOT widely spread. Furthermore, no state defines consummation as sex that must be between a vagina and penis.

3. Perversion: The grounds for banning marriages for perversion of any type have yet to be established. So before one can establish that gay marriage is a perversion, one must first establish that marriages must not include it.

Same exact problems as last time. Nothing new here.

 

How fallacious. The constitution explicitly states that Man is able to worship as he pleases, but that they are also not obligated to follow one [Religion]. America is built on a foundation of secular principles. Look that up.

 

I'd say that while the Christian Ideals are not written directly into the constitution, our nation has, as a society, leaned that way.

 

What you mean to say, is that we are a democracy?

Well yea, but that's not his point here. It's not about the majority against the minority, at least in that post...

 

Wow I just quickly glanced over this article and didn't know where to start. But first I want to tell you to read this article, since you are probably way to biased on the topic to look for articles like these:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

America is a land of people who were escaping religious persecution. Seriously, were you paying attention in history class?

Homosexuals have just as much fun making love as heterosexuals. And if you haven't noticed, heterosexuals also do oral and anal sex.

"Homosexual oral and anal sex" so you are saying that heterosexual oral and anal sex is harmless then? hahaha

Well since gay marriage is illegal in most states, they can't stay with one partner so they keep fucking each other. You people created this problem and are now complaining about the effects.

Less than 1% of Americans have autism, so that means they are perverts too? This is again, an idiotic argument. Being the expert about homosexuals that you are, you should have known that the homosexual brain is much different than the heterosexual brain, therefore they can't help acting the way they do. By your logic, all people with rare genetic disorders are perverts.

What do you mean by "Normal" people? Have you ever heard of the word "prostitute"? I heard they tie up their self image with sexuality too. And young girls dress slutty all the time to attract guys, just like homosexuals dress like that to attract other homosexuals.

Homosexuals have personalities too, since they're human also, remember?

"Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2008) — Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

You said yourself that homosexuals only consist of about 1% of the population, so this "adding on to it" wouldn't even be noticeable.

Just tell them it's two girls kissing each other? It's a much easier to explain that than to explain how the penis goes into the vagina, and they're going to learn what homosexuality is one way or another.

The stuff that goes on at Guantanamo Bay beats this shit by far. Take a look yourself: http://www.bradblog.com/Images/AbuGhraib_MudChrist.jpg and http://www.infowars.net/pictures/news_files/Nov05/281105AbuG.jpg

Way more sadistic and perverted shit is thought up of by government officials than NAMBLA can even think of. So lets redirect our anger from innocent homosexuals doing what they love to do and direct it at the real enemy.

You know what provides emotional hurt for me? The fact that we are torturing and killing innocent people in the middle east. It's pretty simple actually, if you don't want to see gay people whipping each other in leather suits then DON'T LOOK FOR IT.

 

Ouch, this has become quite the "intelligent debate". I wish I had the time to comment on everything in your little article, alas, I am time restricted. It seems as if everyone else has pretty much beat me to the punch anyway. I agree with everyone that disagrees with your article

First off, I am bisexual, meaning I "swing both ways" if you'll forgive the metaphor. So this is a little touchy for me.

Well, I'm not sure if the USCB actually went door to door asking every single person whether or not they are homosexual. I also don't think that they considered the people that are bisexual.

Also, how does it fit under perversion? I think it fits the category as a minority, not of perversion. Maybe you have your words wrong. Just because Christianity is the major religion in the United States, it doesn't mean that those who worship another deity are "perverts".

Now, I ask you, what is the difference between mindless sex and marriage? Marriage is generally safer. How would banning gay marriage stop the spread of diseases? To me, it would accelerate the spread.

That is all the time I have right now >.>

 

I prefer the metaphor "bats for both teams"

Using the definition he provided, I suppose you could classify homosexuality under perversion, but it's not commonly done, and the op doesn't completely explain why perverts can't experience true love.

 

It may follow the definition he gives, but I still think there would be a better word for it. It seems to be a word that quickly biases the casual reader's opinion. "Perverts" are generally seen as the "touch your 4-year old" type.

Also, great metaphor haha. Haven't really heard that one before.

 

Well written, for the most part. While I disagree with you entirely, I respect your well-thought out opinion.

I'd take out the part about animals - it's really been beaten to death and is a fallacious argument.

 

No matter how good it looks, how good its written, or how many big words you put into it.

Gay marriage will always be a matter of opinion. We have no right to get in the way of a persons pursuit of happiness.

 

Thanks for the feedback all. Unfortunately, I have my hands full with some U of I English Professor or some shit named Kevin Heintz so I probably won't respond much to any of you. Though, I definitely read everyone's posts.

Anyway, not that I need anymore bs competition, but feel free to flock over at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1258080010&ref=nf#/topic.php?uid=85458351849&topic=8390

 

I couldn't live with myself without addressing everyone at least briefly. If I ignored you, you were either retarded or repetitive.

Correction: many were anti-Catholic. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Perverts are driven by lust and abnormal means of sexual gratification, very shallow forms of love.

Not a reason on it's own. Though it is all the more reason; Icing on the cake, etc.

If we can alter the definition in one way, why should we hold back from altering the definitions in different ways to suit more perversion?

I don't care; they have free will. Let them be. But do not reward a wrong.

That's the only source that says that. I can't find anything else and I'm unsure as to how credible the site really is.

Also, I'm not even sure your claim is true or not, but no state defined consummation that way because it probably never occurred to to law makers at the time as the concept of gay marriage was probably the furthest thing from their minds.

Marriage, for the time being, doesn't include gays. Homosexuality = perversion. Therefore, marriage doesn't include perversion.

The same argument can work for pedophiles, animal lusters, etc..

It's not about majority against minority. They aren't just Christian principles, they're the same principles shared across the majority of major religions in the world.

Democracy or politics has nothing to do with it. Like Jansen said, it's just the way society culturally crafted it.

I am, in fact, pursuing a double major-- one of which being History. Also, like I've said earlier in this post, the founding fathers were still Christian. Catholics, no (only 3 I think). Protestants, yes.

No, but homosexual oral and anal is scientifically proven to be way more dangerous.

If they can't stay together because they're not able to marry then wtf? Not being able to marry shouldn't be reason to leave your partner if you really claim to care about him or her. But they don't. It'll just lead to high rates of homosexual divorce or homosexual adultery.

Sigh. You're thinking too much. And fallaciously, might I add.

An adequate answer to this idiocy requires too much effort. I'm not in the mood to educate.

Yes, I agree.

Oh, but it would. Go check out the links towards the end of the long version.

Fallacious argument of government v nambla. You're comparing to very different and irrelevant things. Also, this has nothing to do with the debate of whether or not the concept of gay marriage is fallacious.

Not looking for it won't be a viable solution. It will eventually become unavoidable.

Explain bisexuality to me as thoroughly as you possibly can. I don't mean by definition, I mean by experience.

So the United States Census Bureau is not credible then? Also, bisexuality is a whole different category.

Sigh..

It wouldn't accelerate the spread. Cheaters will cheat, married or otherwise. Also, like I said earlier, if simply not getting married is reasonable cause for a break up in the gay lifestyle then it just proves how much more of a shallow perversion it is.

Thanks.

Pursuit of happiness is different for every person. What if my pursuit of happiness was to be a serial killer? Do you have the right to get in the way of my pursuit of happiness?

 

So being homosexual is "wrong". How so? Your now attacking homosexuals, not just marriage. Be wary when you cross this line, as many supporters of your cause are not so polarized when it comes to bashing homosexuality itself.

Provide a more reputable source and I concede my point.

Marriage in MOST state don't. Also, this is a rectangles are squares fallacy.

Not the majority. And if it was the case, I'd be careful about "following" everyone else.

For me, this is a liberty issue. That is, I absolutely despise the KKK but I absolutely respect their right to organize and protest. I say fag, gay, etc in my everyday vernacular. I don't have an emotional preference. I'm here for civil liberties, not for proving right or wrong. I would never rally in a gay pride parade, but I'd subtly check the box favoring marriage if it ever came to vote.

 

But why are they necessarily driven by lust? I could just simply assert the opposite. Of your entire argument, this is the one piece I either don't understand well, or is full of holes.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying:
Homosexuals are perverts
Perverts can't experience true love
Homosexuals can't experience true love
Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry
Yes?
If so, the part I don't understand is the "perverts can't experience true love"
Most people in society would not classify homosexuals as perverts anyway, even if you could make the argument they technically are.

 

I didn't read the wall of text, I simply want an answer to this question: WHY do homosexuals want to be married? The Bible states very clearly that if a man lies with another man, as he would with a woman, they should both be killed (Leviticus 20:13).

So why do they want to be married, or have anything to do with a religion that is instructed to kill them?

I don't have anything against homosexuals, and I'm an atheist, so they can marry all they like if it was up to me. I just don't understand the problem.

 

Being homosexual is WRONG. It's a disorder, It may not be classified as a disorder because that's not "politically correct" but it obviously is. Men and Women are SUPPOSED to be together. You do not see men and men in any other species and humans are ANIMALS.

No Mammal out there has any kind of sexual relashionship with the same sex Nor do reptiles I could be wrong about the reptiles part and if I am that's not relevant because humans are mammals. Men and Men cannot technically mate, The point of life is to reproduce and survive and that is not debatable by the way It's common sense.

IT is a disorder It is wrong It is not as nature intended. Who cares what god says? he doesn't exist there's no proof of him but there is of evolution and evolution created what we call nature and in nature Males with Males Is WRONG It's not even debatable. Good fight kid's K.O but I know you tried.

 

I stopped reading after this. If you want to know why, I direct you to google search.

Don't use incorrect facts to support an argument. Makes you look like an idiot, if you aren't one already.

 

I didn't read that whole thing at all honestly because I don't have that much time to waste when this can be summed up in a short explanation. If your not homosexual then why does this bother you? They arn't harming you. When they get married it does not have anything to do with your life if your not homosexual, so WHY THE FUCK DO YOU EVEN CARE?