Reasoned Argument AGAINST Gay Marriage (A CHALLENGE FOR DIMWITS)

[Beetwasher]

I had a post yesterday that got nuked, many of you may have seen it, it was about giving a certain public figure a hearty fuck you because of his public, loud, hateful condemnation of gay's and abortion.

In that thread an interesting thing occurred, aside from the appearance of the usual suspects who were appalled at my potty mouth, I was told that so far there has been no reasonable argument in support of gay marriage. Now, aside from the obvious and total falsity of that statement, because in fact, there are many, many reasoned arguments on the subject and anyone w/ half a brain can understand them, it occurred to me that anyone who asks that question really has a fundamentally demented and warped view of the world.

Why the fuck should anyone have to have a reasoned argument FOR gay marriage???? One would think (if you actually are progressive) that if you are going to strip someone of their basic, fundamental, inalienable human right to pursue happiness, that the person doing the stripping of those rights, or who supports the stripping of those rights, would be the one who has to present a reasonable argument for doing so.

So here's my challenge to the dimwits who want to strip a segement of the population of their inalienable right to pursue happiness in their private, personal life that is none of anyone elses fucking business. I challenge you to give a reasonable argument why anyone should be allowed to stop ANYONE from getting married and why it is any of your fucking business. Now, remember, I want a REASONABLE argument. That means NO RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT BECAUSE THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNREASONABLE. Separation of church and state and all that (and I know how that sticks in dimwits craws).

Bring it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. It's humorous that your post got nuked but that person didn't

but don't worry, DU isn't being trolled :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. No, DU is all about diversity of opinion!

even if those opinions are more at home in Nazi Germany! :eyes:

[arwalden]

51. Amazing... Isn't It?

Most other threads that turn into flame wars simply get locked.

[skypilot]

2. Reasoned argument

The children will get all confused...straights will all ditch the oppostite sex and hook up with their own gender...birth rates will plummet... the insects will take over...civilization as we know it will end.

I think that about covers it.

[libnnc]

62. you forgot dogs and cats living together...n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. To play Devil's advocate, one could argue that it is a major error

to pursue "gay marriage" instead of "civil unions." The latter is about the government granting full legal protection to homosexual couples, while the former can constitute a governmentally-imposed redefinition of a social and religious institution--against the clear wishes of the majority.

Leave marriage out of it, and focus on the legal rights.

[Beetwasher]

5. Semantics

Not interested in the semantics. You call it a civil union, I call it a marriage, no difference as far as I'm concerned.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

8. There is a difference

One is the back of the bus.

[Marnieworld]

38. Sounds like "Separate but equal" to me

That didn't work either.

I agree with the OP. There is no reason why anyone who wants to get married can't unless you truly believe that gays/lesbians/bi/tri/trans are second class citizens to heterosexuals and deserve less rights.

The whole "protecting marriage" arguement is ridiculous since the divorce rate is 50% and no one is talking about changing the Constitution to ban adultery. The arguement about separation of church and state is nullified because it would only replicate the current intrusion of the government into the matter. I was married in a civil ceremony would I have to change my semantics to civil union and call my husband my partner? Marriage is for procreation? Once again we are childfree by choice but still considered married.

Not allowing same-sex couples to marry is institutionalized hatred and is indefensible unless you are on board with the hatred.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

40. thank you!

you get it!

:hi:

[Marnieworld]

45. You're welcome

and I love your smoking smiley! ;-)

[geek tragedy]

12. But to many people there IS a difference.

In terms of politics and getting legislation passed, there's a world of difference.

[Beetwasher]

28. It's Beside The Point

IMO. You support gay marriage, but want to call it something else. Cool. But that's not what this post is about. There are still people, including the pope, who are against gay people's unions (however you want to define them) period.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. Separate but Equal was defined unconstitutional.

if one citizen can have it, every citizen should. if marriage is available by the govt. to extrapolate benefits and rights, it has to be an institution open to ever American, so every American can get these rights. Its either marriage for everyone, or marriage for NO ONE including straights. if marriage is religious why is the govt. using it to give 1,138 different rights and benefits?

[GiovanniC]

14. Marriage Shouldn't Be Available Through the Government

Civil unions should. For ALL citizens. It should be a purely legal matter -- a particularly strong and exclusive contract between any two consenting adults. It should grant, in the eyes of the laws, all the rights, priveledges, and responsibilities that are currently associated with marriage today... such as survivor benefits, hospital visitation, tax filing status, property ownership, joint liability, et cetera.

Separate religious institutions could then additionally administer (or not administer) their own ceremonies as they see fit.

To me, this is the only fair way to handle this issue.

[geek tragedy]

16. The government could extend protections to "persons married or joined

by civil union."

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

17. Ding Ding Ding!!! Just solve the whole problem by

taking the govt. out of the marriage business ALL together. That way, no ones poor religious beliefs will be trampled on :sarcasm:

but seriously, its probably the only effective way to make glbt people equal without having the religious right start a new civil war.

[zipplewrath]

22. 'Zactly

In essence we have a chance here to clear up all of the various legal status and divorce issues. Create clear definitions of "incorporated unions" between two adults. Clearly define both the rights and responsibilities of BOTH adults on an EQUAL basis. The terms of dissolving such unions would also be predefined. Churches can do what they wish including polygamy for all I care. The state is only gonna recognize one union at a time.

[geek tragedy]

15. Again, why not just grant all of the legal rights but call them civil

unions? A significant majority of folks favor granting full legal protections--why fumble the ball by insisting on using the "M" word?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

19. because its unconstitutional to not allow

every american to take part in every american institution. you cant make a special instituion for people just cause they are different then you

[geek tragedy]

21. The constitution guarantees "equal protection." One can offer

equal protection without using the "m" word.

Would it be preferable to be able to use the "m" word for gay couples? Sure.

But we're talking about political reality, and that reality is that civil unions are there for the taking, but gay marriage is a loser of an issue.

Absolutism is not our friend.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

23. blacks were considered 3/5th a person. half of America fought

to keep that a reality more then a political reality. I'm sick of this compromise crap. I'm sorry, but when they are trying to make a constitutional amendment to OUTLAW basic American rights, there is a major issue here that being sneaky with semantics wont fix.

It has to be all or nothing. Its either Marriage for all or Civil Unions for all. You cannot go around saying person A is allowed to beg married while person B cannot partake in that institution. Talk about making people second class citizens!

[geek tragedy]

27. That's a nice sentiment in an argument on the Internet, but in terms

of political reality and achieving real progress, that is exactly the approach the rightwingers and Republicans WANT us to take.

Pass civil unions now, and within twenty years they'll just be called gay marriages anyway.

We shouldn't be above sneakiness.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

37. If i was sure passing civil unions now would lead to

marriage in 20 years, id be all for it. the problem is i dont think it will.

[geek tragedy]

39. You don't know that there'll be gay marriage in twenty years without

civil unions. Why not take civil unions now and work on the "m" word later?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

41. all i can see is this great trend of denying American citizens

rights and opportunities being written into state constitutions that DONT ALLOW for civil unions. you're saying grab the crumbs now and go for the cookie later. I dont think they'll be any cookies or crumbs left pretty soon.

Couldn't it be the RW wants us to clamor for "civil unions" while they pass draconian legislation stopping us from every being truly equal?

[geek tragedy]

42. Civil unions=the cookie. Calling it marriage=the crumbs.

And (this is crucial): the state amendments are a reaction to the idea of "gay marriage." Take the "m" word off the table and just push for civil unions, and we can fly under the radar on it.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

46. but thats the whole point I'm trying to make

you are giving your fellow citizens far to much credit. You are making this about discrimination and hatred: Americans cant handle gays being let into marriage, so shut up and take civil unions while you can.

I DON'T WANNA BE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN.

I wanna be able to go to city hall like any other American and be treated as equal, not fill out a different form because I want to get married but cant so i have to get a civil union instead. not have a different certificate on the wall. I want to be EQUAL. Its either marriage for everyone or civil unions for everyone, they both cannot co-exist.

If the govt. is calling it marriage and giving 1138 benefits to everyone who gets married it has to open to every American citizen of legal age and non-blood relation. I'm not excepting any substitutes.

[geek tragedy]

48. Politics is the art of the possible.

Gay marriage isn't possible--civil unions are.

Take civil unions now, and gay marriage becomes more possible than they would otherwise.

It's not perfect, but it's progress--which is the name of the game.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

54. you are right about that, politics is the art of the possible.

but the only reason you dont think gay marriage is possible is that you are falling for the same crap they are spoon feeding most of america. like you say, if politics is the art of possibility, why are gay marriages not possible? you are being self-defeating.

It could be progress to take civil unions now, there isnt any assurance that youll get to equality later on.

[geek tragedy]

59. Look at this past election.

Having the debate concern "gay marriage" is a losing proposition--we lose ground that way. Is gay marriage a possibility in this country now? Absolutely not.

Having it concern civil unions means VERY significant progress

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

61. what is progress

without equality?

look, im only trying to make the point that it needs to be every american can get married or every american can get a civil union. it has to be equal. thats my belief on this. call it what you will, but it has to be 1 institution open to all americans.

[geek tragedy]

63. But, civil unions are better than nothing. Right?

Why not take the low-hanging fruit and then go for the more contentious stuff?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

64. i dont disagree there, but

its still not equality. And that is what this marriage debate is about. are all American citizens equal? or do ones that don't fit the hetronormative mold have to be "treated differently"?

[geek tragedy]

66. So let's focus on civil unions now, and once we have those then raise a

bigger noise about formal equality.

We progressives need to learn to play to win.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

67. playing to win means going for it all

and then compromising.

not going for a compormise first and then planing, later on, to get it all.

[geek tragedy]

70. Winning means picking the right strategy

Overreaching can be a serious mistake and counter-productive.

Segregation in the South was not overturned in one court case. NAACP lawyers whittled away at it for decades until the Brown decision came.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

72. but that whittling away

hasn't started here and it was part of a bigger platform. If there was this platform with marriage as the ultimate goal, itd be a different situation. but people seem to just say civil uions is great and thats all we need.

[geek tragedy]

73. Whittle away by getting full legal and material rights.

Then, move in for formal equality. It's a much easier transition.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

74. too bad people are content to say

civil unions is all we need and will fix this "problem" of gays wanting to be equal. show me where that transition will be and ill believe you. tell then, id like to fight for equality.

[geek tragedy]

77. Civil unions are a band-aid. But that's better than an open wound. eom

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

68. dupe

delete

[Misunderestimator]

76. Civil unions were fought for and won... and then taken away by ballot

measures for state constitutional amendments. If we continue such a losing fight, it would be an entire waste of energy and resources, only to win state by state at the same time we get clobbered state by state... setting even MORE precedent for federal amendment.

Do you see the stupidity in such a plan?

"we progressives need to learn to play to win" ... exactly. WE do.

[geek tragedy]

78. Those amendments came about because the debate was over

"marriage." Let them define marriage as between man and woman---for now. Take what's on the table and fight for the rest.

[Misunderestimator]

80. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE DAMN TABLE.

And I will choose my own fights.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

81. Misunderestimator is exactly right. n/t

[sniffa]

82. Losing ground?

first of aLL, gay marriage was not an issue for the dems this past eLection - it was a tag the RW stuck on us, and kerry and a bunch did their best to sidestep, and vocaLLy assert that they're against gay marriage.
the fact that you tied the dems to gay marriage is very teLLing - either that echo chamber did a reaLLy, good job (despite your membership here) of setting that up, or..........

you say it's a Losing proposition - we Lost anyhow, without doing the right thing, in endorsing equaL rights. wouLdn't you feeL better if we had done what's right and Lost, rather than cave, do the wrong thing, and Lose anyway?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

47. civil unions would be the cookie

if straights could only get "civilly unionized" instead of marriage. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Marnieworld]

49. I agree no compromise

Marriage for all or civil unions for all. That is the only way for true equality.

I thought for a second that it reminds me of how women in Saudi Arabia are prevented from driving. There now is the beginning of a movement to change this but it is meeting with fierce resistance. Their culture and religion insist that women never be seen or interact with men so the whole no driving rule enforces this. It's religious by nature just like the people here using the bible as an excuse for oppression. Neither is moral. Both are oppressive but hiding behind culture and religion the hatred is codified.

Civil Unions is like the attempt by others to say women don't need to drive because they have family members and sometimes hired drivers take them where they need to go. Why would anyone have a problem if the women can still get to the destination where's the oppression right?

In battles of morality there can't be compromise. The only just solution is an equal opportunity for all. You can talk political strategy and likelihood of victory but you are just hiring a driver instead of giving the gal the keys!

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

65. great analogy!

I totally agree

[Beetwasher]

25. Fine, But That's Sort of Beside the Point

Of my post. You are making a reasoned argument FOR gay marriage, but only redefining it as something else, as far as I'm concerned.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

34. I know...im just doing more infighting instead of

fighting the other side

:hi:

[Coexist]

20. why not use "Civil Marriage" to describe a legal marriage of two people

i.e. state issued marriage certificate required for legal reasons, including taxes.

and use "Religious Marriage" to describe the church blessing that takes place in a religious service that has no legal weight at all.

Use these phrases, and I think people may bite.

[geek tragedy]

24. Seriously, the "m" word has some sort of magic effect on people.

Awareness of that can only help us. For once--just once--can't WE be the smart ones and use language to our advantage instead of using the Republicans' dictionary.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

29. I'm sorry but its not just a word.

its an institution. an institution that every American should be able to be a part of. There are people changing there state constitution to deny us ANY legal "marriage" right. this isn't something thats gonna be compromised over.

Here's your train car: its smaller, dankier, and filled with rats compared to that train car over there...but its the same as the whites train car because we say it is. is that equal protection? Thats this "marriage" v "civil union" argument to me. Either everyone gets one or the other. no gray scale about it.

[Coexist]

31. my certificate from the State of Florida says marriage on it

if I never got a religious blessing in a ceremony, I still get all the bennies of being married.

[Misunderestimator]

53. The "g" word also has some magic effect on people...when added to the "m"

word. It's not US using this language. Marriage is already a FEDERAL institution. Until there really is a separation of church and government, anything less than marriage is not equality.

Fundamentalists are not going to capitulate just because we use a different word, and suddenly think that we deserve equal rights. Do you really think that?

[Terran]

71. Um, I think you're wrong there

A significant majority of folks favor granting full legal protections

If by that you mean that a majority of the US thinks that GLBT folk are entitled to the same government-derived benefits that straight people obtain via marriage, I doubt this is true. Or I should say, I'll be very surprised if it's true. Can you substantiate?

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Because this is a religion besotted country.

I favor a two-tiered system, with the government giving licenses for civil unions, which can be called marriage for convenience sake, and all persons are accorded equal benefits from this level of union. If anyone wishes a formal marriage certificate, approved by the church of their choice, they do that in a second ceremony. That will allow the bigots to say that they are married while everyone else isn't, really, and allow the sane people to recognize that everybody is equally married. This already exists, to some degree, because divorced persons can get a marriage license from the government that will not be recognized by certain churches. That leaves those persons unmarried by the church's standards, but married in the eyes of the government.

Same thing.

The argument against this is not that gay marriage weakens traditional marriage, but that gay marriage weakens traditional churches. This may or may not be true, but either way it is constitutionally none of the government's business.

[Marnieworld]

43. "Clear wishes of the majority?"

Since when is this democracy only about majority rule? Democracy is supposed to protect the rights of the minority by design.

Also cite how you know the majority feeling? Polls? I think the most favor the term civil union as you suggest but even that says that the majority then believes that all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the law. Semantics. If civil unions become legal gay people will still call it marriage and use the terminology inherent so it's irrelevant.

I agree how legal rights is the most important issue that should be pursued however. I'm sure many a gay couple would say to hell with the official semantics, I want health care, and property rights and hospital visitation and joing filing and a whole bunch of stuff that I get because I happened to be born with the preference for the opposite sex. If they got this I'm sure over time the semantics issue would just evolve to everyone being "married" anyway. I'm an optimist. I just can't get why anyone, especially those who are supposed to be motivated by Jesus who from what I've gathered was really big on the whole love everybody thing, can't appreciate all forms of love and embrace it. I just don't get the hate.

[geek tragedy]

50. Legal rights would include health care--everything.

"If civil unions become legal gay people will still call it marriage and use the terminology inherent so it's irrelevant."

But the order in which one pursues goals is very, very important.

What's better--civil unions then gay marriage, or nothing?

[Marnieworld]

52. I guess it's a question of strategy

Pursue marriage compromise with civil unions. Pursue civil unions and possibly get nothing. I don't know if anyone needing the rights would care what it is labeled as so there we agree.

[Misunderestimator]

57. Why do you feel so strongly about this term?

Is this word and this privilege off-limits to me, purely because I am gay? Well, yes it is... and you would like to keep it that way.

[geek tragedy]

58. No, I favor gay marriage. But, I recognize that using that terminology

helps the Republicans deny you more significant legal rights.

Just think about it: There's a public debate about the whole issue. On one side are the homophobes. On the other side are those who want the maximum legal protections for homosexuals. The goal is to persuade those in the middle.

Who wants the debate to be about "gay marriage" and who wants it to be about "civil unions?"

[Misunderestimator]

69. But the terminology is already there.... and already equated with rights

You can't do anything about that. Do you get my point? That fundamentalists are not going to change their opinion simply because we change the word? That they are not going to give up their precious place on top of their self-righteous pedestal?

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE WORD. They want to keep us in our place. And frankly... I don't give a damn what YOU think is progress. I will accept nothing less than equality. Civil unions, as they are currently defined (bringing NO federal rights or benefits, and even taxing other benefits that are not taxed for married couples)... are NOTHING TO ME!!

[geek tragedy]

75. The polls tell a much different story.

Polls indicate that a majority of people oppose gay marriage, but that also a majority favor civil unions.

Civil unions should include all federal benefits, of course.

[Misunderestimator]

79. "Should" Means absolutely nothing. They DON'T include the same benefits.

And I care as much about polls of people deciding what rights I should have as much as I care about civil unions.

Figure it out.... Civil unions that existed were just destroyed in the last election. Apparently, voters don't want us to have those either. Fine with me... I don't want them. I want equality.

[TayTay]

4. Not an argument against per se but

a call to look at the consequences. In Massachusetts there were unintended consequences. A lot of companies declared that, great, now that Gay Marriage is legal we declare that we don't have to provide coverage for 'significant others' in insurance and benefits. A lot of companies made that go away.

Arguably, this affects many, many more people, gay or straight, than did Gay Marriage. It is something to think about. Remember, corporations are after the bottom line and they used the fairness argument to cut liabilities. It is something to think about.

[Beetwasher]

7. You're Right, That's Not An Argument Against

Everyone has to deal w/ the consequences of their actions and be aware of the implications.

[fasttense]

13. Well then to get the true benefits of marriage from major corporations,

both straight and gay couples will have to get married.

[fasttense]

9. How about an argument for allowing divorced people to get remarried.

I agree, there need be no reasoned arguments for gay marriage (that's like saying you need a reasoned argument for divorced people to get remarried). If the establishment is not going to allow gays to marry they need to explain why. This silly little jingo about it somehow hurts everyone's marriage is nonsensical. I don't understand their arguments against it.

[rurallib]

10. I heard a professor on UCTV talking about marriage

I was amazed by one of his statements - that the state (gov't of any sort) took almost no interest in the idea of marriage til the civil war. That prior to the civil war most (almost all) marriages in the US were of the 'common-law' variety. Following the civil war states began enacting laws on marriage to define what races could marry which.
In other words, marriage laws began as a way to discriminate and continue to be used as such.
I've always wished that the repubs would put all their prejudices in one over-riding amendment such as:
"Marriage will be between one man and one woman, of the same race and religious sect. Should the woman be barren after 5 years the man may dump her and try again."

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

11. Check this out

[Cats Against Frist]

18. :) I love your passion

you know, but I have an argument. All marriage laws should be overhauled, and all marriages made into civil unions, into which any two consenting adults may enter.

Done.

A reason to exclude gays from state-approved marriage, is that NO ONE should want, nor need, a state-approved marriage.

[tex-wyo-dem]

30. I agree with you, however...

what many people do not understand is that marriage is not a religious institution, it is a state institution. Therefore, not allowing gays to marry is unconstitutional since it can easily be argued as discrimination by the state.

[Beetwasher]

32. Well, That's An Argument In Support of Gay Marriage

actually, only you just call it something else and make it the same for everyone.

[tex-wyo-dem]

26. The argument I've heard...

on Reich-wing talk radio is that if you allow gays to marry it will set a precedence and open the door for polygamy, mixed-gender polygamy, incestual marriage, every other combination you can think of, not to mention it will confuse the children into thinking this is "normal." This is a ridiculous argument since the law can easily be written to define marriage as between two people, period.

Love the Tom Tomorrow, by the way. He always hits the nail squarely on the head.

[bunkerbuster1]

33. Here's the 62% argument (hint--it "makes ze vurld go around...")

you know, 62% of white males voted for Chimpy, and here's how most of them probably will argue against gay marriage. Note frequent use of personal pronouns:

"I've got nothing against gays. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if a couple of bone-smokers want to hole up and do the nasty, it means less competition for me. What I do mind is calling what those guys do 'marriage.' Let's face it, when people marry, they expect to have bennies for their wives, and that's something all of us will have to pay for."

That's probably 75% of it. Oh, they don't want gays to adopt kids either, and they're probably a little grossed out by the idea of actual gay sex, but they probably recognize there's jack shit they can do to stop either one.

So it's mostly about money.

And if you firmly believe that gay marriage will wind up costing you, it's a persuasive argument.

Now, as a hetero white male, I not share this belief. I think it will be a net financial benefit for people to make commitments to one another, and to care for one another, rather than being left unmoored, so to speak.

But it's not me that has to be convinced. It's those not-so-bright 62%.

[Beetwasher]

36. Persuasive Does Not Equal Reasonable

Though...Many persuasive arguments are emotional based and have no basis in sound reason. That's is one of them. "I ain't payin' for no gays!"

[bunkerbuster1]

44. Well, you've got me then.

It's not reasonable to you and me because we know better.

I do think it'd behoove us to remember the "I ain't payin'" argument more often. I think that's what drives more of this than anything else.

[Lexingtonian]

56. well, you do implicitly assert this funny idea

that this country's government and society actually obey their Constitution fully. If that were the case you truly would not need to make an argument for things such as legalizing gay marriage.

Unfortunately, such obedience/fidelity is not the case. The part of it that you are leaning on so heavily is exactly the part that one side of the country specifically denies and the other- ours- is still halfhearted about. Indeed, our side is so pained by inner difficulties admitting its full and proper bearing that the Party desperately tries to ignore its duty to champion it.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, gay marriage legalization is- as I see it- merely one piece, but one of the major logical aspects resisted, of becoming a society that abides by 14/1. If you really look hard at all issues that separate the two Parties today, every single one- from abortion to universal health care and outsourcing- is, in the absence of 14/1 application (as resisted by the Right by systematic design since it was written, aka 'states' rights'), presently one of privileging one variety of people over another. Rich over poor, white over brown, male over female, Christian over atheist, etc.

There is a whole second issue of marriage vs. civil unions. That is specific to gay rights, and it's really the proxy issue for whether gay people are accepted as spiritually real human beings by mainstream society or not quite.

[Beetwasher]

84. Good Post

n/t

[Nobody]

60. The only one I've heard that even comes close are these:

First off, I'm in support of the right of any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult.

Here are the arguments other than religious I've heard.

1) No children can come of such a union.

My rebuttal: Really? Is that the basis for marriage? Then I guess my brother's marriage is invalid since he had a vasectomy. Then I guess those sweethearts over the age of 60 have an invalid marriage as well. And I suppose any couple who doesn't want kids is out of luck, too. When has anyone ever had to sign a contract with the State to swear that they will have at least one child?

2) But companies shouldn't have to insure gay couples. (from a guy who is a conservative libertarian Republican and pour on the libertarianism heavily)

My rebuttal: Really? Does this mean that you approve of companies choosing which spouses to insure? What if your company doesn't approve of your wife? They might not, after all, and those children you want to have won't be covered either.

3) Emotion has nothing to do with marriage. (I'm not entirely sure I have this one right, it was a mess of gobledegook and I think I boiled it down to the gist)

My rebuttal: Love is an emotion, and if not for love, why marry at all? Isn't the purpose of marriage the public declaration of loving someone and wanting to spend the rest of your life with that person? Why should the one you love above all others NOT be insured, NOT be considered your next of kin, NOT be allowed in the ICU when you get in a terrible accident?

4) But marriage is a religious institution and you gays can have civil unions instead.

My rebuttal: Sorry, you lose. Atheists are allowed to marry in this country.

5) Most people oppose gay marriage. (on DOMA)

My rebuttal: Marriage between two people of the same sex is already illegal in most states. Do you really mean to tell me that a Constitutional amendment is needed for something that is already illegal?

I haven't heard very many reasoned oppositions, but these are the ones I have heard. Only a very weak marriage is threatened by the happiness of another.

[Beetwasher]

83. Also

None of those meet the standard of being well reasoned either. Good job rebutting! :thumbsup:

[Moderator]

85. Locking

This is flamebait and posted in an inflammatory manner.