Toilet paper: over or under?
Please. Public discussion of the Under Heresy is simply not in good taste.
I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t boil down to “Jesus says Ick.” The sincere, earnest expositions thereof are just appalling in both logic and ethical basis.
Have her check out Maggie Gallagher. Not a fan and I think her arguments aren’t terribly good, but they’re not GAYZ ARE ICKY!
But when you get right down to it, “Jesus would not like it” is a pretty strong argument for those who believe he’s the Son of God, an aspect of God Himself, the creator of the whole damn shooting match. Of course, for non-Christians (like myself) or the sort of Christian who believes that God’s word should change in accordance with the times the argument is as weak as dish-water.
I’m with the poster above. The State has no business making any sort of laws about marriage, straight or gay.
However, that isn’t a relevant argument given the OP:
And really, if “my god says so” is a good argument, then there are no bad arguments, for anything.
Actually, Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality. Or abortion for that matter. It’s people who have appointed themselves spokesmen on behalf of Jesus who have set the policy on these matters.
Jesus said that true Christians had to follow “every jot and tittle” of the law, which certainly included homosexuality.
But only “until everything is accomplished”. My understanding is that Jesus’ subsequent crucifixion fulfilled that requirement and people are no longer bound by Old Testament law.
“jot” and “tittle” appears in the bible?
Actually, they do in translation, with jot being a very close transliteration of iota, (passing through German to pick up the “j”).
The best argument (and this isn’t saying much) against same sex marriage that I’ve come across is that it would undermine the culture of marriage that promotes responsible procreation.
The logic is that responsible procreation is the ultimate goal of marriage, and if you allow same sex couples to marry, it would send a strong signal that marriage is not about responsible procreation.
What about heterosexual couples who can’t have children? We have to allow those because any fertility test would be too intrusive. Additionally, in many non-fertile marriages, one partner may not be sterile, and a marriage should help keep him from procreation outside the marriage.
All the other arguments are thinly veiled versions of “it’s always been this way” and “it makes me uncomfortable,” i.e., protecting traditional marriage, it’s too soon and we don’t have all the facts, and the bible says it’s bad.
If you thought homosexuality was a conditioned trait ultimately chosen by it’s adherents then it’s not a stretch to believe children raised in that environment would be more likely to choose it over heterosexual relationships.
I’m cool with adults in relationships joining Scientology or LDS, but children raised in that environment borders on child abuse in my opinion.
So I guess I accept the possibility that SSM opposition isn’t entirely disingenuous and cruel.
In order to be against gay marriage, or for it, you have to first figure out what marriage is for. The purpose and methods of marriage has been extremely fluid over the centuries. I’m not even sure it’s easy to define what marriage is for NOW.
Proponents of gay marriage basically boil marriage down to a committed relationship between two people who love each other. If that’s what you think marriage is, then gay marriage makes sense. And frankly, given what marriage is in practice today, I have to agree with that definition.
Back in the day when marriage was primarily about procreation, things like arranged marriage and polygamy also made sense. But today even social conservatives see marriage as a committed union between two individuals. Given that definition, the opposition to gay marriage crumbles. And really, the opposition to plural marriage as well.
How can “two individuals” have a “plural marriage”? HUH?
When I pointed out to an anti-gay marriage person that marriage is about “two people who love each other” he responded “Gay people don’t love each other. It’s all about lust.” He also said that gay people raising children was “child abuse.”
This would be an argument against homosexual marriage:
Quote
“A recent study, using a large random population-based sample, shows that children raised by married moms and dads did far better in education and employment than peers in other parenting arrangements—including same-sex relationships—and were less likely to suffer from depression and drug use. They were less likely to be sexually abused, receive welfare, have an affair, or cohabitate”.
Not really, unless there is some evidence that same sex couples won’t have children if they are not allowed to marry.
If gay marriage is legal, they may adopt children.
And the kids will ask “Why don’t I have any dad/mom?”
They can adopt children without being married. Perhaps you might conclude that they should not be allowed to adopt children, but not all married people can. I would argue, though, that individuals should not be punished because they belong to a group that may or may not produce different results than other groups. Unless there is evidence that all gay couples make crappy parents, each gay couple should be judged on their own.
Back in 2004 I witnessed a bunch of lame arguments against gay marriage. Figuring I could do better I presented the following.
My argument was thoroughly demolished, but there might be something there. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4560029