So then close the thread. This thread has run it's course..

The thread is fine. SOme of the participants are not. Hopefullly SC has addressed this.

FS, you have a very low bar. Why don't you compare the US to other European countries who did pass the law for the same sex marriage?

So a lady says her son doesn't like to get married. What does that do for another lady who does want her son to get married to his partner as he wishes? And since when if a minority wants something, no matter what low the percentage, that's just an uproar to settle a score?

And DOMA is going down by the looks of it. The wait is not that long for the gay rights.

I have a "Very Low Bar" because I am telling others about what I heard personally? The lady makes a point. I hear something that I think should be passed along to others and you don't like it so you go into attack mode?

Why are you attacking someone with a differnt view then your own? Aren't they entitled to their opinion just as much as you are to yours.

Your starting to sound just like the radicle people she is talking about. Be passion about your opinion, but please allow others theirs.

I personally hope you get all the rights that will make you happy. That is without trampling the rights of others doing it. Then again. I am thankful that I don't live where you do and people aren't killed like you were telling me this morning.

I'm not attacking you, I'm challenging your opinions. Opinions are open to discussion. Challenging it is not an attack. If I called you a bigot, then I had attacked you. I said you have a low bar, since you compare the country that stands for personal freedoms, with a country that's the biggest jail for journalists and those who dare voice their opinion. Yes, you do have a low bar. And that's my opinion of your opinion. You consider this an attack? Then you don't have an understanding of what an opinion and a discussion and an attack is.

Just thank the lord that we aren't in Iran and people do have some rights here...even if those rights don't please everyone all the time! A-MEN

Please, didn't you say this:



So you say you and everyone else should be thankful that you have it better than Iranians, and that's somehow enough. This was your exact quote. You do compare your country with Iran. Therefore you do have a low bar. And it doesn't seem you have a thick skin about it, but whatever. Peace to you as well.

1. But the bible/Koran/torah/ (insert holy book here) says…
Rebuttal: Well the separation of church and state clause of the first amendment protects us from that.

1b. But it’s not in the constitution! It doesn’t say it anywhere!
Rebuttal: Yes it does, in the first amendment. Not using those exact words. Besides, SOCAS is a good thing. Not only does it keep religion from interfering with government, but it also keeps government from dictating how you practice your religion.

(Note: There are a million ways to debunk the religious argument but this is the most direct)
2. But marriage always has been 1 man and one woman! America will be uncomfortable having to adjust to a new social norm!
Rebuttal: And your marriage will still will be if you so choose. Only it can also be between two women or two men if the party in question so desires. And what is the big deal about gay marriage? How will it affect you? It’s not too much of a new social norm. America is a progressive society which has always adapted to new social and cultural changes, such as cars, television, and the internet. If not for these changes, we’d still be hunting animals in Africa. Besides, when segregation was ended, there were people uncomfortable with the fact that blacks were able to use the same water fountains and restrooms, go to the same schools, and sit on the same sections of the bus as them.

3. But why can’t I marry my car/fiancée’s corpse/dog/ (insert imamate or non human object here)?
Rebuttal: Because they can’t sign a legal contract stupid. If I was against gay marriage, I would ask people to stop using this argument because it makes us look dumb.

3b) so why can’t I marry a relative, or a child? Or more than one spouse?
Rebuttal: But if you let a barber vat your hair, who’s to say he won’t try to cut open your scalp? And therein lays the problem with the slippery slope argument.

3c) I only think of terms of black in white. Please explain that to me.
Disregarding the moral arguments against these things, they are all different from gay marriage. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. As for polygamy, I personally see nothing wrong with it, but it’s just that not enough people have made a big enough deal about it.

4. What about the children?
Rebuttal: What children?

4a) the ones they will want to adopt!

Rebuttal: What about them? They will go through life knowing they have two gay parents instead of two straight ones. It’s not like they are doing anything straight parents wouldn’t do. Besides, what’s worse? Two gay, loving parents or two abusive straight parents?

4b) my children who will be exposed to this!
Rebuttal: So how will they be exposed? What are they doing in front of your kid that you don’t do in front of him? Kids today don’t care about what sponge bob has in his square pants; let alone what Adam’s doing with Steve. It’s you guys who have the hang ups.

5. THEY ARE FORCING THEIR AGENDA ON US!
Rebuttal: The only agenda here is the one you created trying to deny them their rights. Same as the civil rights movement and the women rights movement.

6. But you can’t compare being gay to being a minority! Being gay is a lifestyle choice!
Rebuttal: No one is comparing the two. If you notice however, the struggle for gays is the same as the one for blacks. Speaking of lifestyle choices, Religion is also one. Which brings me to….

7. We can’t give the gay’s special rights!
Rebuttal: They aren’t asking for special rights, just the same ones you have. Besides, veterans and troops get special rights, as do college students, religious groups, and even prison inmates. And another thing, by asking to keep marriage exclusive for straights, and if being straight is a choice by your logic, then aren’t you asking for special rights for being straight?

7b. But Religious groups are constitutionally protected.
Rebuttal: As are all American citizens.

8. The purpose of marriage is to have children! If gays are allowed to marry, this will hurt our population!
Rebuttal: First of all, if less than %5 of the American population were allowed to get married, then you mean to tell me that the other 95 percent can’t pick up the slack? Secondly, marriage is more than having children. You don’t even have to be married to have children. And by this logic, senior citizens and sterile people shouldn’t be allowed to be married as well. And don’t get me started on the single parents.

9. Gay marriage will ruin our society!
Rebuttal: You realize you said the same thing about Elvis, rock and roll, rap music, television, and a bunch of other things, yet we’re still around right? Stop being so frickin paranoid.

10. But gay marriage will ruin our sacred institution!
Rebuttal: Anymore than our high divorce and spousal abuse rates, reality TV weddings, Britney spear’s little jaunt (as well as several other celebrity weddings), Vegas drive in weddings, and music, movies, and books which make it seem cool to cheat on your significant other? I doubt it. If anything, ‘our sacred institution’ can use their help.

10b. but it will ruin my marriage.
Rebuttal: Oh well, I don’t know what to tell you. If your marriage is so fragile that the thought of two gays getting married is enough to ruin it, then perhaps the problem isn’t the gays. Chances are you shouldn’t have been married in the first place.

10c. But the institution will be so messed up, I feel I won’t be able to marry!
Rebuttal: So how exactly does gay marriage affect you anyhow? Never mind that, who would want to marry a tightwad sexually repressed bigot like you anyway?

11. But this will spread HIV, herpes, syphilis, etc.
Rebuttal: So what STDs can gays get that straights can’t? Just as many, (if not more) straights can catch these diseases as gays can, so what makes gays any more susceptible to a STD than a straight? If anything, gay marriage will curb the spread of these diseases by encouraging monogamous relationships.

12. I HATE F@GS! I HOPE THEY ALL BURN IN HELL WITH MATTHEW SHEPARD!
Rebuttal: If I was against gay marriage, I would ask people to stop saying stuff like this. It makes it look as if we are out to get them rather than a desire to preserve our institution.

13. (Insert fecal or anal joke here)
Rebuttal: Again, if I was against gay marriage, then I would ask people to stop talking like this as well. It makes us look dumb and immature.

14. But this will cause the world to hate us!
Rebuttal: First of all, the world hates us for more legitimate reasons than whom we let marry who. If you open your eyes and do a little research, then you find that the reason why the world hates us is because of our foreign policy, among other things. Secondly, as if you, Mr. ‘BOMB IRAQ SCREW THE FRENCH AND SCREW MUSLIMS’ care about world opinion of us anyway.

15. Gays will influence our children to be gay!
Rebuttal: More paranoia at work. If this is true, then how come most, if not all gays, come from straight famlies? Being around gays won’t make you any more gay than being around basketball players will make you a fan of basketball.

16. But activist judges are the real enemy!
Rebuttal: Nice try, but do you feel the same way when an ‘activist judge’ like scalia, reinqhurst, O’Connor or something else makes a ruling that’s in your favor (like banning abortion)? And what is an activist judge anyway? Someone who makes rulings you don’t agree with? What if a ‘non-activist judge’ were to allow gay marriage?

17. But gays already have the right to marry. A gay man can marry a gay woman.
Rebuttal: That’s like saying during the separate but equal era that blacks had the right to use the bathroom and water fountain assigned to them.

18. it’s illegal!
Rebuttal: Now there is a sound argument for keeping something illegal.

19. it’s not natural!
Rebuttal: First of all, who are you, or any of us to decide what’s natural and what isn’t? Secondly, if homosexuality is against nature, then so is war, chopping down trees, and pollution, yet I don’t see you making a deal about these things.

19b. it’s not moral!
Rebuttal: Who are you to decide what’s moral and what isn’t? If gay marriage isn’t moral, then neither is using false, err misleading evidence to start wars, screwing workers to make corporate profits, and high price healthcare plans which only benefit the drug companies, yet I don’t see you up in arms about this.

20. But this will cause people to pretend that they are gay just to get married and enjoy the benefits!
Rebuttal: There are straight couples that do that now. Besides, do you think anyone would really fake homosexuality, an entire lifestyle, just for benefits?

21. The majority of America is against it. This is democracy!
Rebuttal: No it isn’t. It’s the majority deciding the rights of a few. The majority was also against freeing the slaves and giving the women the right to vote. Democracy only works when it’s everyone’s interests being considered. This is more like 5 foxes and a hen deciding on what [or who] to have for dinner. Besides, the majority of America was also against freeing the slaves and giving women voting rights.

22. But look what happened in Norway!
Rebuttal: So how do you know that the same thing will happen here? We are a different country. Besides, Canada’s had it for over a year and they are just fine. Using your logic, our gun control laws should be as strict as those in Europe since they have less gun murders over there.

23. This is too controversial. We should end marriage period.
Rebuttal: That could work, but then everyone loses, and we shouldn’t have to do that.

24. But I can’t stand the homos! I think their lifestyle is immoral and it goes against my religion!
Rebuttal: I’m sure they think too highly of you either, but that’s part of life. America is a diverse society. If you don’t like it, go to apartheid South Africa.

25: But *sniff* I don’t want gays to marry! *sniff*
Rebuttal: Oh well, that’s life. You don’t have any valid argument against it.

http://jacknifedakilla.wordpress.com/200...t-gay-marriage/

It’s about religion.

No, it isn’t. Going to church is about religion. Loving thy neighbour is about religion. Marriage is a secular contract presided over by Government. Like taxes. Atheists get married. Religious people get married. Some churches won’t marry inter-racial couples, or previously divorced couples. They’re welcome to. That’s their right. But that doesn’t preclude these people from marriage altogether. Because it’s secular.

Legalising gay marriage only affects a small number of people, why bother?

There are two flaws with this. If we’d followed this logic then we would have had no black civil rights movement. And asking ‘why bother’ about a human rights imbalance is a little like ignoring the service station when your car is on fire and your face is melting. ‘Tis merely a flesh wound, come back and I’ll bite your knee caps off! The ‘only them’ argument has consistently been shown, throughout history, to be reprehensible. We cannot afford to stand by while ‘only them’ becomes a chorus of our own inability to act. One day, and this is the lesson we still haven’t learned, ‘only them’ could become ‘only you’. It’s a lonely outpost. Would they care to make the same argument about disability funding?

It’s about procreation.

Then you might also want to ban marriages that take place later in life, beyond a couple’s child bearing years. Or you might consider banning marriage for heterosexual couples who don’t want children. Families are about procreation or adoption or surrogacy. Marriage is about love between two individuals. The idea that we must procreate to protect the human race was spawned, forgive the pun, during a time when sabre-toothed tigers were an actual health threat and actual health care consisted of medicinal screaming. So yes, prolific bonking used to be a shared duty. The times have changed, somewhat.

We have more important problems to deal with!

This is disingenuous. Yes, I will help you with your civil rights movement but really, this trash isn’t going to take itself out. This is a familiar refrain. We have to fix health care! We have to fix the welfare system! And we do, we do. But if Government’s cannot multitask, especially to instate a basic right of equality, then we are all in a little bit of trouble. And if you forever want to put gay marriage on the backburner, because the country has had a sudden need to legislate invisible cigarette packages, then we’ve successfully woven a beautiful too-hard-basket that would look simply delightful as the centrepiece on a hardwood table, fit for a gay.

Homosexuality is against the natural order!

And so are those farm animal ornaments with slinkies for legs. But they’re still in our homes. Truth be known – and science can be a wonderful master – homosexuality occurs quite often in nature. If you’ve never seen a pair of male dolphins doing miraculous things with their blowholes, you haven’t been watching enough SBS. Christian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas was a bit of a fan of looking to nature for validation of humanity’s own habits, which might explain the brief fad in the early days of raising our young in a burrow. There are actually some animals that spontaneously change sex from male to female and vice versa, so relying on the ‘natural order’ of things is rather a bit misleading.

Homosexuality is a choice. They made their gay bed, let them lie in it.

There is only one group of people capable of answering the question of choice and homosexuals. They are The Gays. I happen to be one of these. I was born this way. I like men the same way you know you like the opposite sex. Nobody taught you to. You just do. You’re hardwired and so am I. The implication that gay kids, a larger proportion of whom commit suicide because of horrendous bullying and identity issues, would choose to endure the torture of their childhoods is insulting. It’s insulting and you have no authority to tell us you know better. Because unless you’re gay, you don’t.

It’s a slippery slope. Just wait until The Gays can marry their brothers. Who are also animals.

Consent. Repeat after me. Animals cannot provide consent and bestiality is an avenue where consent cannot be provided in a ‘loving’ relationship. Unless your donkey has a Speak ‘n’ Say, there is no consent. And there are medical reasons why incest is frowned upon. But there is no decent, scientific, medical or moral reason why two loving, consenting, non-related adults should not be afforded the same rights as the majority.

It’s about morality, man. Think of morality, won’t you?

Two words. Las Vegas. Shotgun weddings that last 43 minutes aren’t really the pinnacle of morality. Nor are they sacred, for that matter. It’s only a slight affront that a heterosexual couple jacked up on cocaine and the better part of an entire bar can slur ‘I do’ with the full support of the law. That The Gays are forced to settle for ‘I Would’, even while measured against this same impressive yardstick, is simply unintelligible. Nothing is more moral, one would have thought, than a couple willing to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. And this is true in the eyes of the law if you have both a penis and a vagina. You must have one of each between you lest you be cursed forever more to defacto relationships and cloudy legal rights in your old age. Morality indeed.

I totally agree, but let’s not call it marriage. Let them have civil unions!

Ahem. Let them eat cake? Those who adopt this argument can be the most frustrating as this is the one that glosses over the exact issue at stake here. This isn’t about every gay wanting to marry. This isn’t about the words themselves. It’s about what the options are and who has access to them. Apartheid South Africa had a water fountain for blacks and water fountains for whites. Essentially, nobody is missing out except that they’re both lapping at an entrenched division made possible by discrimination. Call it whatever you want. Call it Skiddlepop, if you must, but give it to everybody. If one doesn’t, then discrimination continues. Refusing to amend the marriage act is tantamount to saying The Gays are not worthy of the institution. And blacks aren’t worthy of the same drinking fountains, nor women the vote. Oh, history, it’s like an embarrassing echo.

I like gay people, but I don’t think they should be allowed to marry.

Let me guess, you also have lots of gay friends? And I have a hat made from kitten whiskers. You might like them – everyone has that token gay guy who hogs the karaoke machine at company functions and they’re a right hoot, I’m sure – but you don’t respect them. And respect is really what we’re after here.

But the Marriage Act clearly says it is between a Man and Woman!

Stop shouting. Yes, it does. Unfortunately that Act wasn’t amended by scholars in the 4th Century. It was amended by John Howard. In 2004. It was a deliberate move to exclude and it didn’t take long to execute. Amending the Act would be simple and absolutely no impediment to the debate whatsoever.

Well, here is my analogy about a soccer player joining an AFL Game and wanting the rules changed!

Except the soccer player did choose to be a soccer player. And AFL isn’t the only game in town. And then all the men shower together at the end anyway. Hang on.

But, why should The Gays get special treatment?

If by special, you mean unequal. The Gays don’t want more than what the straights have. We want the same. Which is ironic, because that’s what homo means.

But if we let The Gays marry, I might turn gay.

No, you won’t. Honest. We’ll even promise to stop casting spells on your testosterone or estrogen. Promise. It’s actually scientifically proven that touching a gay, or hearing about a gay wedding will have absolutely no bearing on your life whatsoever. Some very brave scientists risked homosexuality to empirically test this hypothesis, so best you show them some respect.

But a gay wedding would ruin my heterosexual marriage!

False. Unless a gay couple in the middle of their nuptials literally fell on top of your wedding ceremony, this is not going to happen. And I think you’ll agree that is a very unlikely course of events. Unless we all of a sudden legalise gay air weddings, which is just plain dangerous.

But if we let them marry, then they’ll have kids and we’ll end up with a gay society.

This one is simple. I am gay. My parents are not. Work it out.

Just because.

Sigh.

http://swannellc.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/17-rebuttals-of-anti-gay-marriage-arguments/

But a gay wedding would ruin my heterosexual marriage!

False. Unless a gay couple in the middle of their nuptials literally fell on top of your wedding ceremony, this is not going to happen. And I think you’ll agree that is a very unlikely course of events. Unless we all of a sudden legalise gay air weddings, which is just plain dangerous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dapper, but aren't you Catholic? My point, of course, being there's an obvious conflict here. I remember reading one of your posts where, similar to Sicilian Babe, you said something about believing in Christ but moving away from the church. This seems little more than an excuse to retain the benefits of Christianity (being saved in Christ and all that) while being able to pick and choose what doctrines of the church you agree with and adhere to. In other words, what is known as "Cafeteria Catholicism." Joe Biden would be so proud.

Don't be so passive aggressive FS! You don't have to throw in an "Opinon Card" in there. I believe there's no such card, that's actually a 1st amendment right.

Yada Yada Yada-

Thank God WE have rights!

OK. The April Fool joke is done and over and the Sheriff is back in town.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dapper, but aren't you Catholic? My point, of course, being there's an obvious conflict here. I remember reading one of your posts where, similar to Sicilian Babe, you said something about believing in Christ but moving away from the church. This seems little more than an excuse to retain the benefits of Christianity (being saved in Christ and all that) while being able to pick and choose what doctrines of the church you agree with and adhere to. In other words, what is known as "Cafeteria Catholicism." Joe Biden would be so proud.

This is a separation of church and state issue, PERIOD. Don't bring my personal religious beliefs into this to try and make a point. You wouldnt like it if I brought up Mormonism and and said I thought it was a joke. Dont you wonder about a church founded by a guy, found guilty of several charges of fraud and swindle, suddenly being shown golden tablets that only he can read behind a curtain. Then, when they get to the point where people are doubting and want to see the tablets, they disappear? Add in the whole wooden submarines, etc it gets about as rational as Scientology with its volcano spirits tormenting us.

I am a progressive Catholic, or what religious conservatives might refer to as "cafeteria catholicism" like you stated. I dont let the church (or any other religious institution) dictate what I should or shouldnt believe in, if somebody chooses to then to each their own. I believe in Christ and choose to worship him in my own way. I dont go out of my way to hate on Catholicism, never have. Sometimes one just has to use common sense instead of following something blindly. The fact is the institution of the Catholic Church has basically made up many of the rules they adhere to today as time went on, things that are not even in the bible. Like the rite of confession (twelfth century) to papal infallibility (came in 1870).

DD, while I was somewhat aware of the origins of Mormonism, I wasn't aware of the detail you provided. It appears that, just like Islam, Mormonism has co-opted some of Christianity to constitute some of its doctrine.