Reasons for Opposition to Gay Marriage?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

vonmanstein:
In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

If I remember correctly, isn't it actually the law of the majority who want it legalized and only a vocal minority who are against it? At least that's the impression I'm getting from U.S politics recently.

I think that's why there's been a sudden push to legalize gay marriage. The current generation, long bemoaned for not "caring about politics", have actually been doing a lot of activist work and have actually turned in to vote more than they ever have before.

Aris Khandr:

vonmanstein:
In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

There are already two cases set to go to the Supreme Court on the subject. One in regards to DOMA, one about Prop 8 in California. It seems unlikely that either will survive, and with Obama in the White House, and retiring justices are more likely than not to be replaced by justices who are pro-gay marriage. The "will of the people" will soon be irrelevant, as the US has quite the history of overturning the tyranny of the majority. Enjoy your "traditional marriage" for now, because the days of "separate but equal" are numbered.

So we get the tyranny of the minority to replace the tyranny of the majority. Doesn't seem like a good trade because in this case it's more people having the government go against them instead of fewer.

Frission:

vonmanstein:
In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

If I remember correctly, isn't it actually the law of the majority who want it legalized and only a vocal minority who are against it? At least that's the impression I'm getting from U.S politics recently.

I think that's why there's been a sudden push to legalize gay marriage. The current generation, long bemoaned for not "caring about politics", have actually been doing a lot of activist work and have actually turned in to vote more than they ever have before.

Two referendums passed in the most recent election cycle legalizing gay marriage, However in many parts of the country it remains unpopular and is likely to remain illegal for some time. (We vote on this issue on a state by state basis)

Xan Krieger:
So we get the tyranny of the minority to replace the tyranny of the majority. Doesn't seem like a good trade because in this case it's more people having the government go against them instead of fewer.

No, it's the tyranny of the majority being (or should soon be) replaced by the equality guaranteed under the constitution.

I really don't see how majority means anything in terms of rights and wrongs. Slavery was pretty darn popular back in it's age, as was segregation at points in history. If you're a Republican, then I can point to the election. Obama was popular among voters, his election was the will of the majority. Does that mean that he was the best choice?

Okay, so I'm about to call the gaming community something few people have the balls to call them. For the most part, nerds are tolerant. Frankly, this is what attracted me to the community in high school. Sure I have been playing video games and reading comic books since I was 8, but I didn't really have other nerdy friends till High school. It was that or telling the vapid popular girls what clothes they look fat it. I made the right choice.

Matthewmagic:
Okay, so I'm about to call the gaming community something few people have the balls to call them. For the most part, nerds are tolerant. Frankly, this is what attracted me to the community in high school. Sure I have been playing video games and reading comic books since I was 8, but I didn't really have other nerdy friends till High school. It was that or telling the vapid popular girls what clothes they look fat it. I made the right choice.

... Depends on which nerds.

I know plenty of misogynistic or racist gaming nerds.

I think the Escapist is a mostly tolerant community. By design, though, really. If you are a clearly intolerant person, you'll probably eat a ban.

Uszi:

Matthewmagic:
Okay, so I'm about to call the gaming community something few people have the balls to call them. For the most part, nerds are tolerant. Frankly, this is what attracted me to the community in high school. Sure I have been playing video games and reading comic books since I was 8, but I didn't really have other nerdy friends till High school. It was that or telling the vapid popular girls what clothes they look fat it. I made the right choice.

... Depends on which nerds.

I know plenty of misogynistic or racist gaming nerds.

I think the Escapist is a mostly tolerant community. By design, though, really. If you are a clearly intolerant person, you'll probably eat a ban.

This has also been my experience in real life. I don't doubt the dicks exist, there is a reason I don't have a xbox live account. For the most part nerds have been picked on at some point, and now they are a little more understanding. That is just my experience.

vonmanstein:
Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

I love how "activist judges" are those that do anything you don't want them to. We already have laws that forbid discrimination. The fact that we have to have the court go back and forbid specific instances of discrimination is truly sad. to be honest, I find the fact that you people are so damned stubborn a lot more disconcerting than anything else. I don't care what your fucked up reasons are, IT DOESN'T DO A DAMN THING TO YOU. So sit down, shut up, and let the modern world pass your backward views by. I'm so bloody sick of arguing this. Your type opposed it when women got to vote. You opposed interracial marriage. You opposed it when segregation was ended. The fact is someone has been opposed to every major step forward for human rights in this country since this country was founded, and it has usually been white Christians. If you were a horse, no one would bet on you. You were wrong every single time, and you're wrong now.

"Separate but equal" has been overturned since the 60s. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution means that gay marriage is ALREADY legal. It's truly sad that this even has to go to the court. It's even more sad that anyone cares what someone else does in their bedrooms.

DevilWithaHalo:

kurlkurry:
4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

Wait... what? People have actually used this argument? How does having two gay people get hitched affect anyone's ability to practice their own religion? Surely you mean something else yes?

Unfortunately, I can kind of understand this one a little bit, however much I don't agree with it. I read a story a while back (can't find the original article atm, and all I can find are mostly references to it in lots of partisan blogs so I won't bother linking them) about a lesbian couple who sued a wedding photographer for refusing to shoot their ceremony on moral grounds, and won. While I don't agree with the photographer's views, they are certainly entitled to believe whatever they choose. To me at least, this seems to be the exact same situation the homosexual community itself faces. Lawsuits are not the way to get people to change their mind. In my opinion, if you expect tolerance of your beliefs/lifestyle, you better well show the same to other people's beliefs as well. There will always be people who object to homosexuality, and to attempt to force them to believe otherwise is no different from those who hope to force their beliefs upon you. Remember, you should always expect "tolerance" (key word:tolerate) from people, but to force "acceptance" is another matter.

Matthewmagic:

Uszi:

Matthewmagic:
Okay, so I'm about to call the gaming community something few people have the balls to call them. For the most part, nerds are tolerant. Frankly, this is what attracted me to the community in high school. Sure I have been playing video games and reading comic books since I was 8, but I didn't really have other nerdy friends till High school. It was that or telling the vapid popular girls what clothes they look fat it. I made the right choice.

... Depends on which nerds.

I know plenty of misogynistic or racist gaming nerds.

I think the Escapist is a mostly tolerant community. By design, though, really. If you are a clearly intolerant person, you'll probably eat a ban.

This has also been my experience in real life. I don't doubt the dicks exist, there is a reason I don't have a xbox live account. For the most part nerds have been picked on at some point, and now they are a little more understanding. That is just my experience.

I'd disagree for two reasons. Firstly, being picked on doesn't automatically make people more sympathetic to people who've been pikced on. It really, really should, but very, very often doesn't.

Secondly, nerd stuff is getting more mainstream. You've got the "brogrammers" thing and so on. Assuming nerds were more tolerant, they're finally getting acceptance amongst the wider community, and throwing that away.

like in many things people oppose, the usual reason is ignorance. people just dont know enough. Well that or are religious. no wait that brings us back to not knowing enough.

When it comes to a minority looking for equal rights about something private it should not be decided by a group of old men. i aint my thing, so i don't have a say in the matter. let the gays decided.

Assassin Xaero:

Moderated:
The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

And marriage today doesn't mean what it did then. Funny how people (or at least, people who aren't extremist fundies) don't seem to be arguing in favour of keeping slavery "traditional".

thaluikhain:

DevilWithaHalo:

kurlkurry:
4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

Wait... what? People have actually used this argument? How does having two gay people get hitched affect anyone's ability to practice their own religion? Surely you mean something else yes?

Unfortunately no, if your religion demands others abide by your rules, a society that doesn't force them to is interfering with your religion. This is somehow much worse than interfering in people's rights to marry who they choose.

I think the argument runs more along the lines of "We need to be free to tell these foul sodomites that unless they turn away from the gay lifestyle and accept Jesus, they're going to be punished for all eternity. Letting them get married, as if they were real people (as if!), is making our job harder and thus infringing on our right to save souls by evangelizing"

Xan Krieger:
Side note: This forum really needs more republicans.

You say that as if it would change anything. One thing I rather like about the community here is that regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or political leanings, we're capable of having knock-down bare-knuckle rows about anything if we put our minds to it ;-)

vonmanstein:
Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

I've never really understood this line of argument. Are you saying that one shouldn't do the morally right thing, in this case allowing equal rights under the law, if enough people oppose it? To carry it further in the other direction, if the majority voted to actively oppress and abuse gay people in law rather than just treating them as second-class citizens, it would be wrong to overturn it on the grounds that it's inhumane and morally wrong?

Kopikatsu:
snip

Just FYI, that was a Fraser Greenfield post, not mine.

SonicWaffle:

Assassin Xaero:

Moderated:
The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

And marriage today doesn't mean what it did then. Funny how people (or at least, people who aren't extremist fundies) don't seem to be arguing in favour of keeping slavery "traditional".

Sorta like all those people bitching that the government has to right to come into their business and tell them what to do, then when gas prices go up $.20, they start bitching that Obama is a horrible president because he isn't going in their and telling them how to run their business and bring prices down?

Assassin Xaero:

SonicWaffle:

Assassin Xaero:

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

And marriage today doesn't mean what it did then. Funny how people (or at least, people who aren't extremist fundies) don't seem to be arguing in favour of keeping slavery "traditional".

Sorta like all those people bitching that the government has to right to come into their business and tell them what to do, then when gas prices go up $.20, they start bitching that Obama is a horrible president because he isn't going in their and telling them how to run their business and bring prices down?

From what I've seen, conservatives seem to be opposed to "big government" unless the state is interfering in a way that aligns with their political views.

It's hard to argue for personal freedoms and then attempt to legislate against something like gay marriage or outlaw abortion, but they've managed it somehow.

SonicWaffle:

Assassin Xaero:

SonicWaffle:

And marriage today doesn't mean what it did then. Funny how people (or at least, people who aren't extremist fundies) don't seem to be arguing in favour of keeping slavery "traditional".

Sorta like all those people bitching that the government has to right to come into their business and tell them what to do, then when gas prices go up $.20, they start bitching that Obama is a horrible president because he isn't going in their and telling them how to run their business and bring prices down?

From what I've seen, conservatives seem to be opposed to "big government" unless the state is interfering in a way that aligns with their political views.

It's hard to argue for personal freedoms and then attempt to legislate against something like gay marriage or outlaw abortion, but they've managed it somehow.

Conservatives are just that. They want things to stay as they are.

Democrats are the progressives. Bigger government AND smaller government are both Democrat ideals.

Gay marriage and abortion weren't a thing until recently, so it's a conservative notion to reject them while progressives push for change.

I honestly have no idea where the idea of conservative = big government and progressive = freedom came from.

Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

TKretts3:
I really don't see how majority means anything in terms of rights and wrongs. Slavery was pretty darn popular back in it's age, as was segregation at points in history. If you're a Republican, then I can point to the election. Obama was popular among voters, his election was the will of the majority. Does that mean that he was the best choice?

You erroneously assume that morality is objective.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

So, does it happen often that other people drags you along and forces you to watch them have intercourse? Do strangers regularly crash into your home, restrain you and go on to have sex in front of you? Has either of these scenarios ever happened to you?

If the answer to all three questions is no, then you are being bigoted. You can't simply get around that by saying that you aren't, just like saying "I think the apartheid was justified because black people are stupid" is racist no matter how much you try to pre-face it with "I am not a racist".

Finding some types of sexual activities disgusting is quite normal, but going from there to not wanting to allow same-sex marriage because these sexual activities are practiced within same-sex relations is confounding the issue in a major fashion. As long as sexual encounters takes place between two consenting adults, the rest of us has no reason what so ever to complain about them. And "I find your sexual preference disgusting" is a flimsy argument against marriage and legal unions.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

I agree 100%

SonicWaffle:

vonmanstein:
Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

I've never really understood this line of argument. Are you saying that one shouldn't do the morally right thing, in this case allowing equal rights under the law, if enough people oppose it? To carry it further in the other direction, if the majority voted to actively oppress and abuse gay people in law rather than just treating them as second-class citizens, it would be wrong to overturn it on the grounds that it's inhumane and morally wrong?

...........you assume morality is objective, that gay marriage is objectively moral, it isn't.

vonmanstein:

SonicWaffle:

vonmanstein:
Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

I've never really understood this line of argument. Are you saying that one shouldn't do the morally right thing, in this case allowing equal rights under the law, if enough people oppose it? To carry it further in the other direction, if the majority voted to actively oppress and abuse gay people in law rather than just treating them as second-class citizens, it would be wrong to overturn it on the grounds that it's inhumane and morally wrong?

...........you assume morality is objective, that gay marriage is objectively moral, it isn't.

You apparently assume that equal rights are immoral. Why?

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

So you think other people should be treated worse than you simply because of your own inability to cope with reality?

Gays exist. They have likely existed for as long as our species has. We have found instances of homosexuality in thousands of other species. There is always going to be gay sex, and nothing you do can possibly change that. Why should people be punished for being gay?

SonicWaffle:

vonmanstein:

SonicWaffle:

I've never really understood this line of argument. Are you saying that one shouldn't do the morally right thing, in this case allowing equal rights under the law, if enough people oppose it? To carry it further in the other direction, if the majority voted to actively oppress and abuse gay people in law rather than just treating them as second-class citizens, it would be wrong to overturn it on the grounds that it's inhumane and morally wrong?

...........you assume morality is objective, that gay marriage is objectively moral, it isn't.

You apparently assume that equal rights are immoral. Why?

Now that is quite an inference, unfortunately you are mistaken. When I spoke of gay marriage as not being objectively moral i didn't imply that it was immoral, simply amoral. I support democracy and freedom of choice as this model more closely resembles the natural order, if many choose to deny the freedom of choice to some, that's humanity not immorality.

You can't continue to argue that it is moral without presenting an appropriate moral code against which it can be judged. Until you do that your assertions remain baseless conjecture.

Good luck finding such a morality, conclusions to pursuits like these have eluded humanity since the gift of sentience was first bestowed.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

I feel the exact same way about Texas. How can a bunch of mature adults subject themselves to that place is horrifying to me.

vonmanstein:

TKretts3:
I really don't see how majority means anything in terms of rights and wrongs. Slavery was pretty darn popular back in it's age, as was segregation at points in history. If you're a Republican, then I can point to the election. Obama was popular among voters, his election was the will of the majority. Does that mean that he was the best choice?

You erroneously assume that morality is objective.

I don't care much for those silly theories that go around yelling that everyone is right in their own way.

vonmanstein:

Now that is quite an inference, unfortunately you are mistaken. When I spoke of gay marriage as not being objectively moral i didn't imply that it was immoral, simply amoral. I support democracy and freedom of choice as this model more closely resembles the natural order, if many choose to deny the freedom of choice to some, that's humanity not immorality.

You can't continue to argue that it is moral without presenting an appropriate moral code against which it can be judged. Until you do that your assertions remain baseless conjecture.

Good luck finding such a morality, conclusions to pursuits like these have eluded humanity since the gift of sentience was first bestowed.

If many choose to deny the freedom of choice to some that's fascism or tyranny of the masses, both of which are in direct moral violation to the principles of democracy and humanism.

You are missing the very smoking gun here: That humanism, which is the philosophy upon we build democracy, considers equal rights and freedom for everyone to be paramount for the success of society. If you wish to base your moral standpoint on democracy (in itself a political ideology, not a philosophy or moral code) and freedom, then you are inevitably harking back to humanism.

As a humanist you can never argue in favor of restricting the freedom or rights of any individual or group of individuals, because then you are violating the very principles which you supposedly support and want to uphold. That you fail to see this really speaks more about your inexperience with basic philosophy and moral discussion then it does about SonicWaffle.

So, tldr: Either you support freedom and democracy, in which case you can't argue in favor of restricting the rights and freedoms of others, or you are in favor of restricting the rights and freedoms of others, in which case you can't support freedom and democracy. It really is that simple.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

Realize that they can have sex without getting married. It's not like gay guys are forced to wear a chastity belt that can only come off during marriage.

Gay marriage is entirely about letting homosexual couples get the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. It has nothing to do with the act of sex itself.

SonicWaffle:

Xan Krieger:
Side note: This forum really needs more republicans.

You say that as if it would change anything. One thing I rather like about the community here is that regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or political leanings, we're capable of having knock-down bare-knuckle rows about anything if we put our minds to it ;-)

My problem is when someone with a conservative or republican point of view says anything they get 100 liberals on their case about it. When someone says something with a liberal point of view everyone supports it. This forum is very unbalanced.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

If gay marriage is any thing like straight marriage, i would assume that legalizing them would mean that gay couples will be having less sex so whats the problem?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked