Forums | MacLife

to summarize briefly:
God said marriage is between a man and a woman
it would 'damage the children' to see people of the same sex happily married and in love

to summarize briefly:
God said marriage is between a man and a woman
it would 'damage the children' to see people of the same sex happily married and in love

It would also cause children to have sex with their brothers and sisters, hamsters and goldfish. The world economy would collapse because everyone is more intersted in having massive orgies than working or showering. Hell would be much more beautifully decorated than heaven. Next thing you know, women will want to vote and  keep their own money, blacks would want to be considered "people" and become all uppity... Basically it would be the end of the world.

MrEddy: Note that Tyco is asking for reasons why it's NOT allowed, not why it should be.

Well i figured he would get my point.
The only reason to keep it illegal is to keep the believers happy.
There are no legitimate reason's for it not to be legal.

"]Hmm, yeah, the religious issues are the only ones I can think of. If there are any that are not based in religion those would be really great. I dont see how I am able to debate this...

If you don't want to use religious reasons, it does get tougher.  I'm assuming that unnatural arguments are out too, as those are often thinly veiled religious idealism.  Let's see.  :puts on debating cap:  It can easily be claimed that homosexuals are more emotionally unstable (saw a study on the AFA site link).  If they are more likely to be crazy, its not a good idea for them to be parents, right?  Hmmm.  You might be able to get a "framers intent" rule passed.  That is, that our forefathers, when talking about marriage, always implied that marriage was supposed to be hetero only.  That's all I've got for now.

"]Hmm, yeah, the religious issues are the only ones I can think of. If there are any that are not based in religion those would be really great. I dont see how I am able to debate this...

Well, you could take the "They're disease-rdden sex perverts" side of things and rail on about how the "bits don't fit" and how they "can't have children" so that makes it bad. Though your opponent will then say "What about straight people who can't or CHOOSE not to have kids? Do we ban them from marrying too? And is 'marriage' REALLY simply about making babies?" to which you should simply answer "Yes."

For effect, you should get a gelcap, dump out the contents and fill it with crushed up Alka Setlzer, then as you're bashing on your desk and calling your opponent a hell-bound smurf and a defiler of all that's moral and good, bite down on the gelcap and get that cool "foaming at the mouth" thing going. Because if you can't beat them with logic, you should at least top them with showmanship and zeal.

Here are a few. You can also do some research on the battle regarding the legalization of interracial marriages, and you'll find many of the same arguments.

1. Homosexual sex acts are immoral because men and women have sex to procreate. Humanity will die out because homosexual sex isn't procreative. (Australia's leader.)
2. God condemns homosexuality, via the Bible. It is called an abomination by Leviticus. Two cities filled with homosexuals were destroyed by God. (There are some who invoke the New Testament as well.)
3. Cultures that don't condemn homosexuality are decadent. Decadent cultures are cultures that are dying. (Rome, Greece, and other cultures that are perceived to have tolerated homosexuality.)
4. Marriage is defined traditionally as the joining, under God, of a man and a women together as one body. Tradition must be respected. (A common viewpoint - tradition is more important than progress.)
5. Positive and positive doesn't attract. Negative and negative doesn't attract. If one looks at magnetism, one sees that homosexuality doesn't make sense.
6. You can't plug a cord with a male end into a device with a male end.
7. Businesses can't afford to pay homosexuals what heterosexuals are paid. Homosexuals, because they're deviant, are lucky to be working at all. They shouldn't complain about being paid less and hitting a glass ceiling because they don't have a family.
8. Things are much better for gays today than they were in the past. These people want too much. They want to throw their lifestyles in everyone's faces and destroy the sacred institution of marriage. (Life isn't always fair.)
9. Preventing marriages is the defense of marriage. It's vital to the security of the institution of marriage to prevent same-sex marriages from being legally recognized. (See the Defense of Marriage Act "DOMA" and similar legislation.)
10. The United States is a Christian nation and Christians believe homosexual acts are wrong. (The belief that we're a theocracy is common.)
11. Separate, but Equal works. Civil unions are what same-sex couples deserve, just as blacks were alright with separate restrooms, sitting in the back of the bus, and entering buildings from the back door. Same-sex couples don't need their relationships to be called marriages, an institution reserved for heterosexuals. (Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, many others).
12. If gay marriages are legally recognized in the United States, God will lift his magic shield that's protected us and we'll be attacked again, just like on September 11th. (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.)
13. Same-sex marriages are sickening, absurd, revolting, disgusting. (Why? Religious grounds. The Homosexual Lifestyle. Fear of the Unknown or Fear of the Unfamiliar. Who's the Man and Who's the Woman?)
14. Why do gay people want to mimic heterosexuals? After all, gay people are much different, and shouldn't try to pretend they're the same. They should value their intrinsic difference and not want to get married. Instead, they should have casual sex, open relationships, and spend their time cultivating themselves or their work, not children. Children get in the way of productivity. Who can write a great novel while being a clock-punching married man with kids? Who wants that, anyway?
15. Gays make ideal servants. They should not be able to assume positions of authority. Instead of being the head of a household, a same-sex couple should be discreet/secret and the men or women should be servile. (A leader in Britain's military argued in favor of lifting the ban on gay men because he said the best servants a man can have are gay men. See also Smithers from the Simpsons, butlers, priests, etc.)

If you don't want to use religious reasons, it does get tougher. I'm assuming that unnatural arguments are out too, as those are often thinly veiled religious idealism. Let's see. :puts on debating cap: It can easily be claimed that homosexuals are more emotionally unstable (saw a study on the AFA site link). If they are more likely to be crazy, its not a good idea for them to be parents, right? Hmmm. You might be able to get a "framers intent" rule passed. That is, that our forefathers, when talking about marriage, always implied that marriage was supposed to be hetero only. That's all I've got for now.

You don't need to try to find logical/scientific arguments. Just find some nice juicy rhetoric. The key to winning the debate is to pretend to know what you're talking about. And, if the quack science doesn't work, do what Laura Schesslinger did, fall back on religion.

After all, every argument made against the recognition of same-sex relationships legally is without merit.

Question to mars:  Does divorce law make a distinction of division of assets based upon gender?  I would have though it based on ability to provide.

Not in Georgia.

The wife gets everything unless proven to be unfit to handle the property and children.

The house I just bought went to the husband. He also retained custody of the children.
Very unusual, but the interior of the house was really wrecked from all of the "love".

I am opposed ... but I am sayin NUH .. THIN!!!!!
If I do ... the nancys who moderate these boards will ban me again ...

But it is a sin ... burn in Hell alll of ya ...

I think arguing against it requires two assumptions:

1. Marriage is more than a legal contract, and it would be damaged if gay marriage were allowed.

2. Legally speaking, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, and therefore are not entitled to the same protections, rights and privilages.

Arguing against it is actually pretty hard, as it all comes down, in the end, to rights: from a constitutional standpoint, it's long since been established that separate treatment is inherently unequal, and therefore infringes individual rights. I can't think of any defense against this argument. In Canada, for example, lots of members of Parliament are set to vote against allowing gay marriage. Trouble is, the courts have ruled such laws unconstitutional, and wil do so again.

Maybe the argument is to place an emphasis on a "higher" moral/ethical/popular law -- but that seems pretty flimsy to me.

12. If gay marriages are legally recognized in the United States, God will lift his magic shield that's protected us and we'll be attacked again, just like on September 11th. (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.)

If you want to build on this one, South Africa constitutionally recognizes homosexuality as valid.  You can point to the high HIV rate, or the high murder rate as examples of what befalls a nation that turns from God's will.

Empty rhetoric would/should result in a poor grade.

But, attributing the HIV rate to same-sex couples qualfies as empty rhetoric. I think you missed my point.