ilovefuzz.com

help me ILF, please
give me popular reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, then refute them.
need help! >.<

too easy

^?
o.O

it's not in the bible.
It isn't not in the bible.

Here's something a bi-sexual friend of mine wrote:
http://usu-shaft.com/2010/a-secular-argument-against-gay-marriage/

He tried to see if he could make an argument against gay marriage, and this was the best he could do.

Argument: Marriage is a social institution to serve the purpose of child rearing which preserves stability in a child's development and a sense of order within society. Two parents of the same gender cannot provide the same support that a same-sex marriage can.

Refutation: That is bullshit. There is no real definition of marriage and it's purpose. Also, divorce rates are already through the roof, so same-sex marriage clearly isn't all that stable to begin with.

When I was around three I thought that after two people got married it meant the lady could suddenly get pregnant at any time for no real reason. Then I grew out of being a small child who doesn't understand the mechanics of sex to an intelligent adult and I know that any connections between marriage and child rearing are fictitious and arbitrary.

You could also throw in a malthusian argument saying that same-sex couples can't procreate and therefore are better for long-run environmental stability.

A popular argument is that same-sex couples are bad parents. And here's an article that refutes it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/201 ... 1_ST_N.htm

A = Argument against legal gay marriage, B = Refute

A: Marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman, as laid out by Paul in 1 Corinthians.
B: The government can't make laws for any religion. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. Moreover, shouldn't you also be trying to ban atheist marriage?

A: Marriage is for stability of a family and largely for the purpose of procreation.
B: Then traditional couples that can't have children should also be banned from marriage or required to adopt. If that's unacceptable, then this argument is completely invalid.

A: Gay marriages will result in same-sex couples adopting, which can be damaging to the children.
B: The legal status of the marriage doesn't necessarily stop gay couples from adopting. In which case, you're fighting the wrong fight.
-----a) Children of gay couples are more likely to be ridiculed
-----b) Then those other kids need their asses kicked like any other bully. Do you want to ban couples with large noses from having children too?

A: If we let gay people get married, then people might want marry animals. Where is the line?
B: Go fuck yourself, you inbred troglodyte.

This is a pretty easy essay simply because imo the are no good arguments against same sex marriage. Plenty of argument, sure, but all of them are easily refuted.

How about this one: allowing homosexuals to marry will make it easier to re define marriage in the future, opening the floodgates to legalizing polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, etc. Once homosexuals are able to marry, other people with fringe sexual fetishes will begin fighting for their rights to marry, claiming that they were born this way and that it should therefore be right and legal. If a man can marry another man, why shouldn't a man be able to marry his dog?

Refutation: among other issues, this argument is based upon a "slippery slope" fallacy that claims the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of other forms of marriage that are completely unrelated. There is absolutely no reason why gay marriage would lead to any further re definition of marriage.

McSpunckle wrote:B: Go fuck yourself, you inbred troglodyte.

this.

Marriage shouldn't be a legal thing anyway, IMO. I find a nice person I want to marry, we get married. No need to get the fucking law involved. That's the reason this is such a mess now, because marriage has a legal definition, when it should only have a personal, social, and/or religious definition.

If it seems like gay marriage is destroying the institution of marriage, it's because it is. The institution of marriage should never have been built. Marriage is not a public matter; it's personal, or maybe you choose to make it the business of whatever community you choose to involve yourselves with, religious or otherwise. America is not one big community, nor is any state or even city a community. Therefore any given legal body should stay out of it.


As for the argument that goes, "so you think people should be able to marry animals, too?" I give a firm "fuck you, yes I do." Seriously, do you know anyone that fucks animals? Then who cares if someone, somewhere, does or not? The society I choose to associate with doesn't accept things like that, so I don't spend time with people who do it, and I don't care. If the society I choose to spend time with did accept it, then I wouldn't care, because I would accept it also, because I choose to spend time with whatever society I personally align with and/or I align with whatever society I have associated with.

Society doesn't need law to govern itself, and to some extent, law shouldn't interfere with societies governing themselves. A society can cast out any member that does not follow the rules of that society; that's how this forum is run, for example, and I don't just mean banning. Just look at the recent situation with Elbandito. There was a situation brought to the attention of the community, and he was given a chance to defend himself against accusations, or make them right. It looks like it worked out in the end, but the consequence, had he chosen not to do either, would have been being shunned from this fine community.

The law should not be treated as the enforcer of one set of norms. America is not one society, but a collection of many societies, coexisting. Gay marriage doesn't impede anyone's freedom; yet the illegality of it does.

By being legally married, you can file taxes together, and have legal proof of marriage for things like insurance, banking, etc. So it has financial benefits. I agree, though, that it's stupid to not consider yourself married until the state does.