Why marriage equality should be opposed

[Vanity Evolved]

They are two seperate issues.

My point is that what that arguement is about isn't targetted at why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed - it's arguing that people who are unable to procreate should not be allowed to marry, which doesn't just include homosexuals. If that is the stance, then why arn't people trying to revoke the marriage of couples who can't have children, yet are heterosexual?

It also brings up a lot of other questions. Would that opinion extend to people who can have children, but choose not to? Does this mean that for a marriage to be valid and wanted, the State mandates they must have children for their marriage to be of worth to the State? Is a marriage viable if the potential for fertility is there? If so, do we allow lesbians to marry as they can recieve IVF or, in other cases, even actually have sex with someone so they can have a child to be brought up by their partner? Does this count subfertility routes to children, such as a gay couple persuing surrogacy?

It's an arguement that raises a lot more questions than it answers. It also doesn't address why homosexuals shouldn't be married. It argues that marriage is a union which requires the potential to procreate for it to be valid, unless you're heterosexual, then you can be married and not reproduce and you're able to remain married while not intending to have children.

[Serephino]

All heterosexual women who are post-menopausal are barren.  Should this mean that if said women shouldn't be allowed to get married?  I guess my mom is screwed, not that she wants to re-marry anyway...  No, the fact that homosexual couples can't produce children is not a valid argument.  Children shouldn't even be part of it since there are married couples who choose not to have children, and lots of single people with children. 

[Stattick]

I can't think of a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry.

[Sabby]

I can't think of a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry.

Glad someone else finally said that.

[TheGlyphstone]

I can't think of a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry.

If you also oppose straight marriage, maybe? I dunno, maybe there's a sect of extremist polyamorists out there somewhere who oppose legal unions of any kind?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well the argument is valid because the argument applies to the purpose of state sponsored unions.  The argument is a secular one and is legitimate.  Is the argument a good one?  Maybe, because it is true that the state should remain out of the “love” business and look more toward the welfare of the people.  Is the argument a strong one?  Not that I have seen thus far due to a serious lack of supporting evidence.

But the arguments are there so people can be happy some critical thinking went into them.  Though I do contend that the blocks on gay rights have more to do with culture than religion.  A poll done on the opinion of whether homosexual marriages should be legally sanctioned found the common determining factor to be age, not religion.  So as the culture changes and the new generation comes forward, support for marriage equality will grow as we are seeing now.

[TaintedAndDelish]

In Catholicism, straight sex between a man and a woman (married or not) is considered a sin if they do it for any reason other than producing a child. Therefore, we shouldn't be too surprised that they refuse to accept homosexuality as anything other than a sin. For shits and giggles, I skimmed though this page for a refresher on their *logical* views on sexuality.

From the vatican's website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

And lastly, they added this little summary as a reminder for us... which conveniently omits the act of pedophilia by horny catholic priests who have no legitimate form of sexual release.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

[Oniya]

Unitive.  What does that even mean?

*checks*

Serving to unite; tending to promote unity.

Well, there you go.  The Catholic church has said that it's okay if you have sex if it brings you closer together as a couple.

J'adore langue.

[Lux12]

This is simply hilarious.I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually taken from some fundamentalist website.

[Oniya]

Nope.  Written as pure satire.  The point of it being that we've already 'accepted', 'adapted', or otherwise gone along with all of these other changes that share (by some standard) a characteristic that has been used as a reason not to allow gay marriage, from eyeglasses, to allowing divorce, to single-parent households.

[Lux12]

Nope.  Written as pure satire.  The point of it being that we've already 'accepted', 'adapted', or otherwise gone along with all of these other changes that share (by some standard) a characteristic that has been used as a reason not to allow gay marriage, from eyeglasses, to allowing divorce, to single-parent households.

Sadly true.They once used equally ridiculous arguments when trying to convince people that those who are left handed are left handed centuries ago.Thank the divine we're past that at least. Things are changing though and I have a sense of confidence that a greater measure of equality for those of the lgbt demographic shall see many great strides in their crusade for greater equality in all spheres.

[Tamhansen]

So wait? We're dealing with major overpopulation, worldwide food shortages, orphanages with wall to wall kids, and octomom, and you're argument is don't let gays get married because they won't reproduce? Hell if that's the defining difference I'd say we better ban straight marriages.

[Lux12]

So wait? We're dealing with major overpopulation, worldwide food shortages, orphanages with wall to wall kids, and octomom, and you're argument is don't let gays get married because they won't reproduce? Hell if that's the defining difference I'd say we better ban straight marriages.

Who are you talking to?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I assume me.

[Vanity Evolved]

So wait? We're dealing with major overpopulation, worldwide food shortages, orphanages with wall to wall kids, and octomom, and you're argument is don't let gays get married because they won't reproduce? Hell if that's the defining difference I'd say we better ban straight marriages.

This.

I also only just noticed, but 'gays can't have kids' is actually already on the parody list.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Doesn't mean the point is a bad one. 

[Vanity Evolved]

It's in a list where people are teasing poor and out-right wrong reasons for opposing gay marriage... That is somewhat telling about it's content. Especially as you didn't address any of the points brought up by the list itself on why 'Gays can't marry because they can't have kids, but barren women can', or any of my points on the topic and simply said 'Well, it's still valid'.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Because I have no vested interest in that point of view and no desire to get that deep into a devil's advocate standpoint. 

[Vanity Evolved]

Well... Generally, if you're presenting something as a valid point, you'd be able to argue why it is. Not just "Well, I put it there, but I can't really be asked to defend it and I don't agree with it myself so... meh."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not really interested in your attempts to pick a fight Vanity. 

[Vanity Evolved]

Not trying to pick a fight. ._. Just sayin'.

[Vekseid]

It's perfectly addressable, and if you want to address it you should do so.

Namely, that if government recognition of marriage is supposed to be for supporting children, it should instead focus on supporting pregnant mothers and child-rearing. Neither of which requires a heterosexual arrangement.

[Sabby]

Your such a bully Vanity. Expecting people to back up their arguments. Meany.

[Vekseid]

Enough with the content-free, sniping one-liners, please.

[Sabby]

yes sir.