By passing laws to protect against discrimination of LGBT, trans genders, etc. giving them the right to marry, etc. seems like the right thing to do; however, it is misleading. By passing laws which prevent discrimination against a particular class of people. We set their rights above the majority and it destroys our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience, and our right to make a living. Because when they receive special rights empowered by government then it is not fair for the average human being to have an opinion. Businesses who don't feel comfortable providing particular services to the LGBT, such as adoption agencies, will be attacked on the grounds of discrimination. Transgender issues will pop-up creating moral issues of whether or not a man who feels he is a woman has the right to use the ladies room in public or, better yet, the same showers at school with girls. These political problems have already surfaced in those states that have legalized gay marriage and passed nondiscriminatory bills to protect the LGBT group.
While most arguments against gay marriage are deeply rooted in religious matters, I have heard interesting arguments against gay marriage that have a scientific root.
Perhaps the most compelling of arguments is the fact that gay marriage isn't a way to reproduce. We've been taught in school how evolution requires a survival of the fittest. If homosexuals can't reproduce, then it reduces the rate of growth of humans. Obviously, it wouldn't cause a great deal of distress in the beginning, but over the years, there will be an impact in the population.
That even goes deeper into the 'nature or nurture' argument. If homosexuality really is against the theory of evolution, then one has to ask: How could there be a homosexual gene in one if they can't possibly reproduce?
-The majority has a right to disagree. Just because you are a minority and people are against something you want, doesn't mean that they hate you or are "intolerant".
-This certainly opens the door to other forms of marriage (incest etc.)
-Human nature DOES exist (ie homosexuality is non-normal to human nature). The approval of it has the possibility of causing confusion to the youth although I would advocate for further study on this issue.
-Most Importantly: The institution of marriage is and should be to support the future of the nation which are our children. Homosexuals cannot have children and look at the study below if you want to talk about adoption.
Although correlation is not causation this study at least highlights issues that must be addressed before allowing gay marriage.
Why are homosexuals afraid to "come out"? It is simply because deep down they realize that it is not natural and it is not right to be gay. Yes, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also says that it is a sin and it is an abomination. Take religion out of the equation and all you have is two human being that are incapable of reproducing. You still need a heterosexual couple to reproduce in order to have children. Christians do not discriminate against any human being. God loves his creation because we are created in God's image. But He abhors the sin.
Marriage is the lifelong union between 1 man and 1 woman. Every person in this country have the right to participate and be married. Those who are in "same sex" relationships are not looking to be married, they want to be in a same sex union. (since marriage is only between a man and woman) If we then allow 2 men to be married, should we let 3 men be married or 2 sets of couples that swing, be married.... Legally, where could we draw the limit.
IF a restaurant says "NO SMOKING ALLOWED" are they discriminating against people? No, they allow everyone to eat at their restaurant...But they restrict certain choices while there.
Since who we have sex with is as much as a choice as if we smoke or not, No person is being discriminated, they are just not allow certain actions or choices (gay sex) to partake in marriage
The gay lifestyle is about satisfying a sexual craving. Marriage is about a lifelong covenant between a husband, wife, and God. The two are having nothing to do with each other. If gays want civil unions for spousal privileges, that's fine. However, civil unions should also be available to any consenting adults who would like them. In other words, sexual preference should not be a factor in civil unions.
We wouldn't be having this conversation except for a highly successful PR campaign that's been going on for the last 25 years. Marriage, if not limited to two consenting adults, one male and one female, is left open to any definition the state chooses. Centuries of cultures have defined it as one man/one woman with exception among some for polygamy. No culture in history until modern times has called a committed sexual relationship between two men or two women 'marriage.' What is quickly passing for our western requirement for marriage is that two people be 'in love.' If this is all that is required, eventually there can't logically be reasons to refuse any arrangement of loving persons, and marriage will assume a wide variety of structures. It seems that the end result is that marriage becomes undefinable and extinct as a social institution. Many believe that this is the ultimate goal.
Gender is determined by Chromosomes, not by "feelings." XX is not the same as XY. Children can tell the difference between girls and boys, and adults lose credibility when they say they can't tell the differences between genders.
Homosexuality is a mental handicap, which can be caused by genetics, hormonal interactions, childhood trauma such as sexual abuse, or other environmental factors. It is a condition to be pitied, not subsidized. People who overcome it and are able to have a happy celibate or heterosexual life should be celebrated.
There is absolutely no biochemical equivalence between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships, as humans have clearly evolved to be better off with natural relationships. Thus, there is reason for society to subsidize gay marriage, and enshrine it as an ideal. If you look at the social science of gay relationships (20% having 1000+ partners, drug use rates, alcoholism, gays murdering gays) it certainly backs up the mental handicap hypothesis.
There have been studies done by many social scientists which show a significant role played by parents of differing genders, and differing roles at that. This is an important aspect of a normal marriage which includes BOTH a mother and father. Firstly, studies have shown that with a father present, children would grow up with a lower chance of anti-social tendencies and girls in particular would be able to resist the sexual advances of their boyfriends with more confidence and a stronger stand. Secondly, a mother would also be required in this most BASIC of family principles as a mother would be able to better catch, understand, and cater to the emotional cues of a child, compared to a father. All this would be taken away from the child in the case of a same-sex union and therefore a same-sex union would be detrimental to the welfare of a child and not in the child's best interest. Please, anyone considering support for a gay rights group, do your research first.
And I am not saying I don't accept gay people, I'm OK with them, just don't push your twisted ideology and over-libertised thinking into my face thank you.
If any of the common religions are true, then it must mean that everything it believes has some logical sense in this world. With homosexuality I believe there are some logical arguments against it.
1. Opposite attraction is an inherent characteristic in nature. (ex. Magnetic forces, powerful bonds on opposite sides of periodic table, mating of animals through opposite sex)
2. If a homosexual couple decides to have children, it deprives them of the emotional relationship of the missing sex that every child deserves to have. We all know how powerful the relationships between a parent and child of each sex can be in there own unique way. To intentionally take one of these elements away from a child will not necessarily harm their future but steal away an important element of their lives.
3. The problem of homosexuality is more of lust than love, which is the same problem that we have with high divorce rates. Most humans view marriage as a way to satisfy their crave for attention and bonding without consideration of meeting the needs of the other person as well as a way to inherit benefits. True successful marriages happen when each person focuses on the other spouse rather than themselves. From my experiences growing up in a strong homosexual community, most homosexual desires appeared to be all focused on themselves.
4. Homosexual desires are not a choice but gay marriage is. This goes the same for murder, adultery, rape, and eating disorders yet we all consider those wrong. Not to say that homosexuality has similar consequences to those, but we should agree that it is not a fixed characteristic in human beings, just one that society has legally accepted which has caused an increase of pride in its supporters.
Science has show 1,500 species of animals that have some members act in homosexual activities, the xq28 gene (on the X chromosome) and chromosome 8 influence sexual orientation in males, and studies shown that children raised by homosexuals are as mental healthy as children raised by heterosexuals. This is not opinion, this is scientific fact.
Here's a basic list.
-Chromosome 8 and xq28 gene (this is in the X chromosome) show a influence in homosexual tendencies in males if these genes are prevalent.
-1,500 species are found to have members that partake in homosexual activities.
-Child raised by homosexuals are as mentally stable as children raised by heterosexuals.
These are a few facts, but when it comes to logic there are no good arguments against gay-marriage.
The main arguments against homosexuality are:
-It is Just Not Natural.
-It is Not Conducive to Procreation.
-If Same-Sexed Marriages are Allowed, Then Any Marriage Should be Allowed.
Most people, in my opinion, declare homosexuality as unnatural in order to portray their homophobia in a somewhat more acceptable way, rather than outright discrediting it. These arguments are usually superficial and grounded on no evidence whatsoever. If people would take the time to get their facts straight (No pun intended), they would quickly realize that homosexuality is fairly common among many species. Lions, Penguins, Mallards are just a couple more prevalent examples. If that doesn't convince your that homosexuality is natural, then you need to look up the definition of what makes something natural.
Many people also ask what the point of a marriage is if not to conceive and raise children. If this is what truly defines marriage for you, then rather than moving toward gay marriage, we should put all of our efforts into preventing sterile people to marry and any couple who decides not to have children should be forced to divorce. As much as some people desperately want a reason to be opposed to homosexuality, procreation is not one. Many marriages never result in procreation and many more people do not get married because they want children.
Many people believe that we are on a slippery slope, and that if we, as a society, allow homosexuals to marry, then soon people will be demanding incestuous marriage, or perhaps marriage to animals, or even group marriages. This argument is taking the whole idea way too far. Nobody made such a big deal about redefining marriage when mixed-race marriages became legal, and animal marriage certainly did not follow closely behind this redefinition either.
So, really I cannot think of any good reason to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. Thanks, have a nice day!
The only secular argument against gay marriage that I've even heard is that gay people would not provide children with a stable home. However, marriage is not exclusively about children, so there should be no argument about gay marriage for those without kids. Also, there is absolutely no data to back this up. In fact, people who grow up in gay families are well adjusted and often better off than those who grow up in straight families. All other arguments I have heard are religious.
There is a popular argument that homosexuality is wrong because of their inability to reproduce. However, marriage isn't about reproduction - at least not anymore. Marriage is about love between two people. If we use that argument, then we must also say that no one who is biologically infertile can marry. If marriage is only about producing children, then anyone who can't reproduce, can't marry. It's a very cold way to view marriage that I don't think anyone truly believes.
The only one I can think of is the thought that organisms are supposed to reproduce and homosexuality in and of itself tends to reduce reproduction. However, that is only related to homosexuality itself and not marriage and I do not think it is a good excuse to be against gay marriage, as it is rather irrelevant in today's world.
There are no arguments against gay marriage that don't have an origin in outdated beliefs or homophobia. It's all "well the Bible says" and people that fear some homosexual agenda that is going to turn the planet gay and end the human race if they're given equal rights. The reason the tide on this is turning so quickly is that people have finally had enough of the baseless nonsense against it.
The union between a man & a woman is unique in that it allows for the fullest expression of diversity (man & woman), complementarity of the sexes & procreation. Love & these three elements are & have always been the basis of true marriage. The dynamic of this relationship has been & will continue to be the bedrock of society.
Same sex "marriage" is nothing but a cheap imitation & can never be considered as true marriage since it lacks diversity, complementarity & is by nature impotent.
The idea that being gay is unnatural and there fore bad is a very flawed idea, humans do so many unnatural things in our lives that benifit us tremendously. We have cleaning proceeders, we have hospitals, even religioun is an unnatural trait that we express. This over all argument that homosexuality isn't natural is just another way if making it sound undersirable and therefore not a real argument.
Saying marriage is a religious sentiment is such a childish claim because in no way does it have to be or does belong to a single religion that hold the rights to it or a religion that is against homosexuality. In a SECULAR society, you can't uphold someones elses rights for religious reasons, including the reason 'it harms me religiously'. In saying that it is a sentiment to religioun, you must hold every heterosexual couple to the same standard, we don't see this however as much, suggesting hypothetical claims of the opposition another shot to undermind homosexuality simply because the opposition feels threatened by it.
Specifically Christianity have very cherrypicked reasons to go against homosexuality. One of the main reasons that has been used is Leviticus, the section of the bibles upholding many unusual laws that may have made sense at the time of their writing. However if a Christian chooses to follow this passage, should they not also follow the law stating that they can't wear mismatched fabrics, or the law stating they can't eat crayfish, or even the law that says they can't shave. In a SECULAR society, these laws seem rediculous, which is why Christianity in a secular society doesn't uphold them, upholding the law of not indulging in homosexuality because of it being in this passage of the bible is a hypocritical reason and should not be used in the argument against homosexuality unless these said people who use such passages follow the rest of the laws follow, either follow all of them or non of them. This just shows another desperate claw for anything going against homosexuality.
Well I just don't see what's wrong in it well if you think you get to chose who people marry or have sex with with it's just disgusting & if you are gonna say it's unnatural which part of humans is but for the sake of the argument check out giraffe's sexual interests & don't you dare said god says no that's your fucking problem not theirs & if you're gonna it's just sexual interest well I don't think you married or will marry the ugliest , fattest & bitchiest heathen of you of your own sex so why should they yeah they get married to people they aren't attracted to . Only the chose of sex(m/f/z) has changed there people in the same sex with different characters . This isn't a topic of a debate it's a basic human right so just stop it.