Gays against Gay Marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    I'm sure this topic has been covered already, but not at a time when I conveniently have to debate it in class.

    I have an upcoming debate on gay marriage and I decided to take the "against" side. I was wondering if any of you know of any good literature as to why gays should be denied gay marriage. I don't necessarily need to be for heterosexual marriage, and in fact I think the easiest way to win the debate is if I take a stance against the entire institution of marriage. However, I need scholarly information to back up my position. Any thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    The Trouble with Normal would be a good book to summarize in your debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2010 6:45 AM GMT
    sweet, thank ya
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2010 9:02 AM GMT
    being totally against marriage is the way to go, you can also think about why one religious ceremony (marriage) gives civic rights and advantages when others don´t (baptism, bar mitzvah) and waffle on about the separation of relgion and civil rights.

    Actually the abolition of marriage as a government recognized institution is my position, so you can bounce ideas of me if you like....
  • PRDGUY

    Posts: 641

    Apr 05, 2010 10:39 AM GMT
    Only way to get this soon is to not call it marriage, call it "common partner rights"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    The original definition of marriage was two people professing their love for each other in front of friends and family, and vowing to stay together for life.

    Now marriage is a legal contract in order to receive monetary benefits, such as shared health insurance, etc...not to mention the financial bliss of winning a divorce settlement.

    I'm against the govt intrusion of marriage. I am not against people loving each other forever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2010 5:25 PM GMT
    Hmmm, good points guys. I don't give a rats ass what it's called either but it makes sense to keep it marriage for everyone vs. the taxpayer footing the bill for the government to change all the myriads of forms it relies on to include a "same sex union" or "civil union" or "non-traditional marriage" box vs. just leaving it marriage in the legal context and have it apply to everybody! Ooops, but that's a bit off topic. Sorry buddy.

    Arguments against gay marriage.....I concurr I'd argue against marriage as an institution altogether. I don't think there are any absolutely true reasons against SSM.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 2:29 AM GMT
    I don't think anyone should be allowed to marry.Gay, straight, goats, whatever. You get 10 dates. That's it. Now, you can take 20 years to use those ten dates, but that's all you get. Ten actual dates, and then you break up as adults, no messy bullshit fighting and anger, just walk away, after all you have only had ten dates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    lol, what a depressing topic. icon_lol.gif


    If the OP is really successful the GOP will use his arguments. icon_lol.gif

    Here's one: It discriminates against single gays because they'll feel pressure to get married and there won't be as many tricks available. (this was a serious position taken by another gay man, btw)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 2:57 PM GMT
    GonzoTheGreat saidbeing totally against marriage is the way to go, you can also think about why one religious ceremony (marriage) gives civic rights and advantages when others don´t (baptism, bar mitzvah) and waffle on about the separation of relgion and civil rights.

    Actually the abolition of marriage as a government recognized institution is my position, so you can bounce ideas of me if you like....


    THIS!

    In the USA this distinction became important as a tax measure (dual income families paying less taxes than two cohabitating single earners)

    Kids and other dependents should continue to be exempted though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 2:57 PM GMT
    Just ask our RJ conservaposse.

    Those lovely kapos should be chiming in fairly quickly...

    "It's about economic freedom." and "Defining marriage has traditionally been left to the states.” will probably be their most oft uttered phrases...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 3:01 PM GMT
    Marriage itself dates back as a means of resolving tribal issues and solidifying community bonds (waaaaaay back when females were chattels and mate selection was arranged by family patriarchs and/or tribal chieftains).

    In short, as an economic device.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 3:06 PM GMT
    Is the OP a foreign national? Apparently he wants us to be as miserable as and repressed as any other weaker nation. I won't give up one Right, cause I'd have to give up on others. Look at the Conservative White Republicans have. They didn't get one by giving up on another! They have one, they have them all! You lose one, you lose them all! The OP is a professional IDIOT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 3:25 PM GMT
    Currently gays have a lot of disposable income, getting married and having children will only instill in them notions of saving for the future and financial responsibility. (ie. not spending as much)
    If the economy is ever to bounce back, now more than ever we need gays out there spending all their money on useless crap.
    We need to focus on the economy.