Since Gay Marriage is a hot issue

Being devil's advocate, I support gay marriage completely.
> Wrong. The majority of species in the world have homosexual tendencies for some reason or another. For instances, lions within a pride will have gay sex to get closer. Some Beatles will have sex to increase fertility.
> Actually, the Bible not only says it's wrong, but says to murder gay people. But it says a lot of things.
> We all have tastes. I think it's kind of weird tbh, but I also think dorito's taste weird on the first bite, and I love Doritos.
> Religion. Marriage is actually a concept made by religion. Without religion, humanity would be polygamous like we were designed to be. (Just google: The purpose of the orgasm and sperm competition, you'll find a link to some research papers I'm sure).
> Infertile people. Also, I'd prefer American babies be born than bringing all the problem children that every third world country throws at America. We've become the dumping ground for the rest of the world's mentally or physically retarded.
> Dependant on parenting. You can raise a child to believe God wants you to murder innocent people, too. Proper parenting involves raising children to be themselves and make their own choices. Also, height is almost solely based on genetic code, homosexuality is only influenced by it.
> No comment.

Oh god, I laughed so hard when I read "some Beatles" - the image in my head...

MFW

Beetles dude

Humans aren't polygamous. We have to invest far too much time in our young to be polygamous.

And I don't think any other species can be called homosexual, except maybe that one species where the entire population is female. Homosexuality is based on sexual attraction. Evolutionarily speaking, it's retarded. Humans are the only ones who fuck Natural Selection in the ass enough to get away with being gay.

Thirdly screw your 'Merica superiority crap.

Lastly, most importantly: Doritos are delicious with every fucking bite.

> Did you look at the research papers. I trust professional researches of psychology and neurological behavior much more than someone who hasn't even bothered to read the articles. Here, I'll save the trouble of finding them. www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep04471473.pdf and dspace.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/438/1/gpr93228.pdf .
> Homosexual tendencies, I'm sorry. It's actually intelligent. Keep overpopulation down, and increase fertility when the right time for mating happens, as well as bringing together the society and increasing health via reduced stress.
> It's not American superiority, it's just mainly occurring in America. I don't see European countries being stupid enough to take all these kids. That means, in this aspect, America is a total dumbass. How could you interpret my critisms of American policies as superiority?
> Fuck yea.

You literally exude stupidity without the slightest bit of research don't you? Have you ever thought for a second that because of natural selection homosexuality exists to THIN the population a little. And fuck you, he wasn't spewing 'Merica superiority, he was talking about the fact that everyone in the world expects America to take all the sick and dying when we have our own sick and dying to worry about.
Glad we can all agree on the Doritos

Well technically if tall people do get married and have kids the chances of their kids being tall as well increases. Of course they could have midgets as well but the probability of their kids being tall increases. Just saiyan.

... because it is?

Explain to me how homosexuality is wrong, and if you even start with some religious bullshit I will slap the fuck out of you.

Since we have observed 'gay' behavior in a big procentage of the animal kingdom (male/male & female/female sexual relations)..

and I dunno why... since we have a fucking G-spot in the A-hole perhaps?..

1. So you're saying that because it happens a lot in animal then it must be normal? Well guess what, cannibalism happens in over 1500 species, if we judge by your logic then it's normal because it happens a lot.

source for the numbers: [url deleted]

2. There are pleasure receptors in the ear too, but that doesn't mean that you have to stick your dick in there. Also the anus isn't even made to be penetrated:
a) It's a very dirty place that give easily give you herpes/infections
b) It can be "broken" because the rectum doesn't facilitate penetration like the vagina does.

gay marriage means that two men gets married.
Cannibalism means that you eat another motherfucking human-being!

So, you're against anal sex, not homosexuality in specific? So,if two gay guys never do anal penetration, then you have no issue with it. But if a heterosexual couple do, then there's a problem.

Just trying to clarify & understand your position.

>you're agaisnt anal sex
Not really against it, but I don't think it's normal.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate gays or something, but homosexuality isn't something normal.

It's a part of natural existence, albeit a minor one. There is no rational or logical argument against gay marriages.

The source was Wikipedia.

What are the valid arguments against gay Marriage?

We've all seen the heated discussions online regarding gay marriage. The problem is, I've yet to see a valid or logical argument against gay marriage. In this post, I'll share my thoughts on the arguments I've seen, and why I don't think they're valid. If you can legitimately support one of these arguments, or you have one I haven't heard, feel free to share it. I can tell you right off the bat that any religious based arguments will be ignored, since there is a separation of church and state in this country. My religion doesn't have an impact on your marriage, so your religion shouldn't have an impact on another person's marriage. Come up with something valid & logical, and I'll be glad to listen.

Reproduction
How would human reproduction be affected?
1. Since the highest estimate is that only about 10% of the population is homosexual, this means that only about 10% of all marriages would be between gay couples. At most, this would result in a 10% decrease in the population growth, which would not endanger the future of the human race.
2. Homosexual couples, whether married ar not, will not reproduce. So, unless you are mandating that all humans engage in a sexual union solely for the purpose of reproduction, your argument is invalid.
3. The ability or desire to reproduce is not a requirement for marriage. If it were, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry.
4. Marriage is not a requirement to reproduce.
Hopefully, these four explanations show you why using reproduction as an point regarding homosexual marriages is irrelevant.

Definition of Marriage
What clarifications do we need regarding the terminology?
5. A definition found in a dictionary is not a legal precedent, nor does it supersede any existing laws.
6. The 'definition' of marriage has changed over the years. In different cultures/countries/times, only landowners could marry, or only a certain race, or only certain castes or status groups could marry, or intermarriage between races/castes/groups was not allowed. If the definition of marriage has changed over time, referencing a dictionary is an extremely weak argument.
So, let's not use Mirriam-Webster when we're talking about the rights of real-life people, shall we?

Slippery Slope
The most ludicirous arguments, in any debate, are the 'slippery slope' ones. For those of you unfamiliar, this is the belief that if you take one step in one direction, then that will allow a continuous change to some ridiculous outcome.
7. Change is inevitable. Look at point #6 above. Would you really want to live in a world where interracial marriages were illegal?
8. The argument that if we allow two women to marry, then eventually someone could marry a child, an animal, or an inanimate object, is insulting and idiotic. If marriage was legally definied as 'the union between two consenting adults', this is very clear and doesn't allow for a 'slippery slope' into the ridiculousness that some gay marriage opponents use in their arguments.

Religious Implications
We often hear that someone is against gay marriage based on their religion.
9. Their is no requirement for a person to declare their personal religion while getting married.
10. It is not required for a specific church to recognize a marriage for it to be legally valid.
11. Separation of church and state in the U.S. means that a religious rule or tenet cannot apply to anyone outside of that religion.
In other words, unless a church wants the government or the people to tell them how to run their internal affairs, then the church should not tell non-members how to live their lives.

Impact on other marriages
I've heard opponents declare that gay marriage will some how affect their own marriages.
12. Another person's private and personal business is none of your business. If you don't want people interfering with your relationships, don't interfere with another person's
13. The 'sanctity' of marriage applies only to your own. Unless you're out protesting against people being allowed to divorce, then your argument on this point is invalid.
14. For those considered about taxation questions, this is also a flimsy argument. Hypothetical: a male couple and a female couple, all homosexual, could chose to 'legally marry' each other, creating two 'legal' heterosexual marriages, and then choose to live privately as they see fit. No outside entity could challenge the validity of the marriages, and all four individuals would still benefit in every way that a straight couple would.

What does this all boil down to? I have never heard an argument against gay marriage that had any actual validity. I've heard people argue from a religious standpoint (which is automatically nullified since religion and marriage are related, but not dependent upon each other), or from a reproductive standpoint (which, again, is ridiculous, since reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, or vice versa). I've heard nothing but reactionary arguments that are, essentially, "I don't like it!" Well, guess what folks? No one is making you get married to someone of the same sex. There is no danger of the human race becoming extinct, since most of us like the opposite sex. If you don't like it, too damn bad. I don't like some of the things you do, but I don't try to prevent you from doing them.

In short, mind your own damn business, and until you can come up with a valid reason to be against gay marriage, all you're doing is voicing your opinion, but your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to prevent someone else from taking an action. Too many people seem to confuse that. Just because you can speak against something doesn't mean you can act against something.

I don't like red M&Ms, but do I have the right to take them away from you? If I don't have the right to mess with your insignificant candy, why do you think you have the right to interfere with another person's life?

You're welcome to your opinion. However, the more rational and logic members of society also have the right to ignore your flawed arguments.

Sorry for the long multiple posts.

Listen, i'm all for gay marriage, but copying and pasting from a website doesn't make you smart.

This is from my G+ account. I posted there a long time ago.

plus.google.com/u/0/105571610134440790221/posts/b5M5fbs3GuL

Honestly, even if this isn't your writings, it is still a damned good read that while I already knew about and used all those rebuttals is still good to put out there.

I posted this a few months back on Google+, and even when I was debating with same sex marriage opponents, no one was able to counter them. There simply is no logical, rational reason to oppose gay marriage. And dissenting opinions are not sufficient cause to deny an individual's civil rights.

I didn't even mention gay civil unions, they have no relevance in this discussion.

I can only post every 16 minutes so forget about this.

You're arguing semantics if you're differentiating between civil unions & marriages.
Who are you to define the spiritual connection between two people?

Because calling something or someone "abnormal" creates a social stigma that will cause them to be treated differently. In the case of homosexuals, which make up a significant minority of the population, such discriminatory treatment is unwarranted because homosexuality has no effect on people's ability to function normally and productively in society and in public life.
There are plenty of people with sexual habits and preferences you might find offensive or repulsive, but frankly that's none of your business unless those behaviors violate the rights of the unwilling.

Go be un-evolved somewhere else...like 4chan...

i agree

"Never doubt that a small, dedicated group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

On a side note, that's really not as big an issue as you think it is.

i have 2 gay parents and i was always treated no different as a kid. but thats probably because i live in canada eh

You're right, it would be much better to grow up as an orphan.

I'd rather have 2 loving gay parents, and deal with a couple of assholes at school, than to be an orphan all my life.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-weFBV7YmHA#t=227s

right click video -> copy video url at current time.

thank you:)

Yeah, but since gay marriage only really affects gays, why not give it to them? It'd make them happy.... And it'd end this silly debate. And it would reduce the prevalence of Homophobia and anti-gay hate crimes.....

Because I don't care. If they want it, it's up to them to fight to achieve it. They can't expect everyone to jump on their side and support them just because they truly "love each other", or think it's unfair. Sure, it kinda is, but whenever a specific group of people want something, they just need to keep at it. Considering the leaps and bounds in "gay rights" in the last 30 years, it will be legal before too long. We have more important things to worry about than two people who can't legally be declared "married".

The Spartan society was a brutal and warlike oligarchy that depended on slave labor to sustain itself. Not really the sort of people you want on your side of a debate.

Not really, no. America has never been an oligarchy, nor was it ever as brutal or warlike as Sparta. And even when slavery was around, the US did not depend on it nearly as much as the Spartans depended on their slaves - in Sparta the slaves did literally all of the work, while Spartan men were almost exclusively warriors.

No, but I'm Warlike...

Let me also say that the spartans lived thousands of years ago and they also had sex with young boys, as was popular at the time.