gay marriage

[llenadepecas]

hey everyone, we have to do a presentation for school, and we've chosen [we is me and leigh, btw] to do civil partnerships...

does anyone know any good arguments against? we have loads for for, but are a bit stuck for against. help neeeeeeded.

ta very much

[SlickyPants]

I do believe you're out of luck. There is simply no reason not to allow same-sex marriage or the equivalent. Some people just don't get that though *shakes head*

I guess you could try to play the religion card but aside from that nonsense then I'm afraid you're screwed in this debate.

On the other hand I'm glad your classmates found several reasons for same-sex marriage.

EDIT: Ah, I guess I didn't read well enough. It wasn't a debate. Just a presentation. My point still stands though. I can't think of any reason not to allow same-sex marriage.

[interstella]

i think that this is the worst place to ask for evidence AGAINST gay marriage!

you can always try to pull the unnatural card.

[Nitro]

demagogue |ˈdeməˌgäg|
noun
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

(From Dictionary.app Version 1.0.2 [Oxford])

Arguments against gay marriage are based on religious biases and/or the fanning of moral panic. Reasons against gay marriage can be summed up as:

- blaspheme
- gays?! eww...
- moral decay
- unnatural factor

I don't feel like delving into the specifics of each, but I accuse most of the opponents of gay marriage of demagoguery. If it is your assigned goal to win a debate and the evidence isn't strong enough I personally would use oratorical skills over trivialities such as facts. Bullshit baffles brains .

[Maddy]

I had to give a presentation on an issue in year 10 and I chose this. One thing I had to do was pull in arguments against same-sex marriage so that I could rip them to shreds. I think I talked about the Bible and about how marriage has traditionally between a man and a woman. (I then explained how much those arguments suck. Don't get me wrong, I was argung 100% for it.)

[Steam Giant]

I'd look up the history of marriage. If it started as a religious joining, then you could indicate, from what's written in the old testiment, that it's supposed to be between a man and a woman. To argue that, state that it is no longer exclusively a religious joining, and that the concept of marriage has evolved over the years. Just ideas ^^

the problem is, we already got all the arguments against and ripped them to shreds.. but we wont get good marks without a balanced argument.

oh well, i guess even teachers cant expect us to do the impossible, and it actually is impossible to find a valid argument against.

ho hum...

[pirateninja]

http://straightpride.com/

http://www.afa.net/

^Those assholes always find SOME sort of argument against us.

Still, knowing you, you'll probably find some way to combat those arguments as well

[Psychedelic Bookmarks]

Basically, find reasons why homosexuality is bad. (eg it's a mental illness, unnatural, leads to promiscuity/drug use, is related to pedophilia, will rip society apart, is only for people who can't handle the opposite sex etc) and then say gay marriage would promote that.

[Steam Giant]

Originally Posted by Arneneithel

Basically, find reasons why homosexuality is bad. (eg it's a mental illness, unnatural, leads to promiscuity/drug use, is related to pedophilia, will rip society apart, is only for people who can't handle the opposite sex etc) and then say gay marriage would promote that.

That's a good point. You could say that some believe that homosexuality is a genetic mutation (like a deviation of what people are supposed to be like) and that gay marriage encourages them instead of driving society toward finding "the cure." You could then retort that genius IQ is a genetic mutation, and it's hard to deny what some people with a genius level IQ have done to better humanity. Also point out that it's not a proven fact that homosexuality is, in fact, a genetic mutation ^^

[Nitro]

Hmm ... if you have to make it balanced argue on religious freedom grounds against gay "marriage". I don't know what the laws are like in "Location: half the world away", but in the US there is the separation of church and state principle, and in Canada we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Basically argue that civil unions (ie. benefits) are the domain of the state, while marriage has a religious connotation and therefore is the realm of individual churches.

From the Charter (section 2):

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

see if your country/state has similar laws. By the way, if you were wondering, in Canada the Charter is the highest law of the land, and all other laws must conform to the Charter unless the Notwithstanding clause is used, but the clause has never been used. Ever.

[Nitro]

Sorry for the double post, but EC really is the wrong place to look for this kind of information.

[Steam Giant]

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

I didn't read this, but the site contains 10 arguments against gay marriage, so they might be useful for your presentation.

[Trumpetplyer23]

Originally Posted by pirateninja

http://straightpride.com/

http://www.afa.net/

^Those assholes always find SOME sort of argument against us.

Still, knowing you, you'll probably find some way to combat those arguments as well

What I found funny about the first website is that on the 'About Us' section the first thing it said (in bold, large prinkt) is "We are Not Homophobic" "We Do Not Hate Gays." If the website is about being proud about being straight, hence the name 'straight pride', why even bring up that you're not homophobic.

As for arguing against gay marriage, I'd pull the religion card, that's one of the most important. Make sure you mention the entire 'separation of church and state' thing, too.


What I also find funny, is the 'decay of family life' section in those aforementioned websties. Guess what? People tried to use the entire 'decay of family life' arguement in the 1970's when women were fighting for more equal rights in the workplace.

[Steam Giant]

Originally Posted by Trumpetplyer23

What I also find funny, is the 'decay of family life' section in those aforementioned websties. Guess what? People tried to use the entire 'decay of family life' arguement in the 1970's when women were fighting for more equal rights in the workplace.

Wow, that's a very good point! If you can find a source for that, that'd be an excellent rebuttal!

[otc877]

Originally Posted by Steam Giant

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

I didn't read this, but the site contains 10 arguments against gay marriage, so they might be useful for your presentation.

While all of the arguments were sound in their gaps in logic, this one stood out:

"Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens."

Foster parents can't beat (and by beat I mean verbally reprimand, because beating kids is illegal too) the gay out of their kids anymore

The woes of gay marriage.

[Trumpetplyer23]

Originally Posted by Steam Giant

Wow, that's a very good point! If you can find a source for that, that'd be an excellent rebuttal!

It was in my history book, actually. We discussed this in class for about half a hour. Thanks for the compliment, by the way.

[Jerr]

Taxes. Married couples get different tax breaks. Females/males. A union with two men or two women would have a different tax break... Not sure what it would be but check it out.

I've had people use that argument. It is a completely logical one.

(Easily fixed, mind you.)


Just look up that.

hey everyone

well we did our presentation today and overall i think it went well.

there was a very loud debate afterwards but the points we made were valid and i think we got marks for making the 'against' points even though there wasnt much we could expand on.

thanks to everyone for all your help!!!