Are these legitimate reasons for why Gays should not be allowed to marry?

All taken from people on here:

"Marriage is between a man & a woman.

You think it's a simple as "let them marry" It goes deeper then that.

To scratch the surface, SS benefits, tax beaks, insurance coverage, from their employer (which costs everyone) just to name a few things.

Rethink this through.

WHY should we change the law & tradition just for them?"

"Because it changes the meaning of marriage. It cheapens it...makes it a joke."

"who's to say gay people have the right to change the laws?"


Most Helpful Guy

  • "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

    This is not a legitimate reason because that is the very point being discussed. It is a "begging the question fallacy" which means that the conclusion (people of the same sex can't get married) is also the premise (marriage is between a man and a woman)

    "To scratch the surface, SS benefits, tax beaks, insurance coverage, from their employer (which costs everyone) just to name a few things."

    This is not a legitimate argument because it is an "appeal to the consequences fallacy". In other words rather than looking at the issue and judging it on its own merits this person is simply looking at how difficult it will be to implement the change. The idea cannot be judged based solely on its consequences. The merit of the idea itself must take center stage. To ignore that very important part is like asking "I shouldn't buy this thing because it is $20" Without taking into account whether the thing is a candy bar, a pair of pants, or a car.

    As a side note, I have to say that the fact that the government discriminates against single people is not a very good argument to limit people's freedoms.

    "WHY should we change the law & tradition just for them?"

    This is also a foolish argument. Laws are almost always written and changed for a small group of people. As for changing tradition, I think this argument is pointless as the purpose of law is not to uphold traditions. Traditions stand, or are lost, based on their own value to the people that practice them.

    "Because it changes the meaning of marriage. It cheapens it...makes it a joke."

    The meaning of the word marriage has been changing throughout history. To suggest that the current form, one man and one woman, not related (or closely related in some situations) who enter into a mutually voluntary domestic and financial agreement that lasts until either of them seek to end said agreement, is the same as the different forms of marriage that have existed in the past is nothing short of denying history.

    "who's to say gay people have the right to change the laws?"

    This is a strawman. It implies that gays are the only people who want to legalize gay marriage, and that they, a minority, are trying to change laws thereby going against the ideas of a democracy or a republic. But of course it isn't just gays. It is a significant portion of the population, and once that portion becomes large enough they can and do change the laws, and that's how our government works.


Have an opinion?

What Guys Said 5

  • Apart from maybe that tax thing, I fail to see how that affects anyone but the people getting married. Even then, I don't care. I really don't. Everything anyone has ever given is nothing but homophobia and bigotry. There is nothing else to it than that.

    Where I live we've had plenty of gay weddings. I've even attended a lesbian wedding, myself. Look at that, I'm still here. My world has not descended into anarchy. Society had not crumbled. Marriage still happens, and it's no weaker or stronger, since.

    Who says gay people have the right to change laws? I'm sorry, are you saying they're not people? Who says anyone has the right to change laws? But laws still change. They change all the damned time. I'm pretty sure interracial marriage was against the rules at some point too. Should we go back to that tradition as well? Come off it people.

    Oh, and in before anyone makes the animals comparison. Before you even try, animals don't really consent. So cram that too. You fucking perverts.

    • Seriously though! So many people, especially politicians weighing in on their thoughts on Gay marraige, bring up that whole thing about "well then why not marry a horse or a dog?" or how they think that immediately following gay marraige comes bestiality.

  • I think the whole 'marriage has always been between a man and a woman' is so stupid it annoys me. Societies in the past put gay people to death or in prison so its obvious why they never introduced gay marriage. You can't say it's always been this way when people actively denied gay people their rights.

  • Totally agree,Never in history did anyone envisage calling gay relationships 'marriage.'

    I'm all for equal rights, but what they are asking for isn't equal rights, it's special privileges.

    Why can't there be polygamy? Why can't cousins marry? Why can't I marry without a license?

    But somehow, only gays are allowed to be free of all restrictions..the rest of us have to ocntinue to put up with them, right?

    • They're not asking for special privileges, they're asking for the same privileges you have. Nothing more. They're not asking for polygamy, they're not asking to marry their cousins, they're not asking to marry without licenses. I don't know where you get this idea that gay people are free of all restrictions, haha! Maybe on opposite day, haha!

    • Show All
    • In history gay people were put to death and were imprisoned,

      ofcourse they weren't going to have gay marriage so it's nonsensical to base it on history when so much has changed

    • Not always; in ancient Greece and other slave societies, naturally, it was widely practiced. Also in Germany just before the rise of Nazism.

  • The fact that I can't give your father 3 camels for your sorry ass, means we've already redefined marriage since Biblical times.

    ""who's to say gay people have the right to change the laws?""

    And if it was only gay people changing this law, you might have a relevant point - but they aren't so you don't. The majority of people have the right to change the law and the majority are in favour of gay marriage.

  • I don't consider any of those to be valid reasons, no.


What Girls Said 7

  • No, those are not legitimate reasons and there are no legitimate reasons. Marriage is between whoever the hell feels like getting married. Two gay people getting married has no effect on me whatsoever. They are humans too and, therefore, have the exact same rights as any other person.

    Gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage? I don't think so. But what DOES ruin the sanctity of marriage is the extremely high divorce rates every year. The amount of people getting married on a whim and then divorced is what ruins the concept of "marriage."

    That is another reason why I don't see why people bring religion into it. Divorce is condemned in the Bible too yet thousands of religious people and just people in general get divorced every year. It's mainly hypocrites who think they are better than gay people who have an issue with gays marrying.

    And as for that last point, last time I checked there are not many gay people in our government changing the laws. But even so, EVERY person has the right to petition to change a current law that they don't agree with.

    I mean really, who gives a flying f*** who someone else wants to spend their life with? That's no one else's business. People are allowed to love who they want, end of story. No one has the right to say how someone else should live their life. I'm a firm believer in the term "freedom" and personally, I think the government should stay out of our personal lives. People should marry who they want, there is no "justifying" restrictions on someone else's life like that.

  • i think they are legitimate OPINIONS, which every person is entitled to.

    but I will give my legitimate opinion, which no one can say I'm not entitled to. I do believe man and women are made for one another only. I do not judge a homosexual or disrespect them but I do disagree with the concept. if you think about it, the natural multiplication of the population can only occur between a man and woman, thus proving that they are made to b united with one another in love and commitment.

    if gays want to be in a relationship then so be it, but the word marriage should only connotate that between a man and woman. it could be called something else which isn't so symbolic.

  • I don't think they are reasons, some gay married people are far better and have healthier relationships that some straight people. the reasons are just made by some conservative people.

  • whatever will be will be. just leave some d*** for me.

  • Nope I cannot think of any and that is stupid if they change the laws so it is cheapier

  • There are no legitimate reasons. The only thinly veiled slightly legitimate reason against it being allowed in every state has to do with "states rights" or a process of amendment to the constitution. However, the supreme court can find bans on gay rights to be unconstitutional, which then pretty much says you can't ban gay marriage. that doesn't mean its necessarily legalized in every state though, you just can't ban it, if they find that.

    But there are no objective, legitimate reasons. There are only subjective morals and values.

    I can't take anyone seriously who makes the argument about homosexuality being a joke. That's a personal feeling. About half the country disagrees with that, and several states have acted on those wishes by legalizing it, so there's no objective, overwhelming evidence that the people of the united states feel that marriage is cheapened or a joke. Therefore, these are only the feelings of some and are subjective. Some people feel the same way about divorce. Are we going to outlaw that too? Probably not, because most people don't have a problem with divorce.

    And I can't take anyone seriously who argues that this suddenly changes marriage. Um, hello, where have you been over the past few centuries where the definition of marriage, or I should say who is allowed what rights in marriage, has changed tremendously. Women damn sure haven't always had the rights in marriage that they have when it comes to terminating marriages or divorce, or even rights to their own children in the event that they leave or divorce their husbands. Women were essentially property in marriage originally, and her children also belonged to her husband. At least in the history of our Anglo-European and then American tradition of marriage. Actually its still this way in some countries but that's another story. Marriage between blacks, as slaves, was more symbolic than actually respected by white slave owners, and threats to break up families if slaves didn't do something they were told to do or if black female slaves didn't comply to masters rapist tendencies was a very common reality. Interracial marriages were once frowned on and there were legal consequences in place for that as well. People were physically assaulted and killed over interracial relationships, let alone marriages. And our acceptance of those relationships had to evolve. And all of this is within the boundaries of the preferred monogamous marriage. Outside of that, there are still many mormons in Utah (and probably elsewhere) who participate in polygamy as expression of their religious values and traditions.

    So this is definitely not the first expansion of inclusion for rights to marriage. Just as women were more or less proporty before, and that had to be changed, just as legal recognition of black marriages and interracial marriages would add to the definition of acceptable marriage because that had to be changed, so too must the inclusion of civil rights for another group of people.

  • No, none of those are good reasons.

    There ARE no reasons to prevent gay marriage. It doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage (Vegas does), it doesn't mean straight marriage is less important or less valid, it doesn't hurt straight people.

    They're supposed to keep church and state separate. Therefore, religious views shouldn't be influencing civil law at all. And when you take away the religious part of those arguments, there IS no arugument. They need to stop letting religion determine civil law.

    They're abiding by the law, meaning they're both legal, consenting adults. They WANT to make everything legal and simply do things the way straight people do. And how dare people tell them they can't.

    I support gay marriage all the way. There's no legitimate reason not to.