Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

The reasons for opposing gay marriage

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I saw this as a visitor message on someone's TSR profile this morning:

    "I still don't agree with gay marriage. I know I won't be forced into gay relationships, but the point still stands that it would essentially mean the government thinks homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in some way! A distinction between the two is necessary, as homosexuality really is subordinate to heterosexuality."

    I can't help but wonder if this is the reason that a large chunk of the opposition to gay marriage are really against it - because they just don't like gay people and want to be seen as superior. This seems a more likely reason than all the tired arguments about how you can't redefine marriage (as has been done many times before), it will lead to bestiality/polygamy/incest/the end of the world, etc...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wonder if it's less to do with seeing homosexuals as inferior, rather the opposition concerns the raising of children.

    Marriage, traditionally, was for the bringing up of children, and people worry about giving homosexuals the right to marriage because of their reserves about allowing gay people to adopt.

    Personally, I'd say give gay people the right to declare themselves 'married'. It could help people who are nervous about coming out; knowing that their relationship 'prospects' are equal to heterosexual peers will give them the confidence and the pride to reveal who they really are.

    Note, too, as long as the two married gay people love the child in question, I think adoption / fostering should certainly be allowed; it's time we move on as a society and practise what we preach about tolerance.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M'Ling)
    I wonder if it's less to do with seeing homosexuals as inferior, rather the opposition concerns the raising of children.

    Marriage, traditionally, was for the bringing up of children, and people worry about giving homosexuals the right to marriage because of their reserves about allowing gay people to adopt.

    Personally, I'd say give gay people the right to declare themselves 'married'. It could help people who are nervous about coming out; knowing that their relationship 'prospects' are equal to heterosexual peers will give them the confidence and the pride to reveal who they really are.

    Note, too, as long as the two married gay people love the child in question, I think adoption / fostering should certainly be allowed; it's time we move on as a society and practise what we preach about tolerance.
    Studies have shown there is no negative effects on children raised in same sex relationships and sometimes they are better off (lower crime rates, less mental health issues). Heterosexual people can be terrible parents, I think same sex ones are generally better because they can't have children by accident, they have to know they want a child so are more likely to take better care of them.

    Plus to adopt you have to be in a stable job etc...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because they're behind the Zeitgeist?

    Honestly, the opponents of Gay marriage will look back on themselves in 20 years time and cringe in embarrassment. Remember, people used to make a passionate defense of racial segregation!
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter78)
    Because they're behind the Zeitgeist?

    Honestly, the opponents of Gay marriage will look back on themselves in 20 years time and cringe in embarrassment. Remember, people used to make a passionate defense of racial segregation!
    I agree.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	interracial1.jpg 
Views:	1071 
Size:	65.2 KB 
ID:	161695
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derangedyoshi)
    I agree.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	interracial1.jpg 
Views:	1071 
Size:	65.2 KB 
ID:	161695
    Nice image, thanks for sharing!
    • 43 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Haha, that was posted on my wall by a bigoted idiot.
    I pointed out to him that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, in terms of their relationships being healthy expressions of human sexuality, and he's an idiot for saying they're not. And also that there is a simple distinction - people who are homosexuals say 'I am homosexual' and people who are heterosexual say 'I am heterosexual'. He didn't respond after that.
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nav_Mallhi)
    It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*
    Two things wrong here.

    The naturalistic fallacy means you can't say that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
    Also, homosexuality is found in many animal species and there are many explanations as to how it could have evolved. So even if the naturalistic fallacy didn't apply, homosexuality would still be good by your own definition if you think that natural = good.

    Edit: Oh yeah, three things wrong, you don't choose your sexuality, so they don't choose a man instead of a woman.
    Guess I'm so sick of seeing people make that stupid error that I just blank it out now.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy_J)
    Studies have shown there is no negative effects on children raised in same sex relationships and sometimes they are better off (lower crime rates, less mental health issues). Heterosexual people can be terrible parents, I think same sex ones are generally better because they can't have children by accident, they have to know they want a child so are more likely to take better care of them.

    Plus to adopt you have to be in a stable job etc...
    I see no contradiction in our viewpoints.

    We have to be careful, though, if we say "homosexual parents are better than heterosexual parents" by default, as we run the risk of favouring gay people for none other reason than their sexuality. I do agree, though, that a lot of heterosexual parents are frankly atrocious, and I'd be interested to see if your theory is correct as to having effectively 'earn' their children makes gay people superior parents.

    Love has to prevail at the end of the day, and to deny gays the right to be parents is to suggest they cannot love as well as their heterosexual comrades, which would, clearly, be as illogical as it is arrogant.
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M'Ling)
    I see no contradiction in our viewpoints.

    We have to be careful, though, if we say "homosexual parents are better than heterosexual parents" by default, as we run the risk of favouring gay people for none other reason than their sexuality. I do agree, though, that a lot of heterosexual parents are frankly atrocious, and I'd be interested to see if your theory is correct as to having effectively 'earn' their children makes gay people superior parents.

    Love has to prevail at the end of the day, and to deny gays the right to be parents is to suggest they cannot love as well as their heterosexual comrades, which would, clearly, be clearly as illogical as it is arrogant.
    They're not being favoured for their sexuality, they're being favoured for possessing attributes that would likely make them better parents. The same thing would apply to infertile couples who also can't have children by accident in terms of that specific comment.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nav_Mallhi)
    It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*
    Yeah because we'd totally "CHOOSE" to be discriminated against.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derangedyoshi)
    I saw this as a visitor message on someone's TSR profile this morning:

    "I still don't agree with gay marriage. I know I won't be forced into gay relationships, but the point still stands that it would essentially mean the government thinks homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in some way! A distinction between the two is necessary, as homosexuality really is subordinate to heterosexuality."

    I can't help but wonder if this is the reason that a large chunk of the opposition to gay marriage are really against it - because they just don't like gay people and want to be seen as superior. This seems a more likely reason than all the tired arguments about how you can't redefine marriage (as has been done many times before), it will lead to bestiality/polygamy/incest/the end of the world, etc...
    I think this is a big part of it, especially when one of the anti-marriage equality campaigns has chosen the charming name "keep marriage special".
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because it says so in my 2000 year old book.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    They're not being favoured for their sexuality, they're being favoured for possessing attributes that would likely make them better parents. The same thing would apply to infertile couples who also can't have children by accident in terms of that specific comment.
    Exactly. My point was precisely to judge on merit, rather than sexuality. I said that it would be wrong to gift homosexuals the title of superior parents because of no reason other than them being gay. Similarly, it would be wrong to gift people the right to adopt because they are sterile.

    As you say, people who adopt children should be based on their ability to bring up children well. I was merely trying to clarify the language we use around this, in order that we do not favour gay people in some compensatory act of guilt, rather we give them exactly the same rights for love as straight people.
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh look another "gay" aka "homosexual" thread :rolleyes:, there isn't a problem with any of this, if you are gay fine, if not fine, stop whining over people who don't understand. Life is a bitch move on. People will change over time.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rcummins1)
    Because it says so in my 2000 year old book.
    Do you not think that this book should keep up with what's become socially acceptable since it was written?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M'Ling)
    Exactly. My point was precisely to judge on merit, rather than sexuality. I said that it would be wrong to gift homosexuals the title of superior parents because of no reason other than them being gay. Similarly, it would be wrong to gift people the right to adopt because they are sterile.

    As you say, people who adopt children should be based on their ability to bring up children well. I was merely trying to clarify the language we use around this, in order that we do not favour gay people in some compensatory act of guilt, rather we give them exactly the same rights for love as straight people.
    Well, he probably should have worded it differently but he didn't say that every homosexual would be a good parent, just that homosexuals who are parents and likely to have certain characteristics that will make them better parents.
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Oh look another "gay" aka "homosexual" thread :rolleyes:, there isn't a problem with any of this, if you are gay fine, if not fine, stop whining over people who don't understand. Life is a bitch move on. People will change over time.
    Well there is a problem, because the 'people who don't understand' are not just ignorant and then don't do anything about it, a lot of the time they're actively arguing for the denial of certain rights for gay people.
    And what difference does it make to you if there's a debate about homosexuality on the 'Debate and Current Affairs' section of the forum? Just stay out of it if you don't think it's an issue.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's a disgusting attitude, but sadly too many people have it. And they're like "oh, why would you choose someone of the same sex, ooh it's weird and wrong" - I don't like tattoos and wine but I don't cast it off as wrong! It ain't difficult to realise that people are different and can love whoever they want. If you're too small minded to understand or accept why/how someone could feel a certain way, then it doesn't make them wrong or inferior - it makes you small minded.

    Also, more common arguments I hear: "Marriage is between a man and a woman" - only as defined by the Bible which no-one now follows anyway, or there'd be no sex before marriage and we'd all be going to church too.
    "Marriage is for the creation of children" - don't see old or infertile couples being banned from marrying.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 17, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.