The reasons for opposing gay marriage

Never ceases to amaze me when people say homosexuality occurs in animals and therefore must be natural.

Infanticide occurs in animals yet no decent human being would say this is right.

In fairness, whether you oppose it or not, it will eventually be legalized.
How we look back and think 'Wow 50 years a go interracial couples couldn't marry?!', 'In 50 years time it will be the same. Omg they were crazy back then, same sex couples couldn't marry?'

So just drop the debate, it will never win in the long run!

Two different arguments that are not linked.

Being against gay marriage means that you want to deny gay people the right to marry for no justifiable reason, and denying gay people rights for no justifiable reason falls under the umbrella of homophobia. It would be not homophobic if they were fine with 'what goes on in private' if they were also against straight people marrying and keeping that to a private thing as well.

It's not the same as hating gay people or hurling abuse at them etc. but it's still homophobia.

Gays were never slaves.

No, there reasons are justified (even though the reasons are wrong). They are against it because they believe in sticking with tradition, and the tradition is for marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Note that these are not my opinions.

How come? If homosexuality is right then infanticide is also right. If it isn't, then explain why it's wrong... I'm waiting.

How come? If homosexuality is right then infanticide is also right. If it isn't, then explain why it's wrong... I'm waiting.

Never ceases to amaze me when people say homosexuality occurs in animals and therefore must be natural.

Infanticide occurs in animals yet no decent human being would say this is right.

So the conclusion is that homosexuality is natural. Nothing else should be drawn from that.



The link should not be made that because homosexuality occurs in nature it is right because as you pointed out, there is a lot of things that occur in nature that are not right.

The point tends to come from many anti-gay rights people claiming that homosexuality isnt natural. The response is then that it is natural because it occurs in nature. Natural is not being made to mean it is right, rather just refuting the claim that it is not a natural occurrence.

But you atheists claim religious folks cherry-pick, but the only cherry-picking I'm seeing here is coming from atheists. How can you say one thing is right and another is wrong if morals are not objective. It makes no sense whatsoever. Who told you it was right, or wrong for that matter? I'm curious to know.

But you atheists claim religious folks cherry-pick, but the only cherry-picking I'm seeing here is coming from atheists. How can you say one thing is right and another is wrong if morals are not objective. It makes no sense whatsoever. Who told you it was right, or wrong for that matter? I'm curious to know.

The reason is 'keeping with tradition', but the reason is faulty unless they are also for men owning their wives and marital rape and black people not being able to marry white people.

As I said, there reasons are wrong, but the reasons are not homophobic.

What makes an atheist say one thing is right and another is wrong? From whom does he get his authority on this matter? Seems to me like atheists like to cherry-pick.

But you atheists claim religious folks cherry-pick, but the only cherry-picking I'm seeing here is coming from atheists. How can you say one thing is right and another is wrong if morals are not objective. It makes no sense whatsoever. Who told you it was right, or wrong for that matter? I'm curious to know.

Be careful with that argument you'll only invoke the 'naturalistic fallacy' again and then we'll end up with another 20+ pages going over all the same old ground already featured in the "gays and children" debate

That's the benefit of being atheist. We don't get TOLD what to see as right or wrong. We can OBJECTIVELY look at the world and see morality and immorality around us. Because there is no entity like the church to appease, we see everything as is without prejudice.

OK, I actually agree that "being gay is natural so it's fine" or "being gay is unnatural so it's bad" are both bad arguments. Ignoring them (and as a corollary all other appeals to nature), come up with a convincing argument why gay people should not be married.