If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?

[Alcon]

I have very mixed feelings on the subject as a whole.  It does not effect me personally, so I'm pretty apathetic in any case.

Doesn't that seem like a downright scary ethical defense to you?  In fact, I think we have a much greater onus in defending those with very limited political sway.

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Okey doke.  Explain why I'm a lunatic?

[Alcon]

What I don't understand is why liberals and the various sodomites don't advocate separation of marriage and state.  It's interesting to me when liberals are angered about existing laws, their solution is not to repeal old laws, but to make new laws.

Most gays have no intention of getting married as it is; they would rather participate in pride parades and wave their penises at traffic.  Gay marriage is all politics and nothing more.  Somebody wake me up when all this crap is over.

I concur for the most part. Most of the gay people I've known live a totally different lifestyle where anything goes. I am for Civil Unions for those who truly are in a longterm committed relationship, but those are few and far between. I worry about them gaming the system to take advantage of the tax benefits you get when you are married. I could "marry" by best friend while we were living together so we could get the benefits and then divorce him once we really found a girl.

But for the most part, we can instate civil unions, but most of this cry is political. Most gay people don't want to get married and sleep with about any guy that has a nice dick.

I'm kind of worried you'd be making the same argument, with slightly different wording, against interracial marriage, if this were 100 years ago.

Snark: Wow...promiscuity in college?  Next thing you'll be telling me, the heterosexuals sleep around too.  Especially considering a lot of these guys/girls probably just came out and are in the first place where they feel comfortable with their sexuality, this is a bad sample.  I'm not encouraging promiscuity but using bad college behavior to deny rights to mature adults is crazy.

Plus: "Sorry, you can't get married, the people in college I know were slutty, so logically you probably wouldn't want to either."  Huh?

As for the potential for abuse:  How extensively has the system been "gamed" where gay marriage is legal?  If you can't prove that exceeds the value to marriage equality and general fairness, the morally cautious thing to do would be to be inclusive.  This is all about caution, right?

[Alcon]

You are part of the lunatic left?  I was unaware

Nope, but I share their position on this issue.

You don't seriously put your pride in winning above the ethical thing to do, do you?

[Alcon]

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.

[Alcon]

Um, how so?

A group with known social problems, and factors that make them disinterested in "settling down."  You don't think there aren't stereotypes about black promiscuity, too?  And that's not traditional, either.

That was really just an offhand comment.  Parallels alone do not justify calling a position dangerous or ludicrous.  The primary point of my post stands:  basing your argument entirely on anecdotal evidence (from a college!), and then extrapolating it universally to decide that non-promiscuous gays are a trivial hyperminority, isn't intellectually honest.  I know plenty of dedicated gay couples, and the gay folks I know aren't any sluttier than the average teenagers.  Even if they were, why use anecdotes instead of requests for marriage in countries that have legalized gay marriage?

But, honestly, I was more talking about this sort of argument...

As much as I am willing to allow fairness on behalf of same-sex couples, there is a certain threshold I simply cannot bring myself to cross -marriage is between a man and a woman wedded in holy matrimony, and I just cannot bear the mere thought of seeing two people of the same gender marrying each other. 

...which sounds exactly like the historical arguments against miscegenation.  Sorry, Frodo.  But it does.

Parallels aren't of great concern until you present an argument that could literally just substitute something for "man and woman" and come up with something you probably consider abhorrent, but would have been a mainstream opinion 100 years ago.  When that happens, I think it's time to strongly reconsider my opinion.

[Alcon]

The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.

Yes, I heard you the first three times.

Now explain how my belief is "hippie BS," or at least how I'm a hippie.  And, no, eating Veggie Burgers does not make me a hippie.

Thinking marriage is between a man and a woman does not make you a bigot.  Refusing to explain or re-think an opinion because it makes you uncomfortable, or because it's traditional, would make you an idiot, not a bigot.  Not saying that's what you're doing, but unless you stop repeating the same crap over and over again, I have to assume it is.

More to the point:  Stop delaying your eventual ass-kicking!

[Alcon]

I have explained my opinion, which is that I feel that if you get pushed, you push back.  Liberals have made a habit of setting the morals of this country so low, that any sense of decency is regarded as bigotry and hatred, etc.  I am opposed to gay marriage because I feel it is immoral, but I oppose it being legalized because I oppose the moral line being pushed so far

I've eliminated the parts of your post that are total jetsam for you.  Remember, you're talking to me, not "hippies" or "liberals."

So, please now elaborate on how it is immoral, since that's the logical crux of your argument.

[Alcon]

First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

Right, but you're not judging an idea on its supporters, since that's a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

You're not so petty as to commit an immoral act because it gives you the emotional satisfaction of defeating a group you don't like.  Or are you?  After all, that would be immoral in itself -- your own personal thrill vs. the right thing to do.  So, nothing you're said so far is relevant to your argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.

There's a lot of cruft here, but basically, you're saying:  My religious beliefs are against it, but they don't reflect on my political beliefs, so that's irrelevant.  No idea why you keep mentioning irrelevant things.

I'm now going to re-post your paragraph, with the stuff you've admitted as being irrelevant stricken (feel free to contest this):

First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.

So, we have basically one issue you present:  the fear that marriage benefits will be abused for economic gain, at a level greater than your (possibly arbitrary and definitely unspecified) comfort, because there are fewer gay couples than straight couples.  That, apparently, you see as immoral (because it is the only argument you have presented without striking its relevance, directly or logically.)

This is a potentially fair claim.  However, how does that make your opposition "hippie BS"?  Perhaps they place greater interest in social equality than you, and less important on the likelihood of abuse.  Perhaps they think abuse levels would be lower.  Either way, it's a matter of interpretation and subjective preference.

In this case, you have failed to provide any evidence of same-sex marriages being extensively abused for economic benefits.  You also haven't recognized that opposite-sex marriages have a potential for abuse, and you need to realize that the distinction you're making (one is acceptable abuse, the other is "hippie BS") is arbitrary and subjective.  It does not make your belief invalid.  It makes it unsupported and unclear.

In other words, your opinion is based on only one logical grounds (the likelihood of abuse), to which you have provided no evidence, no concrete "litmus test" for an unacceptable level of abuse, and then defend with a bunch of vague statements about morality.  On the other hand, you reject the moral arguments of your opposition as "hippie BS."  Is your belief on such shaky ground that you have to do that, or is it just reactionary?  (No need to respond to that false dichotomy )

Summary:  Your conviction is unsupported, seemingly arbitrary, technical/subjective and not established in concrete philosophy, and apparently necessitates bringing in arguments you admittedly see as irrelevant to provide "meat."  In other words, from what you've presented, it's not nearly as strong and concrete as you seem to think it is.  Off yer high horse, bud.

[Alcon]

Alcon, all I can say is that you take political forums seriously buddy

You are greatly overcomplicating this issue.

Here it is in a nutshell:
I am personally opposed to gay marriage.  I would usually not let my personal convictions deny anything to others (see my views on drugs and prostiutition).  However, this issue is being abused by the left as a rallying issue for equality and to label those with moral values "bigots".  I feel like the line has been pushed too far and its time that we stop and push back a little bit.  Civil Unions are fine with me, although I think they only lead to greater problems as one side pushes for all out marriage and the other pushes for nothing (an example I actually used in my SAT essay this weekend )

Right, so, in other words, this really is about the opposition to you.  Your only logical argument seems to be "it could lead to abuses."  But you only argued that when you were forced to present a logical argument, and now have abandoned it to complain about the left some more.  Your beliefs--moral, theirs--whiny.  Gotcha.  Now, let's move on to things that are at all relevant.

You won't explain to me what "moral values" you see here, just that you have them.  Cool.  But, to me, unjustified denial of rights to a group because of your own grudges is immoral.  And I should hope that, as someone so ostensibly concerned with morality as you, you would be chomping at the bit for a chance to defend your honor.  Instead, you're just repeating how annoyed you are that "hippies" question the morality you're so vociferously vague about.

The question I posed to you is in three simple parts:

1. If your sole logical argument is "it's ripe for abuse": Where is your evidence of this occurring, and what level of real use vs. abuse would be acceptable?  How do you arrive at this "litmus test"?

2. If your argument is "it's immoral":  I've presented my argument for why gay marriage is moral.  Now, you need to present an argument for why it's immoral.  Tradition and visceral feeling are not valid arguments; neither is theology, since you've taken it off the table.

3. If your argument is that your happiness from defeating the left is more important than doing the right thing, please explain how this fits into the moral system that you hold so dear.

Whichever you choose to answer, I'm sorry if the complex nature of reality is making it difficult to pass off mantras as morality.

[Alcon]

The difference here seems to be agreement over what "logical argument" is.  To me, the fact that the left has pushed the line too far and its time for conservatives to push back is a logical argument.  You may not agree with it, but I fail to see why its illogical.

Because it rests on the base that it is "too far," which is begging the question.  If your premise that it was "too far" was conclusively proven, there would be no debate here.  The problem is, you haven't made any attempt to prove it, outside that gay marriage could be abused.  As I've covered, that's a complaint you've failed to support, and a standard you've failed to define.

I have not taken theology off the table, religion is my main grounds for opposing it.  I also that it is just plain sick, but that religious convictions conquers that.

Um:

"The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing."

Lol?

Defeating the left is doing the right thing, one of the main goals of the collective left is to destroy moral values and religion and replace them with an immoral secular culture.

In other words, this is one big slippery slope argument?

So, how would this not apply to interracial marriage?  Or are you opposed to that, too?  Pretty much any measure associated with social progressivism would be "off-limits" with you, just in order to spite the secular left.  When does the collateral damage in your ideological war become too great?

As a secular person who considers morality very important, whether I live up to it or not, I think that your means-to-the-ends approach to immorality is exactly the cause of the things you claim to hate.

Hopefully, in a generation or so when gay marriage loses its controversy (which I assume it probably will), you'll accept it like the other causes (interracial marriage, equal rights for women, etc.) that your philosophy would have demanded you argued against were you of a different age.  Then, you can move onto whatever new knee-jerk position is out there for you.  Hopefully, this time, you'll be right, not just think you're with the right people.

[Alcon]

I am against it because it's icky... 


Just give me time to get used to the idea of seeing two men or two women wedded in holy matrimony, and I might start changing my mind.  As of now...ugh. 

Before I go all "moral outrage" on you, two questions:  Is this a serious ethical argument, and do you like broccoli?

[Alcon]

I'm against "gay marriage" (particular because it's between one man and one woman and has been a tradition for thousand of years).

Appeal to tradition fallacy.  You have to explain why the tradition is good, not just say it's a tradition -- unless you think that being traditional automatically makes something better.

But sort of open to "civil unions" not gay-adopt but benefits(because I don't feel it's my business to intervene). If gays get there way they'll start coming after religious groups and maybe to a point of filing lawsuits against discrimination and prisoning people who are against allowing them in there congregation.

When interracial marriage was legalized, churches were not forced to marry interracial couples.

No jurisdiction has ever required churches to marry anyone, let alone imprisoned people for failing to.  The same is true of congregation membership.

You can't just make up a scenario, claim it will happen, and then not give a reasonable level of evidence why it's likely enough to justify the inequality.

Elton John once said  if he was in control, he'd Ban organized religion if he has way that's pretty scary thinking that government would get to that point, call me paranoid but this is more serious. If they wanna get married go to Britain.

Elton John is one person.  He's not representative of gays overall, who in one poll I found are 58% active Christians.  Even in a country where the minority of people are deists, Britain, they even have a state religion still.  Where are you finding these slippery slopes?

Certainly there are some crazy fundamentalist Christians out there, too.  Does allowing them to marry somehow allow them to thrust their religion on me?  That doesn't make sense.

Most americans even in California voted against it about three times, and now taking it to the courts for judges(not a surprise judges don't represent democracy).

A. Twice.

B. Judges represent a republic...are you against the United States's form of government?

I'm not against gay-marriage because I'm homophobe or against it because I'm religeous or whatever but what it'll do to what partly made america which is fundemental principles.

Such as equal opportunity and freedom -- principles your position fails to support.