Why do people resist gay marriage?

There's only three reasons

1. they think some god thinks it's bad.

2. they have no idea what being gay is, therefore think it can be learned, therefore think it's somehow bad for society, therefore they're just kind of dumb.

3. they're just assholes.

Despite the attempt to make it sound as if there must be more too it since so many people have a problem with it, which seems to be the basis of the description.

Every argument against ultimately boils down to one of those three things.

None of them the least bit legitimate.

2) Most Christian believers know that its wrong cuz like the cute little saying goes "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

1. If you believe in a god, you believe he created everyone. And people are born gay, so he did create adam and steve.

2. It's moot anyway, because we evolved over millions of years, and every mammal and every generation of every mammal has had a percent of gay members.

Yeah! Fuck them homofags and their pride and their dressing up all half naked and stuff! That's totally gay n' shit. Fags. They should totally like, go do that somewhere private n' shit. Or like, we should nuke 'em n' shit.

1. two wrongs don't make a right.

2. you really can't get enough of the abortion debate can you?

It's a woman's body, and a man cannot force her to do anything at all with it, whether they've had sex or not.

And child support is supposed to be for the child, not the woman. Though I will grant you the laws in that arena are skewed far far far to the woman's side.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with gay marriage, except maybe you're now for gay marriage as there's no chance of anyone suing anyone for child support.

Sure, that's one route. Another is to allow benefits to all marriages gay or straight, another is to simply not recognize marriage at all and only offer such benefits if one has kids no matter marital status. There's probably a hundred ways to make it fair. Right now though, it is blatantly not fair.

The point is that it's not the State's place to say one group of people can do something, and another group cannot.

Religions can say it. You can say. I can say it. Anyone else and any religion is allowed those freedoms.

The State though is not. If it recognizes one, it Constitutionally needs to recognize all. That's what equal rights means.

You might not always like it, but that is what this country is founded on, and it's the moral and right path to take. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a dude. I'm certainly not gonna marry another guy. But if two guys or two girls want to marry each other, it's not hurting anyone.

1. That doesn't answer why married couples without kids are still allowed to be married.

2. I would argue that adopting kids who are a burden on society already is even more helpful than having more kids, since there's too many people and all, by your own admission in past debates.

sometimes it does, sometimes the kids grow up to be serial killers.

And those benefits aren't taken away if they choose not to have kids.

And gay couples should have every right to adopt a kid if the want, and so should be allowed the same benefits, along with the title.

Logic is not on your side Joe, no matter how far you stretch it, or how many debates you decide to create on the subject.

The government can grant benefits to whatever group it deems deserving.

Exactly, and the government by saying one group of people cannot is saying you're not important to society, you don't deserve this.

Government doesn't grant farm subsidies based on age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. It grants them to farms.

In the same way, government needs to grant all humans the right to marry another human if those humans want to marry.

That, or stop calling any of them marriage and get rid of all marriage benefits,

or stop making gay people pay taxes.

Those are the only options government has if it feels like being Constitutional.

1. we define words and can change the definition whenever and however we feel. ex. in the 18 century Africans were defined as inferior, and so enslaving them was just fine by "definition" link

Obviously that they were defined as such was not, and should not have been, the "End of story" right?

2. Marriage has several definitions anyway, only one of which is between a man and a woman. Another is simply a ceremony in which two people (notice the lack of sex in that description) are joined in a union,

another is a close relationship between any two things, "the painting was a marriage of contemporary and classical styles." You're not suggesting that styles of painting have sexual organs are you? I mean since marriage is "between a man and a woman. End of story."

As long as they can't sue religions for not letting them get married in their churches and that kind of stuff.

So... your fear is that gay people will sue, if they can't get married in a certain church?

Really? So, it's okay to discriminate against a group of people, in the off chance that if we stop discriminating against said people, they may at some point sue someone for something...

Brilliant logic there Jake.

I have a better idea. How about if we just let people get married if they want and stop worrying about what other people do.

The only argument is that a group of people is being discriminated against. And the majority of people are allowing it,

that's immoral, unfair, and quite unconstitutional.

lol,

okay, so you think Africans in this country should make their own union?

You are officially retarded and I'm deleting you from my friend list.

They were born here, they have been here historically longer than almost anyone else (most Caucasians didn't migrate until well after slavery), to top it all, they didn't even choose to come here.

Basically what you're proposing is States based on race... ignoring that race isn't even accurate since humans are only one race and all other true "races" (there were only 21 we know about) died off thousands and thousands of years ago as far as humans are concerned,

ignoring how retarded that is. It's even more retarded to think that it would somehow be beneficial to anyone that any American should have to go "make their own union"

Sure, start with the Africans, then the Italians, then the Irish, on down the line... guess what Jake, we're all a little bit of everything, and you need to get a clue. Eventually you'll have three Americans left, each more incestuous than the next.

Next retarded point:

Yes, not giving a group of people a set of rights that another group of people is allowed is discrimination. That's the definition of discrimination. You cannot more accurately describe discrimination than that.

If a church doesn't want to marry two gays, fine, go burn a witch and worship you're invisible dude. No one is complaining about that. But STATES aren't CHURCHES do you understand that much at least?

So when a State does not allow gay marriage, it is discrimination and unconstitutional, and just kind of mean behavior in general. AND it is not even protected under "freedom of religion," as again, because I feel the need to repeat myself with you, States aren't churches. So go ahead, rattle off about god hating fags until you're blue in the face, how it's a sin, ladedadeda. Okay, good for you, you're another crazy person on the corner, congratulations.

But it's not the States place to decide others religion. And if a religion can be found (which it certainly can be) which wishes to marry a gay couple in any State of the Union,

it's the State's, and the countries, legal and moral obligation to recognize that marriage.

Last point. People also didn't vote to end slavery. In cases of discrimination the majority should not rule, as our forefathers (hypocritically granted) made very clear in the wording of our founding documents.