Posted on 03/27/2013 12:49:17 PM PDT by RochesterNYconservative
I have discovered the one question gay rights proponents explode at when I ask them a question.
You see, whenever the Bible or religion is bought up, gay rights advocates already have "ready made" retorts that they will hurl at you, as well as the prerequisite "bigot," "homophobe" and "hater."
Then use logic to defeat them.
How?
Thanks for asking.
Merely pose this question to them:
Is marriage a "right" or a "privilege"?
How can a "right" be entirely dependent on the consent of another human being?
I want to marry Kate Upton, the model.
If she says NO to me, is my "right" being denied?
If there are millions of unmarried people, and unmarried not by choice, but by bad luck or other circumstances (illness, accident) are their "rights" being denied by being straight and single?
Life is not about "fair." Equality is almost a communistic term. Life will never be equal. There are people in terrible poverty, and people living in gleaming mansions.
Gays cannot marry? Guess what...many straight people who want a spouse are not so lucky either.
So, is marriage truly a right? Is it a right like voting? NO. You don't need another person to vote. Or to drive. Or to own a home.
Life is not fair. Get it through your thick skulls, liberals.
Bookmark
Pretty good point, but homosexuals can marry. A homosexual man can marry any eligible woman who is willing to marry him and and lesbian woman can marry any eligible man who wants to marry her.
Homosexuals who, instead of getting married to someone of the opposite sex, engage in relationships with people of the same gender CHOOSE not to get married.
Marriage “equality” is already the law of the land. They are trying to fundamentally redefine the meaning of marriage, not obtain, “equal rights”.
I don’t see any way they don’t get gay marriage through. Some activist judge someplace will sign off.
Then the attacks on religion will really start.
Seriously, you make a valid point, but logic and reasoning are not what sway leftists. They would come up with some counter argument, and whether it makes sense or not, it will satisfy them that their position is correct.
You’re close, but their counter-argument would be that once you have two ‘consenting’ adults, THEN their rights - as a couple - are being denied. IOW, they would argue that marriage is a right for two (at least), not for individuals.
Before or after they launch into their "YOU'RE A HATEFUL BIGOT AND A HOMOPHOBE" tirade?
The person you argue against could counter by saying that at least heterosexuals have the opportunity, theoretically, to find somebody willing to consent, then get legally married, whereas the homosexual does not have that full opportunity, as the law does not recognize same-sex “marriages”. It’s an interesting observation that may leave a few stumped, but I wouldn’t expect this to be an ace in the hole. I think we just need to get straight down to it and remind people that God designed the intrinsic nature of heterosexual marriages as being procreative. Copying someone’s post from a different thread on another website, I will say, “Whether or not there is infertility due to defect or age, the conjugal act is ordered toward procreation. It is, of its very nature, different from every other sexual pairing.” The debate, dominated by secularists, will of course disregard any such religious ideas, but we should not seek to water down our arguments to anything less; ultimately, this is about standing up for the truth, regardless of whether or not society as a whole decides to accept it or not. That’s not to discourage effective arguing and bringing up other good points, but it all ultimately boils down to an issue of the intended design of human sexuality.
Try: Gay marriages are not reproductive.
Homosexuals can marry each other or their favorite sheep ~ what they can’t do is register that marriage with the gub’mnt.
But the opportunity does not present itself with everyone. To be truly a right, it has to be there for the taking. Voting is only taken away when a person commits a felony. Marriage is entirely dependent on another person...you cannot marry yourself...Mick Jagger tried with Bianca and failed.
Good one~
Their counter to that one was that we allow old people to get married long past the age of reproduction.
One thing the typical low-info lib doesn’t comprehend is the notion that “rights” are not granted by the government. Such things are privileges, and what the government gives, it can just as easily take away.
There was Andrea Dworkin and John Stoltenberg, right? Gay couple. Real marriage. It just has to be a gay woman and a gay man.
I just ask them if they are comfortable with the government keeping lists of who is gay. What’s the worst that could happen?
Technically, if gay marriage passes...bisexuals have two choices (same and opposite sex)...so aren’t they technically benefiting the most by having the biggest number of possible marital partners?
I can't do this unless other people agree to peaceably assemble with me.
Nice try, but you're going to have to use another tack.
Too many older men like Rod Stewart have kids into their 60s...all they need is a woman who is younger than themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.