Ok, so the links below the google search seem to be from the google search.
The first one (gaysagainstmarriage.com) is a blog that argues against gay marriage on the grounds that it is a threat to gay sexual freedom. He states that in a time where women have far more liberty to be sluts without being judged, gay marriage will lead to expectations that gays will be more monogamous. Uhm, I can see how that might seem coherent to you, but it sure as heck isn't coherent to me. He's also against gay marriage for religious reasons - feeling that gays shouldn't even try to conform to standards set up by religions that hate them; so this argument isn't free from religious colouring.
The second one makes no reference as to why a gay person would be against gay marriage and in fact seems to be put together by the likes of the authors of conservapedia - speaking about 'sanctity of marriage' and other such incoherent bullshit.
The third one takes a similar tack to the first, going so far as to suggest that the hiv/aids epidemic was a unifying force that gave gays more social cohesion, a cohesion that may be lost if gays assimilate into traditional style same-sex monogamy. Seriously, did you even read these articles? This person waxes nostalgic over the HIV/AIDS epidemic - and you call that a coherent argument against gay marriage?
The final article states that not all gays are interested in pursuing gay marriage (a given, and I fall in that group), and those that oppose it do so for 'moral, political, or religious' reasons. Unfortunately he doesn't offer an example of a political argument, and the example he offers of a moral argument is actually a religious one.
So, John, I don't believe there is a coherent argument against gay marriage - although there does seem to be a coherent argument against gays being obliged to marry. I don't believe that such an argument exists because I have seen no evidence of one. This leaves you, the theist once again, making the claim.
If you feel such an argument exists, please provide the actual argument and let us examine whether or not it is coherent.
He states that in a time where women have far more liberty to be sluts without being judged, gay marriage will lead to expectations that gays will be more monogamous.
You didn't explain why you didn't find this coherent. It is a commonly held concern within the gay community that the government in the UK is seeking to legalise gay marriage to change or influence behaviours thought to be found in the gay community. Have a read.
The passing of laws to influence individual behaviour is a real concern. The Conservative government here, the government of family values, is widely reported as supporting the change in law so that it will make the gay community more monogomous. People, like the blogger whose comments you've read, are concerned and object. Uhm, there is nothing incoherent in this, please give us the benefit of your insight. I won't be replying because of your troll-like behaviour on recent posts.
@Kris. I don't agree with the arguement either. It may be hypocritical, who knows. But it is coherent. The state can and does influence behaviour through the laws it passes and there are some members of the gay community who are concerned that the underlying reason for granting gay marriage is to influence behaviour. That is certainly the case for straight marriage isn't it? Pair bonding started off as a naturally evolved arrangement to secure that genes would be passed on, the female of the species needing help to raise very dependent babies. It has become a political institution now that the state has intervened and decreed that marriage benefits society and to this end it becomes a legal entity with obligations and benefits.
As well as the links I have provided to show concerns in the UK, it seems thatin the US it is also a concern for some for similar reasons.
RE: "Much of the pressure for same-sex marriage began with same-sex couples wanting to get married, so there is clear evidence that the behaviour in question already exists within the gay community at least to some extent."
I have to question - and admittedly, I have no answer, just the question - how much of that is because they want to, and how much because they've been told they can't?
Archaeopteryx, the answer to your second question is: nearly none. Consider for a moment what everyone is taught: that when you grow up and fall in love, you marry that one special person.
Why does no one realize that gays and lesbians are going to have the same expectations as their straight counterparts?
Some are not going to want to settle down. Some are going to want to marry. But because societies have been poisoned by religions no one allows gays and lesbians to be "normal" and marry.
You are flogging it to death. Suggesting that removing a prohibition will result in creating an obligation is ridiculous - but I wouldn't expect anymore from you. You are terrified that 'the meat industry' sits in a dark committee somewhere, plotting to bring you to ruin - and now you've got a room full of evil politicians trying to 'trick gays' into safer sexual practices through matrimony.
I'm sure you just started this challenge as another one of your trolls and now you just can't let it go - because no one could be as paranoid as you come across.
@Heather your arguments get sillier and more desperate as a result of deep bitterness and hostility to those that question the ethics of animal slaughter for meat.
The Government in this country and many others promote marriage becuse they believe it is better for society as a whole. For the same reasons, they support gay marriage, hoping it will provide more stable relationships. Some members of the gay community do not want the right to gay marriage because of the implicit attempt to change behaviour. Some heteroexuals may similarly resent the instituion of marriage. You don't agree, fine. But stop jumping up and down saying it's not coherent just because elsewhere in another discussion I have dared to say that I think slaughtering animals in their billions is unethical. Troll all you like, but I'm not going be put off voicing a resonable point of view just to suit you. I'll remind you that there are many prominent atheists past and present who think similarly to me - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Peter Singer, AC Grayling, Einstein. You can describe them as cult members like me if you like, but I think I am in good company.
Carl Sagan wrote:
"Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us."
"...and now you've got a room full of evil politicians trying to 'trick gays' into safer sexual practices through matrimony."
LOL and you call me paranoid! Where did I say anyone was trying to trick gays. There is no trickery. The governenment is quite open about promoting particular behaviours through the planned change in the law to enable gay mariage.
You obsession with bashing any vegan/vegetarian you can find is an embarassment to this forum. You have now reached the stage where you are making up arguments I never made, just to have something to argue about. Calm down please, otherwise you may descend to this sort of thing again
@Heather "Anyway, it's not like I called him [me, that is] an irritating, ignorant fucktard"
Is there any better sign you feel you are losing the argument?
I'm sorry, but in the middle of your bl0g I lost track of whether you were writing about menus or marriage.
Mr. Feenstra has pointed out the incoherence in the argument already. As far as commonly held beliefs in the gay community -> could you please let me know of which gay community you are a member? Perhaps my own gay community keeps these things from me because I'm only bi, but I've never heard such a concern voiced.
RE: "@John Minor"
Cheap shot Heather, and beneath you --
A lot of things are beneath me - I'm very tall. Anyway, it's not like I called him an irritating, ignorant fucktard; it was just a cute little play on words.
Anyway, I got a lot of friends in low places. :D