Please provide...

[SadisticMonkey]

A secular, non-homophobic argument against Gay marriage.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

Isn't the question a bit loaded, considering just about any argument against game marriage can be considered homophobic.

I am pro-gay marriage.

[rakninja]

sure, exclusively homosexual behaviour is rarely found outside of humanity.

in addition, two people of the same sex cannot procreate without assistance of some sort (meaning ultimately, someone of the opposite sex). as producing children has always been the whole point of marriage, a homosexual marriage does not make sense.

as simple and non-hateful, secular way i can state it.

my personal thoughts on the matter is thus: i could give two shits and a fuck if you marry a sheep of the same sex, or a plastic love toy of the opposite. it's none of my damn business.

[sdhonda]

By my definition of secular, I have a hard time giving a reason for heterosexual marraige, let alone homosexual marriage.

[BitchWeed]

The fact that the concept is considered undesirable and upsets some people is more than enough of a reason. If a majority of people are uncomfortable with the concept, then appeasing the minority would make little sense.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 10/16/07 03:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: A secular, non-homophobic argument against Gay marriage.

The term "marriage" connotes a particular image: the union of opposites. When you stick an electrical plug into an electrical socket -- two opposite things which are built to go together -- that is a type of marriage. Of course, you can stick an electrical plug up someone's ass too, but just because it can be done doesn't mean that the plug and the ass were made for each other.

Some of those against gay marriage are simply homophobes. Homosexuality is all the reason they need to not like it, and as long as they hold those bigoted feelings there really isn't any point to arguing with them... their minds are already made up.

On the other hand, some of those who are against gay marriage are also careful to express that they are for "civil unions", which would provide similar legal benefits for gay couples as marriage does for straight couples. Those people are against calling it "marriage" due to what the term itself symbolizes.

-----

When I think of the word "marriage" I think of a man and a woman joining together, as do most other people familiar with the term. Is that wrong of me? If so, would it also be wrong of me to hear the term "square" and think of a regular quadrilateral polygon? If people start to complain that we should be able to call circles square too, does that actually mean we should change the definition of "square" to accomodate them?

Does any of that mean I'm against gay marriage? Of course not. I couldn't care less what they choose to call it. I'm just providing a secular, non-homophobic argument against it. :P

[cellardoor6]

- Marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman only. It has been this way in basically every culture and civilization in history. It's not a religion-exclusive idea that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is only a recent invention, it isn't something that religious people just decided to do away with all of a sudden.

- Applying the term "marriage" to a homosexual union should therefore be considered an inaccurate description. Just like putting a glove on your head doesn't mean you should call it a hat. It's wrong, incorrect, inapplicable. The definition for a marriage including the possibility of a gay couple is only a modern revision, yet is inaccurate based upon the historical definition.

- In the US, gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. Passing a law at the federal level to ban or allow gay marriage at the national level IS constitution. Yet it's not unconstitutional for gay marriage to be prohibited or allowed in individual state. The ordinance of marriage is held by each individual state, and since states have the right to vote on these matters, it IS unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force each state to accept gay marriage against its constitutional right to decide this on its own.

- Gay couples get civil unions, which are basically identical legally as a marriage. This is a more applicable term. The real issue is that gay couples demand that a certain term and certain societal and religious reverence be applied to their relationship. This is wrong when most Americans define marriage as between a man and woman. It would be like me forcing the government to refer to my vehicle as a "THE MILLENNIUM FALCON", and freaking out that my rights are being taken away when they "discriminate" against me for being a Star Wars Fan.

Now, with that said. I disagree morally with gay marriage. But my political take is purely secular. I have no problem with gay couples having every right that married couples do if their state decides to do that, including the term "marriage". But I will be pissed if the federal government intervenes, expands its power and rips through the constitution (figuratively) by forcing states to accept gay marriage against their will.

[cellardoor6]

At 10/16/07 04:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: - In the US, gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. Passing a law at the federal level to ban or allow gay marriage at the national level IS constitution.

UNconstitutional...

Damn

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/16/07 04:38 AM, BitchWeed wrote: The fact that the concept is considered undesirable and upsets some people is more than enough of a reason.

No one is forcing the idiots themselves to marry someone of the same sex. It doesn't affect them.

[BitchWeed]

At 10/16/07 05:01 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No one is forcing the idiots themselves to marry someone of the same sex. It doesn't affect them.

That's not what I mean at all. I mean religious individuals and others are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage, even if it doesn't affect them.

[Drakim]

At 10/16/07 03:40 AM, rakninja wrote: sure, exclusively homosexual behaviour is rarely found outside of humanity.

Completely false. Homosexuality has been observed a lot in nature.

in addition, two people of the same sex cannot procreate without assistance of some sort (meaning ultimately, someone of the opposite sex). as producing children has always been the whole point of marriage, a homosexual marriage does not make sense.

Neither can really old couples. Are we to ban them from marriage?

What about couples that for biological reasons cannot have kids? Ban them too?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/16/07 05:26 AM, BitchWeed wrote:
That's not what I mean at all. I mean religious individuals and others are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage, even if it doesn't affect them.

Well I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a church, can I get them banned?

[Drakim]

At 10/16/07 06:11 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/16/07 05:26 AM, BitchWeed wrote:
That's not what I mean at all. I mean religious individuals and others are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage, even if it doesn't affect them.

Well I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a church, can I get them banned?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Christians, and they frequently DO affect me. Ban plz.

[BitchWeed]

At 10/16/07 06:11 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Well I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a church, can I get them banned?

Yeah. There's nothing stopping you from trying.

[rakninja]

At 10/16/07 05:34 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/16/07 03:40 AM, rakninja wrote: sure, exclusively homosexual behaviour is rarely found outside of humanity.

Completely false. Homosexuality has been observed a lot in nature.

in addition, two people of the same sex cannot procreate without assistance of some sort (meaning ultimately, someone of the opposite sex). as producing children has always been the whole point of marriage, a homosexual marriage does not make sense.

Neither can really old couples. Are we to ban them from marriage?

What about couples that for biological reasons cannot have kids? Ban them too?

ok then, give me references of sustained long term homosexuality in a species other than human. i'm not talking about a dog humping another dog (that is a dominance issue, not sexual orientation). i'm not talking about "simple" organisms that can spontaneously change sex, nor am i talking about hermaphrodites. )

old couples also sometimes produce children. actually, now more than ever, older people are having children. and historically, the goal of every marrage has been children, especially arranged and political marrages.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

Unsurprisingly, most non-religious and non-homophobic people don't have a problem with gay 'marriage'.

And even then, many religious people only have a problem when the word marriage is mentioned. Why? because marriage to them has a special connection with their faith.

But surely to a Christian a Hindu man and women marrying is as blasphemous as a gay couple doing it...?

But even if it isn't this shows the single thing i hate most about organised religion; the disgusting way people with faith seem to think that everyone else should conform to their beliefs and practices. What does it matter to a Christian if some gays want to marry? Because it offends god? So what, he's a big boy, I'm sure he can take it. They're all a bunch of sodomite faggots anyway...they're going to go to hell right?

[Elfer]

At 10/16/07 03:40 AM, rakninja wrote: sure, exclusively homosexual behaviour is rarely found outside of humanity.

Even if this were true, it's irrelevant. Marriage is never found outside of humanity.

in addition, two people of the same sex cannot procreate without assistance of some sort (meaning ultimately, someone of the opposite sex). as producing children has always been the whole point of marriage, a homosexual marriage does not make sense.

Producing children has always been the whole point of marriage? But sterile people can get married, so what's going on there?

[Draconias]

At 10/16/07 03:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: A secular, non-homophobic argument against Gay marriage.

To take a different direction than most people:

No form of Gay Marriage should be created because it is simply a perpetuation of bigoted traditions. Why, exactly, should our government only allow people to have shared property and rights if those two individuals are having sex with one another? Why is it only limited to two individuals? This entire concept of "you get extra goodies because you're having sex" is flawed and filled with bias over the nature of the sex. Gay Marriage is just more of the same and is just asking for discriminatory rules.

Instead, I say, strip Marriage of its benefits entirely, and redefine those benefits as a secular, non-sexual Partnership, so that married individuals can still have those benefits, but it is not marriage conferring the benefits. Once the element of sex is removed, these benefits for stable relationships between individuals-- be they lifelong friends, family, lovers, or even business partners --can be shared equally. Partnerships can be a binding and long-term sharing of property and rights, as a means to support one another, but there is no reason they should be "for life" as marriage (supposedly) demands, nor is there a reason why sex should even be part of it.

By seperating the secular benefits of marriage from the religious ceremony, and redefining those benefits in a non-discriminatory way, "gay" marriage need not exist, and this entire concept of companions being people who have sex together can finally be banished. Fix the root of the problem instead of building on it with more discrimination.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/16/07 06:35 AM, BitchWeed wrote:

At 10/16/07 06:11 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Well I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a church, can I get them banned?

Yeah. There's nothing stopping you from trying.

The church affects me. Gay marriage does not affect them. Why should I be the one trying to make a change?

[LordJaric]

At 10/16/07 04:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Passing a law at the federal level to ban or allow gay marriage at the national level IS constitution.

I wounder what ever happened to freedom of expression.

[rakninja]

marrage is not expression, it is two people legally declaring that they life together, and share all their shit.

its also how a family is started.

also, the abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are very anti-gay, you know. especially with god commanding that gays should be burned at the stake in Leviticus. it only makes sense that countries founded by members of these faiths would be fairly anti-gay.

not that anything is right with that, just pointing it out.

[TehChahlesh]

At 10/16/07 03:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: A secular, non-homophobic argument against Gay marriage.

I support gay marriage, but the intensely pretentious nature of this thread makes me want to play devil's advocate.

I'd argue that many gay males tend to only stay with the same partner for a short period of time, making marriage practically pointless.

[Elfer]

At 10/17/07 01:18 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: I'd argue that many gay males tend to only stay with the same partner for a short period of time, making marriage practically pointless.

I'd argue the same about many straight people???

[poxpower]

At 10/17/07 02:07 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/17/07 01:18 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: I'd argue that many gay males tend to only stay with the same partner for a short period of time, making marriage practically pointless.

I'd argue the same about many straight people???

Isn't the divorce rate like 50% or more?
Is there some "threshold" where people wouldn't deserve to get married anymore? Like "oh yeah turns out gay people only stay together 30% of the time, we can't have that!"

Anyways, isn't marriage religious? So like, maybe each religion could get their shit together for five seconds and then priests would offer marriages based on their religion's policy, and though shit to gay people? Like, you'd need some religion-neutral people to marry gays?
Or maybe it will turn out that the Pope decides.. I mean.. "discovers" that the bible isn't against the lucrati.. I mean sacred vows of gay marriage. As if after 2000 fucking years people should have any doubt as to what their "holy text" entails. How serious does this sound to anyone, seriously? At least sects have clear rules, so they could marry/deny marriage to gays without all this crazy trouble.

You shouldn't be able to force a priest to go against his religion, or else you'd get to tell religious people they're insane and so the world would rule.
Wait...

[TehChahlesh]

At 10/17/07 02:41 PM, poxpower wrote: Isn't the divorce rate like 50% or more?

Typically, those are people who have already had previous marriages.

It's a misleading statistic, 50 percent of marriages, not 50 percent of people.

[animehater]

Cultural and traditional beliefs around marriage.

[SmilezRoyale]

Why don't we answer this question, and solve this debate once and for all.

If the issue of marriage is changing a religous definition to one that fits based on modern social opinion, Answer the following question.

1) Once divided between what is considered a Civil Union, and a Marriage Is the term marriage a Religous Term, A Societal Term, or a Governmental Term

- If it's a government / legal term, meaning marriage has independent legal consequences for individuals [or the act of considering oneself to be] from the term civil union. Or if they are both legal terms interchangably and are of no difference between the two, this means that coining the term marriage for all combinations of Gender Relations and they're effect in their status in the country must be permitted. [Otherwise it WOULD be denying certain legal elements to individuals on a fruitless basis. [ Fruitless is important, because it divides a line between what other things i could otherwise apply to my thesis]

- if it's a societetal term, or a term such as the word gay itself, which can mean Happy, Homosexual [mostly refering to males], or stupid. 'That's so gay' Then it doesn't matter, because a term with no religous or legal implications can be tossed around in any which manner as permitted by the first amendment. For the same reason a person can call themself a wizzard even if somone else doesn't consider them to be, there's nothing 'legal' or official about it, and saying it has no real effect on what happens to them on a government to people basis.

- if it's strictly a religous term, or a term coined solely by religous groups or officials, they're definition in the rules of they're religon can not be impeded upon. Government officials instructing religous leaders as to what they can or can't pratice in they're religon violates 1st ammendment to the constitution. This is also tied in with Societal Terms. A Gay Couple can 'Call themselfs' married since lying in that manner isn't illegal. BUT forcing a preist or deacon to declare them as married is like forcing a man on the street to recite the pledge of allegience; It's whatever THEY want to do. Likewise, This also gives the right of any church to change it's opinion of homosexuals and allow for them to be considered by 'Devine right' [Or a more accurate term, divine cultural pressure] To be given the sacrament of holy matrimony in the case of christianity. Likewise, since religon is a societal aspect one church can't legally be denounced by another church for declaring a holy matriomony between individuals they consider to be a match which defies they're gods law; Any sort of Religous leading heirarcy has to be descided on they're own terms, and not the governments. In conclusion, if it is religous, gay couples can't tell the government to force preists to make them married, Especially since they have they're own ability to make they're own form of chrisitanity, islam, or judeism etc. However, Religous individuals have every right to declare marriages between gay couples if they choose, and hence have those gay couples declare themselfs are married, because it doesn't effect the government's veiw of they're social status. [In this respect, marriage becomes a hollow / secular term... I could call myself married to my computer, no one could denounce my for it]

________________________________________
_____________________________

Part II; Polygamy.

I have always argued that most people tend to form they're veiws not based on an opperating principal but as time goes on, having priorities to a certain degree on what is good and what is bad; this is why a person could be favor in government control of one sector of human life, and AVIDLY against the same level and degree of government control in another. [For example, government control of people's sexual behaviours = bad, government control of people's diets = good]. And often times, they'll give somewhat unfounded arguments on the basis of that it just SEEMS that one would work better than the other, acceptable i supose, but not unless somone has evidence besides they're own mental "What if" Simulator. [If you want me to argue on why both could work, i could, but once again it would be founded on logic and not hard evidence]

So... Lets asume some years down the line, the secular movement progresses more towards a veiw which is in even greater contrast to our current average christian culture. Lets talk about polygamy.

Lets asume that the fact of whether or not a country was founded on a beleif, or a principal of marriage and it's effect on legal status was ruled as unsecular, blasphemous, and theolocratical. [Yay for my own word]

This means that the government can no longer define marriage based on POSSIBLY religously influenced beleifs held prior to they're great secular enlightenment. Given this information, i ask you all this question;

1) Should we make polygamy legal? And lets stretch it even further... Should we define marriage as between people and other animals?

Consider the following;

- For What particular reason are you for or against polygamy? is it a moral reason [how you feel people should conduct themselfs for reasons that are somewhat based more on upbringing than solid evidence and cause and effect] ? is it a Pratical reason? [Meaning involves Tangible things, or, as i stated before, solid evidence of cause and effect, is the initiation of such a law reguarding polygamy positive or negative and in which ways]
- If it is a moral reason, consider why you think this way, or more specifically; What made you think this way. What INFLUENCED you to think this way.
- If it's a pratical reason, consider [And you probably already have] that It's the governments job to ensure that church and state are kept separate, but it's also the governments job to ensure that laws are in place which best benefit the society both in terms of they're liberties but also in ways which Allow for people to conduct themselfs in efficient and productive manners. [Aka, A law which forces people to eat unhealthy foods is a bad law, it serves no pratical purpose] This being said, is Polygamy positive or negative.

[Ravariel]

At 10/16/07 04:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: - Marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman only.

Okay. One reason, secular and non-homophobic. Wouldn't call it a "good" reason, but it is a reason. 'Bout the only one given thus far...

- In the US, gay marriage isn't unconstitutional.

True.

Passing a law at the federal level to ban or allow gay marriage at the national level IS unconstitutional (fixed).

Banning, maybe, but allowing? Can you cite the article? Or the Supreme court decision that would indicate that?

Seems like the 14th amendment pretty much makes bannination unconstitutional, but I haven't seen yet a law that would make the allowance of it thus.

Yet it's not unconstitutional for gay marriage to be prohibited or allowed in individual state.

True-ish. 14th amendment issues again, but not nearly as strong as federal bannination.

The ordinance of marriage is held by each individual state, and since states have the right to vote on these matters, it IS unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force each state to accept gay marriage against its constitutional right to decide this on its own.

Not really. Congress has the power to decide which State laws other states have to honor via the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It already does this for "regular" marriage. If you move to another state, you don't have to re-marry to obtain benefits. This should thought it does not yet (GLBT lobbies, stop primping and get on it!), pertain to same-sex unions as well.

- Gay couples get civil unions, which are basically identical legally as a marriage.

A grand total of 11 states have civil-union-esque systems in place. They ar NOT equal to marriage, as they are only applicable in the state in which they are granted (no FF&C for them yet), so this is HIGHLY unequal, especially when you consider the ramifications of moving out of state for a job or other reason... losing ALL of the rights and protections granted them.

It is not (yet) an equal system. It could be, yes... it SHOULD be, yes... but it's not. And until it is, any argument that "they can just get a civil union, it's the same thing with a different name" is misleading, disengenuous, and downright false.

It would be like me forcing the government to refer to my vehicle as a "THE MILLENNIUM FALCON", and freaking out that my rights are being taken away when they "discriminate" against me for being a Star Wars Fan.

Amusing, but incorrect comparison, and you (should) know this already.

[LordJaric]

At 10/17/07 12:48 PM, rakninja wrote:

also, the abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are very anti-gay, you know. especially with god commanding that gays should be burned at the stake in Leviticus. it only makes sense that countries founded by members of these faiths would be fairly anti-gay.

The constitution clearly states that the government can't make decisions on religious reasons, and our founding fathers did not intend for us to be a religous nation. By the way the bible was not writen by god and not all religous people are anti-gay.

[robattle]

They can't make babies from having sex.