Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

Is there opposition to denieing a minority equal rights on a premise other than religion?

I'm just curious.

 

Good luck!

 

30 some views and one reply. I am guessing not.

 

Make that two.

Reminds me of something I saw on C-Span once. (The clip was on the daily show). During the Gay marriage debate in NY, a republican got up to vote, and he voted yes to gay marriage. Said he hated it for religious views, but couldn't find any legal reason.

 

Usually by now people are quoting the Bible and spewing venom towards the evil homosexuals who are set to destroy marriage and apple pie.

I suppose the lack of replies could mean that my suspicions were correct.

 

Religion is nothing more than a clutch. A way to for one person to tell another that they do not approve of their actions, but it allows them to do it so its not personal.

God says homosexulaity is a sin - Translated means: I don't like homoesexuals and I think their way of life is disgusting.

 

Kind of surprised the "natural law" and "strict constructionist" people haven't chimed in yet.

 

Even a strict reading of the constitution would tell you that all of the rights and privileges given to heterosexual couples can't be denied to others without due process. The courts tend to look the other way on it.

 

Very well said, Ihave long thought that religion was used an excuse.

Its hard to justifiy a statement like "I hate gays" and leave it at that, mch easier if you can say "I hate gays because god does too". Faith is so taboo, so unreasonably untouchable. Its a crutch for all forms of bigotry.

 

Seems like a civil rights issue to me..

 

Very much a civil rights issues, however gays and lesbians are denied such rights on the basis of an imaginary man up in the clouds who condemns them to eternal punishment.

 

I think that's a big one, but not the only reason.

 

Ask them if man is created in God's image, did he also create Gays????

 

Gays are not one of his children appearently, from what I gathered in he Religion forum anyway.

Also, being gay is a choice, any scientific research that says otherwise is a vast left wing conspiracy to destory marriage and apple pie.

 

LOLOL.. yeah.. better if we force them back into the closet and encourage them to get married to women and have children.

 

You forgot the Gay Mafia.

 

And the Russian Mafia and the Italian Mafia and the Dixie Mafia..

 

You forgot the annual Mafia meeting.

 

And the secret plot to destroy the establishment of marrage, a Christian establishment, an establishmet so exclusively Christian that any male/female couple may be married from any fait and background.

Because you know, marriage is about having kids, and gays can't have kids. But infertal couples can still be marriafed because god says its ok.

Oh.... sorry, started speaking of nonsensical things.

 

Hey I've got one. Same-sex sex is icky. Unless you're a straight guy and are looking at hot lesbian sex. Then the ickiness factor maybe doesn't come into play so much. But anyway, show me where in the Constitution it says that we have to give equal rights to people who have sex that we find icky. I didn't think you could. I rest my case.

 

I have no idea what the latter has to do with it; but as to the former, that is inextricably interwoven with religion in the sense contemplated by the Apostle James. Of course so is pretty much any law worth enforcing, but the OP won't understand that any time soon.

 

There are none. All arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature. And why shouldn't they be? Marriage is largely a religious institution--at least it is deeply-rooted in religious belief, though the modern American/Western version of it bears little resemblance to the thousands-years old traditions the religious folks like to trot out when it suits their purposes.

Here's the problem, IMHO: Most folks either can not or will not separate the cultural/spiritual tradition of marriage in the eyes of gods (or a god named God) from the government institution of civil matrimony. As to the former, my fellow citizens are free to make it mean what they wish. They may get married in a church with their families present, they may get married by an Elvis impersonator while skydiving over Vegas, they may get married while suspended nude from a bungee cord. Or they may, as my wife and I did, go before a judge and sign the papers. As to the latter, the Constitution is pretty clear on who may or may not partake in the civic franchise--and by my read, that means everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law--not just those we like.

In my view, government should not even be involved in marriage in the first place--every grant, privilege, and immunity bestowed by the civic institution can easily be duplicated privately. But if we are to insist on having Uncle Sam involved in our personal affairs to such extent, then we MUST afford the opportunity for ALL to participate who have met the requirements to enter into a legally-binding agreement (consent, age of majority, competence, etc.) regardless of gender or other stipulations.

 

There are also a lot of religious laws that aren't worth enforcing. In a secular society as opposed to a theocracy a religious dictate all by itself is not a basis for law. The op understands this. And his question is still unanswered.

 

"Marriage" is the problem. I believe it was a religious event before it was a government program. Marriage awards certainly benefits and responsibilities as a government progjram.

IMHO, marriage should be a religious activity.
Civil unions should be a government responsibility and the benefits and responsibilities currently attached to "marriage" would apply.

I personally feel denying gays who have lived together, responsibly, for years the government benefits and responsibilities of "marriage" is simply wrong.

Separate the two. If a gay couple find a church which will marry them, they get married.

Gay couples could go to the courthouse and register as a couple in an enduring civil union.

 

It was almost certainly a social standard before it was absrobed by any religion.

Let me throw a monkey into this wrench.

There are religious people who claim that heterosexual monogamy was ordained by God. On the other side, there are those who argue that the only issue is the freedom of responsible adults.

I would argue that both are wrong, though obviously the religious perspective is more wrong.

If, as I say, heterosexual monogamy was a social institution prior to becoming a religious one (which incidentally would give government more stake than religion in the maintenance of marriage, since the question becomes one of socail order rather than religious adherence)...what were the real reasons for the rise of heterosexual monogamy?

Excluding religious quackery, it is evident that humans are naturally polygynous, like our primate near-cousins. What then were the reasons we adopted monogamy in defiance of how evolution constructed us?