Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

You're running in circles avoiding answer anything with an up-front response.

 

No, I'm asking you to defend what you have already claimed, and now you are shifting goalposts . . . namely towards some imaginary homosexual fascist regime.

Yeah, I will. All you have to do is find someone, anyone, who is trying to make speech and beliefs illegal. Find them on this board and I'll be right there will you. I'll be waiting. Just let me know when you find something. I've already argued against people who wanted a man tried for treason for burning the Quran, so I'm assuming that there are two or three people in existence that actually believe that things that you are convinced that the entire gay rights movement beliefs. I'll happily debate both of them when you find them.

Show me one trying to make it a reality, and I will gladly face them. When you have something more than a conspiracy theory going for you, let me know.

There is no tiger, and there is no cub. There are just fellow human beings that would like help getting their foot out of a trap.

Then present a sensible position.

 

Bingo. And then hiding behind vague conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations.

 

You think I'm too stupid to understand how valuable Phelps is to the perversion pushers? Please, I wasn't born yesterday.

Because there is no such thing, obviously.

Ain't my fault you people are asking questions based on lies.

Please, we're not even playing on the same field, so it doesn't matter where you think the goal posts are.

You're kidding yourself.

I'm responding to one right now, though he doesn't know it himself.

No, they want to stay right where they are, in their comforting web of sweet little lies, and drag everyone else in with them.

 

It is a violation of the constitution giving us equal rights and protection under the law to have special rights for married people than for single people. Thus, fighting for gay marriage so you can have those same unfair rights is the wrong battle. The Federal government should not be responsible for regulating marriage at all. It's none of the governments business who is married to whom.

Why should a spouse get a tax examption from an inheritance and a girlfriend can't. That is a violation of equal rights and protection. Giving special rights to married people that single people don't have.

Why do they have a seperate column for taxes for married people. That is a violation of equal rights and protection. It is unconstitutional.

All marriage laws should be stricken from the books. If states want to regulate it let them but the Federal government should mind it's own (*)(*)(*)(*) business.





BTW the reason you got no immediate response from your question in the op isn't because their aren't any non-religious reasons. It's because the only people who read the gay and lesbian forum are those who promote that homosexual agenda. Those who don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about it don't read it. Those who oppose it very rarely read it. I only read this post because it was in the list of latest unread new posts I peruse from time to time. ie. click the unread thread button on the top of your page.

 

It's so gay.






(just kidding... or am I?)

 

Marriage as we know it is a religious ritual. So your question is a bit disengenious I think. I support gay people having equivilant legal association as marriage, but the focus seems to be on the term 'marriage' which makes me think they want to create conditions where later on they can challenge the church's beliefs as discriminatory. I do not support forcing any church to allow gay marriage if it is not allowed in their belief..... so if the gay community is happy to have church's continue to disallow it in their churchs, then I'm happy for them to get a certificate saying their 'married' from the celebrate/judge etc.

I dont like the same gender parenting much though, especially 2 fathers. I think the connection between the biological mother and child is something unique and ideally this would be with the biological father also. Obviously this is not possible in many circumstances, but I also think the male + female parenting unit is the best model to raise someone in a male + female society. Just because kids can grow up to 'normal' with one parent or 2 same gender parents does not mean it is ideal so I think people should put the needs of the child before their own ego's and if a same sex couple want a child they should adopt a child in need, rather then creating a child specifically to fit their needs.

 

I'm very close to your view point except I think where government is concerned, marriage is not a religious issue but a policy issue. And I believe marriage policy has a specific purpose--encouraging children to be born in committed relationships. Since children are accidently conceived only by one man and one woman...the policy targets that union and should not deter from that focus.

 

Wrong. Marriage stopped being a religious ritual when the government gave out 1400 rights thats goes with marriage.

Marriage: same-sex and opposite-sex

 

Each nation has different policies associated to it, but they are all added to what was a religious ritual. It still is a religious ritual to many many people. For those that its not religious too, the majority of people use many ritual elements for marriage anyway for their own personal reaons. If the gay community has policy complaints then they are just being insensitive to the culture which marriage already exists. Its like the gay community is trying to steal the word marriage like the stole the word gay. No-one minded about the word gay, but your obviously going to get a reaction calling it marriage. If you have a policy issue then call it a different name and you'll find you might not end up treading on other peoples beliefs.

 

Perhaps that's your personal understanding of what marriage is, but there are plenty of other people who know marriage as something other than the religious rite uniting a couple in holy matrimony, namely marriage existing as a civil institution independent from religious rites.

Or more plainly: There is no requirement that a couple undergo a religious ritual for their union to be recognized as a marriage by state or federal governments in the USA.

As an agnostic, I have no desire to force any church to do anything. Why would I even care?

You are simply making an unfounded assumption, assigning a sinister motive to a group of people who have diverse views on religion. The pursuit of marriage equality is a civil and legal matter, not a religious one. No church has any obligation to accommodate any couple it deems unfit according to its doctrines, and I would oppose any attempt by the government to impose its definition of marriage on any church - and vice versa.

Good, then we're in agreement.

I see no good reason to restrict the liberty of a same-sex couple to pursue the 'creation' of a child through the same means already available to opposite-sex couples who are infertile. Moreover, your position is inconsistent; if same-sex couples = bad parents (or less than ideal parents), then it stands to reason that this would be true whether the child is the biological offspring of one parent or adopted.

Moreover, I read your assertion that two biological opposite-sex parents form the ideal parenting situation as biased. There are plenty of opposite-sex couples who definitely should not parent children. This tells us that having opposite-sexes is no guarantee of an ideal situation. There is no credible evidence that same-sex couples raising children are less than ideal parents for those children, absent societal bias.

I'll just add that the idea that same-sex couples shouldn't parent because of the societal bias against them is a case of misidentifying the problem and therefore proposing the wrong solution.

 

This is so offensive I hardly know where to begin.

1) The argument that marriage 'belongs' to religion is unsupportable. It likely predates mankind's known history (assertions that the Bible or other religious texts are reliable and accurate accounts of that history notwithstanding).

2) The fact that marriage is known in many religions actually shows the opposite of what you assert: the tendency of religion to co-opt what already exists and assign beliefs to it.

3) "Insensitive to the culture in which marriage exists". This is nothing more than a thinly disguised argument positing the marginalization of gay people and their unions as something to be valued, viewing them as having no place in the culture in which they live. The dark side of moral relativism, married to ideas supporting mob rule.

4) Gay people haven't 'stolen' the word 'marriage', nor did they 'steal' the word 'gay'. Again, theft implies ownership. Words are not the property of anyone, and therefore cannot be stolen. Their meaning evolves as society evolves, through popular usage. Like it or not, this is a battle you've already lost.

In other words, you wish for government to reserve an honor for your beliefs that you clearly aren't willing to provide to those who don't share them. By withholding the word marriage, the beliefs of same-sex couples are being tread upon in favor of yours. When beliefs conflict, government has no obligation to give preference to one over the other. Government shouldn't be involved at all in promoting one belief over another. I'll save you the trouble of making your next argument: Government recognition of same-sex couples' marriages isn't a preference for their belief over those who hold opposing beliefs; for that to happen, government would have to recognize only same-sex couples' marriages, and force opposite-sex couples to either use a different word or receive no recognition of their unions at all.

 

Tax breaks are not the only benefits, there is also power to make decisions should something happen to the spouse. Its not so much that married people are granted special rights, it is that two people choose to enter into an agreement that gives them certain benefits concerning the welfare of each other.

As for why a girlfriend can't, why should she? I have had a dozen girlfriends in the last year for all you know, neither one of them should be granted anything for merely being a girlfriend.

What is the homosexual agenda? A secret conspiracy that extends beyond equal rights?

 

You've completely misunderstood how equal protection under the law works. The law draws distinctions between classes of people (those who have reached the age of legal adulthood, those who are legally married, etc.) It is a violation of equal protection if the law disadvantages a class of people who are similarly situated to those it benefits, without a compelling reason to do so.

Married people and single people are not similarly situated. Therefore, no equal protection violation.

Agreed. Since it's not a power reserved by the Constitution to the federal government, it is then a power belonging to the states or the People.

It is, however, the government's obligation to treat people who are similarly situated under the law equally. End government regulation of marriage, and the issue of same-sex unions goes away. Since that's unlikely to happen, same-sex couples can certainly fight for what they argue to be equality under the law.

The government has no way to know if single people and married people are similarly situated absent the mechanism of their legal marriage.

It's not.

It's not.

Then we're in agreement.

What is this 'agenda'? Apparently I didn't get the memo.

Actually, a great many of the people who read this forum are those who have an agenda to keep gay people marginalized.

Probably true.

I see no evidence of that, and plenty to the contrary.

So you read every unread new post, then? Or did you enter the thread because to argue against same-sex couples, using a disdain for legal marriage as a smokescreen for your bias?

Regardless, clearly you do have an interest in the topic, or you wouldn't be here. So cut the crap.

 

In so many ways. It is like trying to argue with a 9/11 truther. Facts don't matter, because you've got your imaginationland to tend to.

If you want, I can mail you one of our decoder rings so you can unveil more of the gay-and-gay-friendly-activists-are-secretly-fascist-who-only-want-to-have-visitation-inheritance-and-tax-related-marriage-rights-because-it-is-part-of-their-master-plan-to-criminalize-Christianity agenda.

We also faked the moon landing, are hiding the body of Sasquatch, and the crash at Roswell was actually a gay-pride float.

I'm trying to argue for speech and beliefs to be labelled as hate crimes, despite the fact that I am actually arguing the opposite at every available opportunity . . . and I don't know it? I'm arguing one thing, but actually arguing for the opposite in some super-secret language that only you can understand? Sure. Probably has something to do with the fluoride in the water.

But when asked how they are doing so and how it hurts you, you just make vague references to . . . well, so far, nothing.

If you are going to go with a conspiracy theory, you could at least go with one that isn't lame.

Fighting for interracial marriage rights did not result in racist speech and beliefs being declared hate crimes. There is absolutely no reason to think that gay marriage will be any different.

But don't let that interfere with your favorite hobby: making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Stop it! You weren't supposed to give away our secretes!!!

 

Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up seems to be your forte.

I've got some news for you my friend.

Homosexuality is not listed anywhere in the Constitution. Nowhere.

There are no "civil rights" for homosexuality as there are for race and gender since those are provable genetic traits. You cannot prove homosexuality is anything more than a choice. Allowing you to bastardize civil rights to include unprovable conditions would open the floodgates to any sexual orientation of any size or age to demand the same thing you want.

Look at that, no religious argument in sight

You want it defined this way? Pursue an Amendment. But you wont do that will you? Because you know that will fail so you judge shop for friendly judges ignoring the law and fabricating new loopholes.

You are 0-33 with a direct vote by the people. Deal with it.

A majority of states have laws against gay marriage. Deal with it.

And this moronic argument that it should be law because it doesn't effect you personally? Are you serious with that dribble? I could say pedophilia doesn't effect me personally either using your same justification so why should laws be against it? Seriously, that has to be some of the worst logic I've ever heard on this subject.

 

No you're arguing for a policy which serves no greater purpose than to empower people who have that as their ultimate goal.

What is there, an echo in here?

If you insist on considering yourself a cipher, that's your affair.

Of course there is, because while interracial marriage is at least as old as Moses and Zipporah, there has never been and never will be a "gay marriage".

I suppose from a certain perspective there is something admirable about a preference for lies not of one's own manufacture.

 

You have been shown time and time again, by many different posters that homosexuality is biolgical. Yet you keep saying homosexuality is a mere choice.

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

We are in a republic that is ruled by a constitution. This constitution insures the rights of the minority will now be overridden by the tyranny of the majority.

The direct vote is meaningless. Deal with it.

States are free to pass what ever laws they choose. The courts will tell the states whether or not those laws are constitutional. So far, the majority of the laws against homosexuality have been deemed unconstitutional. Deal with it.

 

Then why it is still banned in a majority of states chuckles?

I've got news for you. A republic doesn't guarantee every minority of thought is protected. Deal with it.

 

There are still court cases winding through the courts on homosexual marragie there chuckles.

I've got news for you. A CONSTITUTION does guarantee every minority is protected. Deal with it.

 

Since you can't debate it I'm not surprised by your answer

LOL Doesn't change the fact that the study did not prove anything. Nor does it disprove that it admits it can't conclude homosexuality as the cause. Might want to re-read your own article.



I am so glad you brought up nature!

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHA Ah the classic if animals do it it must be genetic argument. Beyond pathetic chief. Animals also practice cannibalism. Does that make it genetic or natural too? LOL

How about we stick to humans little buddy. LOL Whats next, are you going with the fruit fly study? I LOVE debunking that one too

So Cannibalism according to your logic is natural and not a choice as well as it occurs in nature since the beginning of time and non mammals also practice it.

You only look more ridiculous with every one of these looney arguments of yours.

Whats next? Because some frogs can change sex cross-dressing is natural for humans too? HAHAHAHAHA

 

LOL No it doesn't. The moronic statements from you just don't stop do they?


Go ahead, quote the Constitution where it says EVERY MINORITY is protected.


I'll wait to laugh

 

This study:

Gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains, research shows

I'll let the readers see your ignroance here.

Ahhh yes the old cannibalism bull(*)(*)(*)(*) arguement. Its a red herring.

You simply do not have an answer to the crap/worm problem. Those species practices homosexuality yet they lack the very thing you need to make a choice - a brain. So instead you throw red herrings and bring up cannibalism

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>