-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Panda
- Start date
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
:no: :no:
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
I've been asking that question for years and have never gotten a coherent response.
So do you support Gay marriage DA?
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
Yes and No.
I do not agree with the act of homosexuality. However, I cant see why allowing two people who love each other to marry each other is hurting anyone else. Its nobody else's business. I am lucky, I live in the UK where religion and law are COMPLETELY SEPARATE. Homosexuals are allowed to marry here (edit: Just remembered you are from Scotland, so you know what I mean!
). I think it is wonderful for them since I heard a sad story once.There was a homosexual couple who had been in a "partnership" for years and living together - this was before civil unions were established. Neither got on with families as both were ultimately disowned because of their behaviour (which I disagree with in case you are wondering). Unfortunately one of the couple died (well had the machine turned off) and as much as what had happened through their life, being disowned, living together, the surviving partner had NO say in switching off the machine or funeral arrangements. All this was done by the family who had disowned him. Now where is the sense in that?
I live personally by my own beliefs, and I would never push my beliefs onto anyway else. I have a diverse group of friends and if I chose my friends on the commandments in my religion - all of them would have to go. As long as their lifestyles do no negatively impact on mine and visa versa, I see no reason why I shouldn't just let them live their life and I will live mine. They are all the best friends I could possibly want as everyone is so understanding of someone else's beliefs, practices and everyone can speak openly.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
DA, thank you.
I was going to write a lot more, but I erased it. All I should say is, "thank you".
:hug:
I was going to write a lot more, but I erased it. All I should say is, "thank you".
:hug:
I thought there were some official duties for Anglican (and perhaps Scottish) priests in the UK, since they both theorically defere to the Queen of England.
But if the separation of Church and State does work well in the UK, more power to it
But if the separation of Church and State does work well in the UK, more power to it
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
I thought there were some official duties for Anglican (and perhaps Scottish) priests in the UK, since they both theorically defere to the Queen of England.
But if the separation of Church and State does work well in the UK, more power to it
The Queen is the Head of the Church of England but she doesn't run the country - the government does that!
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
:hug:
Scruffitude
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Which is, in theory, how it is supposed to be here in the U.S. as well. As you may know, this doesn't oftentimes happen in practice.
I... wish more people thought and felt like this here. It's pretty easy for me to do, I guess, but that's probably because I don't have a specific set of beliefs. Please pardon the quote from the movie "Dogma" - "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."
That being said, here goes the Devil's Advocate approach. One of the more interesting (in not a good way) arguments against gay marriage is the one about traditional marriage, and some people are actually very careful about speaking about faith and using whatever religious book they read to cite passages. While it may be true that so-called "traditional" marriage in this country has historically been mainly between one man and one woman, this is massively ignorant of the other historical aspects of "traditional" marriage.
An example of this is that it is a well-known fact that, up until 1967, two people could not get married in this country if those two people were of a different race. The defense of marriage people conveniently forget this. If it sounds like I'm suggesting that this is racism wrapped in a new skin, then that's because I am. Discrimination is discrimination.
One of the more baffling arguments I always hear is about how allowing gays to marry will corrupt our children and lead to the downfall of society as we know it (please keep in mind that I am using "people I've spoken to or heard talk" as sources here). As DA mentioned, the UK allows homosexuals to marry. Now, I do concede that I don't follow the news closely, but as far as I know, the UK hasn't suddenly gone into a spiral of self-destruction. Nor do I suppose your children are any more or less corrupt than they were before.
At any rate, I like others am waiting for a coherent, non-religious argument against gay marriage.
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
I love the movie Dogma, great quote!
Now that's a whole separate argument going on!
Nothing to do with homosexuals of course!
silvermoon383
Well-Known Member
A nation's fertility rate is one reason. If a country can not maintain a fertility rate of 2.0 (the break-even point) or higher it's population will begin to shrink with each generation (baring outside influences such as immigration). Europe is already experiencing this. The only reason the US fertility rate is above 2.0 is because of the fertility rate of immigrants (mainly the Hispanic immigrants).
Homosexual partners are incapable of producing children, therefore allowing same-sex marriages would have a detrimental effect on the nation's fertility rate.
(Now of course there are far more factors than that, but it is a reason, and you only asked for 1).
Homosexual partners are incapable of producing children, therefore allowing same-sex marriages would have a detrimental effect on the nation's fertility rate.
(Now of course there are far more factors than that, but it is a reason, and you only asked for 1).
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
No but they can adopt. If homosexual couples didn't exist, I bet you anything that the adoption rate would decline!
Besides it gives us LDS, more excuses to have more children!
:run:Joking aside, I think we need to worry about the care of children already on this earth before we worry about raising the fertility rate. Baby P abuse case demands public inquiry, say campaigners - Telegraph
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
1) We have quite enough people here already. I don't think we need to worry about having less people. Even if our population was going down, it would be a long time before it actually became dangerous.
2) As you said, we're doing fine now keeping above that rate.
3) Homosexual partners are plenty capable of procreating. We even have a few members here who have done just that, along with many, many others in the country who have done it. In fact, I'd bet that they're even more likely to do that if they are married, which completely contradicts your argument.
4) The counterpoint here is that they don't fill up our adoption agencies with unwanted children, like a lot of heterosexual couples do. Any child from a homosexual relationship is planned and wanted.
Now, about that legitimate, non-religious reason...
Last edited:
Scruffitude
Scruffy Nerf Herder
I'm sorry but part of me just wants to say "so what?" to this. But I digress.
I don't understand the need to maintain a certain fertility rate for one. We have 300 million people in the U.S., and almost 7 billion people on this planet. The human race will continue to grow, regardless of allowing same sex marriages. Gay male couples will adopt, and gay female couples may adopt or choose artificial insemination. There might even be other more experimental options, who knows? Bottom line is that it's pretty silly to worry that our species will go into decline or risk extinction because a certain subset of the population isn't reproducing. Besides which, your logic against same-sex couples could potentially be used against heterosexual couples who do not produce offspring.
As DA pointed out, the first part of this is just wrong. I already covered a lot of this above, so I won't repeat myself. Suffice to say that our nation's fertility rate isn't really the most important issue right now, is it?
Yes, and the government includes Parliament. The House of Lords includes the "Lords Spiritual", 26 bishops appointed by the Church of England who have the power to vote for or against legislation, though they usually choose not to.The Queen is the Head of the Church of England but she doesn't run the country - the government does that!
It seems like your argument is predicated on the idea that homosexual people don't breed. While that isn't strictly true, just assuming for the moment that it is, I've got one big question for you: how could the marital status of non-breeding couples affect the fertility rate?
If they're married, they don't have kids. If they're unmarried, they don't have kids. Either way, they don't have kids. There would be no change to the fertility rate whatsoever.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Besides that its a rediculous argument.If that is reason enough to make gay marriage unlawful..then what?..Are we to ban oppsite sex couples from marrying because they are infertile?..Or penalize or criminalize oppsite sex couple for choosing to remain childless after marriage?(they do exist I've ment them..they just do not WANT children)..I would imagine..that there is a much larger % of heterosexual marriages NOT reproducing than all the the gay couples .Especially when you count the percentage of gays that do in fact breed..
Love
Dallas