Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage

[Zembo]

If government wants to make everyone happy – then it should sanction everything that is possible within the sexual realm.

But it must be understood that sexual freedom and future healthy populations are completely different agendas; that is why marriage laws are not focused on forwarding sexual freedom but RESPONSIBILITY and healthy children BEARING and parenting.

Heterosexual couples who do not have children still meet the design criterion of mating and producing. The homosexual population does not meet this design criterion – therefore, it is irrelevant to pass marriage laws for a population that doesn’t need guidance on how to make them responsible parents.

Why else is it illegal for first cousins to marry each other and the minimum age in most states is 16 to get married, because the focus is on potential healthy child bearing and the responsibility that comes with it. There would be no need for such marriage laws for homosexual couples

The homosexual agenda to co-opt marriage is totally impractical by design and need. They only want marriage to legitimize a lifestyle – not the purpose for which marriage laws exist.

 

[gnomon]

Is heterosexuality a lifestyle?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If government wants to make everyone happy – then it should sanction everything that is possible within the sexual realm.

But it must be understood that sexual freedom and future healthy populations are completely different agendas; that is why marriage laws are not focused on forwarding sexual freedom but RESPONSIBILITY and healthy children BEARING and parenting.

Heterosexual couples who do not have children still meet the design criterion of mating and producing. The homosexual population does not meet this design criterion – therefore, it is irrelevant to pass marriage laws for a population that doesn’t need guidance on how to make them responsible parents.

Why else is it illegal for first cousins to marry each other and the minimum age in most states is 16 to get married, because the focus is on potential healthy child bearing and the responsibility that comes with it. There would be no need for such marriage laws for homosexual couples

The homosexual agenda to co-opt marriage is totally impractical by design and need. They only want marriage to legitimize a lifestyle – not the purpose for which marriage laws exist.

I have to give you credit, Zembo. As hard as it would seem to be, you have demonstrated a true knack for making each post slightly more senseless than your prior efforts.

There is absolutely nothing in your post (above) that even merits a rebuttal.

 

[Watchmen]

I have to give you credit, Zembo. As hard as it would seem to be, you have demonstrated a true knack for making each post slightly more senseless than your prior efforts.

There is absolutely nothing in your post (above) that even merits a rebuttal.

Personal attack.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Personal attack.

How so?

I see nothing in his post that merits a rebuttal. I view his posts to be a series of statements that simply get worse, the further he goes.

If you honestly feel like that is a personal attack, you should report it to the moderators, and ask them to censure me.

 

[Watchmen]

How so?

I see nothing in his post that merits a rebuttal. I view his posts to be a series of statements that simply get worse, the further he goes.

If you honestly feel like that is a personal attack, you should report it to the moderators, and ask them to censure me.

As you stated, you didn't rebut his post. Instead, you attacked him with sarcasm. I'm not using "personal attack" as in you were mean and should be reported. I'm using it as in you attacked the person rather than his post. Do you know the difference?

 

[Zembo]

Sorry that I don't belong to this enlightened gereration, we are so advanced we can't even accept pragmatic reality anymore.

Why is it so offensive or not worth replying to when it is said that child bearing is not part of the DESIGN potential and functionality of homosexual unions, therefore, quite irrelevant to write marriage laws for them.

The only basis, to write marriage laws for them is not practical, but agenda-driven and based on legitimizing through the letter of the law, and in the name of fairness (if heterosexual couples have rights, so should homosexual couples have.) This is hypocritical in that is misses the whole point that homosexuality never has the potential for life, while the other does. The letter of the law is the only grounds that the homosexual agenda tries to stand on, not the pragmatic reality of the true purpose of marriage.

The argument goes something like this – let’s use the infertile heterosexual couple as the excuse for homosexuals not reproducing, therefore, should we give a marriage licenses to heterosexuals who can’t have kids. Then let’s make reproducing children is really not the reason for marriage laws, it’s so that we can each get hospital visitations for our other partner (then why do we get blood tests for a marriage license – it’s for the sake of potential healthy births, and diseases that hinder them – government doesn’t look at marriage as only for two people who are in love with each other, they make laws to help insure healthy child-bearing.

So the whole homosexual marriage agenda is built upon:

1. Fertility breakdowns in the heterosexual population. (If they are still married and can’t have children, then so should homosexuals be able to marry – even though the homosexual couple by design could never produce offspring. What I have been saying the whole time is that marriage is an institution protected and maintained by governments, albeit poorly at times, for the main purpose of bringing forth new generations. That is why homosexual marriage becomes outmoded immediately.
2. Marriage has a companionship factor and is not just about raising families. This is the most compelling argument and is the one that State governments are moving ahead on – It goes something like this - Marriage is a right to everyone who wants to live together no matter what their sexual orientation. – Then we should remove the laws against polygamy since that is their choice of marriage.

It doesn’t require marriage laws to protect relationships. People can adopt who are not married.

Homosexual couples want sanctioned through marriage to further an agenda of broader acceptance of their lifestyle because it is possible not because they care about producing a future generation for the benefit of the culture. Tell me this is not so. None of this seems to matter anyway - people’s minds are made up.

 

[gnomon]

Sorry that I don't belong to this enlightened gereration, we are so advanced we can't even accept pragmatic reality anymore.

Don't whine.

Why is it so offensive or not worth replying to when it is said that child bearing is not part of the DESIGN potential and functionality of homosexual unions, therefore, quite irrelevant to write marriage laws for them.

It's not that it is offensive. This is not meant as an attack, though so many take it this way, but it displays a certain level of ignorance of the actual science behind human development. The notion of DESIGN potential.

The only basis, to write marriage laws for them is not practical, but agenda-driven and based on legitimizing through the letter of the law, and in the name of fairness (if heterosexual couples have rights, so should homosexual couples have.) This is hypocritical in that is misses the whole point that homosexuality never has the potential for life, while the other does. The letter of the law is the only grounds that the homosexual agenda tries to stand on, not the pragmatic reality of the true purpose of marriage.

Actually, homosexuality does have the potential for life. There is nothing stopping a gay man and a lesbian from having sex just for the sole purpose of procreation. Of course, those lesbians who have desired to birth children usually opt for the artificial insemination route. The same route many a heterosexual woman takes.

The argument goes something like this – let’s use the infertile heterosexual couple as the excuse for homosexuals not reproducing, therefore, should we give a marriage licenses to heterosexuals who can’t have kids. Then let’s make reproducing children is really not the reason for marriage laws, it’s so that we can each get hospital visitations for our other partner (then why do we get blood tests for a marriage license – it’s for the sake of potential healthy births, and diseases that hinder them – government doesn’t look at marriage as only for two people who are in love with each other, they make laws to help insure healthy child-bearing.

That's not the argument. There's more to it. In that women, culturally, we're regarded as second class citizens, had far less earning power and that many of the federal and state laws benefiting marriage were written up to help those families with one income earner to maintain financial stability. A benefit completely lost among working families or those heterosexual unions who have no children.

Of course, there's the whole division of property aspect as well. Since homosexuals are fully capable of raising children just as heterosexuals are with only the stigma of millennia long bigotry directed towards homosexuals creating a less than ideal environment.

1. Fertility breakdowns in the heterosexual population. (If they are still married and can’t have children, then so should homosexuals be able to marry – even though the homosexual couple by design could never produce offspring. What I have been saying the whole time is that marriage is an institution protected and maintained by governments, albeit poorly at times, for the main purpose of bringing forth new generations. That is why homosexual marriage becomes outmoded immediately.
2. Marriage has a companionship factor and is not just about raising families. This is the most compelling argument and is the one that State governments are moving ahead on – It goes something like this - Marriage is a right to everyone who wants to live together no matter what their sexual orientation. – Then we should remove the laws against polygamy since that is their choice of marriage.

Have you ever actually read the arguments surrounding marriage equality outside a religious perspective?

It doesn’t require marriage laws to protect relationships. People can adopt who are not married.

Not in some states.

Homosexual couples want sanctioned through marriage to further an agenda of broader acceptance of their lifestyle because it is possible not because they care about producing a future generation for the benefit of the culture. Tell me this is not so. None of this seems to matter anyway - people’s minds are made up.

Is heterosexuality a lifestyle?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As you stated, you didn't rebut his post. Instead, you attacked him with sarcasm. I'm not using "personal attack" as in you were mean and should be reported. I'm using it as in you attacked the person rather than his post. Do you know the difference?

You demonstrate an incredible grasp of the obvious.

I specifically stated that there was nothing in his post that merited rebuttal, and you reply by saying that I didn't rebut his post. Stunning. Simply stunning.

That's the kind of keen insight that can get you a job as an analyst at Fox News. Keep up the good work, Barney.

 

[Autodidact]

If government wants to make everyone happy – then it should sanction everything that is possible within the sexual realm.

But it must be understood that sexual freedom and future healthy populations are completely different agendas; that is why marriage laws are not focused on forwarding sexual freedom but RESPONSIBILITY and healthy children BEARING and parenting.

Heterosexual couples who do not have children still meet the design criterion of mating and producing. The homosexual population does not meet this design criterion – therefore, it is irrelevant to pass marriage laws for a population that doesn’t need guidance on how to make them responsible parents.

Why else is it illegal for first cousins to marry each other and the minimum age in most states is 16 to get married, because the focus is on potential healthy child bearing and the responsibility that comes with it. There would be no need for such marriage laws for homosexual couples

The homosexual agenda to co-opt marriage is totally impractical by design and need. They only want marriage to legitimize a lifestyle – not the purpose for which marriage laws exist.

newsflash, Zembo. Gay and lesbian couples have children right now. Should those parents be allowed to marry? Or is it better for their children to prohibit this?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So the whole homosexual marriage agenda is built upon:

You miss the entire point of the issue at hand, Zembo.

Gay marriage does not need a justification of why it should be legal.

Gay marriage is about two people that love each other, and want to commit themselves to each other. Just exactly the same way that heterosexuals do. With all of the trimmings - for good or ill.

There is no "homosexual marriage agenda". It is a straightforward proposition - they want the same rights that you and I have. No more, no less.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry that I don't belong to this enlightened gereration, we are so advanced we can't even accept pragmatic reality anymore.

Why is it so offensive or not worth replying to when it is said that child bearing is not part of the DESIGN potential and functionality of homosexual unions, therefore, quite irrelevant to write marriage laws for them.

It is a fact that gay sex is not reproductive, like some heterosexual sex and some heterosexual couples. It is not a fact that gay people don't have children.

The only basis, to write marriage laws for them is not practical, but agenda-driven and based on legitimizing through the letter of the law, and in the name of fairness (if heterosexual couples have rights, so should homosexual couples have.) This is hypocritical in that is misses the whole point that homosexuality never has the potential for life, while the other does. The letter of the law is the only grounds that the homosexual agenda tries to stand on, not the pragmatic reality of the true purpose of marriage.

Better not tell my three kids. Did you know that 1 of 3 lesbian households has children?

The argument goes something like this – let’s use the infertile heterosexual couple as the excuse for homosexuals not reproducing, therefore, should we give a marriage licenses to heterosexuals who can’t have kids. Then let’s make reproducing children is really not the reason for marriage laws, it’s so that we can each get hospital visitations for our other partner (then why do we get blood tests for a marriage license – it’s for the sake of potential healthy births, and diseases that hinder them – government doesn’t look at marriage as only for two people who are in love with each other, they make laws to help insure healthy child-bearing.

Well, this wouldn't take any change--it is the law right now. The only change needed would be to open this to gay couples as well. Maybe you should propose a fertility test before someone can marry--in order to advance what you think is the true purpose of marriage.

So the whole homosexual marriage agenda is built upon:

1. Fertility breakdowns in the heterosexual population. (If they are still married and can’t have children, then so should homosexuals be able to marry – even though the homosexual couple by design could never produce offspring. What I have been saying the whole time is that marriage is an institution protected and maintained by governments, albeit poorly at times, for the main purpose of bringing forth new generations. That is why homosexual marriage becomes outmoded immediately.
2. Marriage has a companionship factor and is not just about raising families. This is the most compelling argument and is the one that State governments are moving ahead on – It goes something like this - Marriage is a right to everyone who wants to live together no matter what their sexual orientation. – Then we should remove the laws against polygamy since that is their choice of marriage.

It doesn’t require marriage laws to protect relationships. People can adopt who are not married.

Homosexual couples want sanctioned through marriage to further an agenda of broader acceptance of their lifestyle because it is possible not because they care about producing a future generation for the benefit of the culture. Tell me this is not so. None of this seems to matter anyway - people’s minds are made up.[/quote]

Apparently you don't think that homosexual parents deserve this same protection.

 

[Luminous]

Maybe everybody is homosexual inside(this seems to be what evangelicals and Mormon church believes) and letting such mariges go on would doom the human race? i dought it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry that I don't belong to this enlightened gereration, we are so advanced we can't even accept pragmatic reality anymore.

Why is it so offensive or not worth replying to when it is said that child bearing is not part of the DESIGN potential and functionality of homosexual unions, therefore, quite irrelevant to write marriage laws for them.

For one, design implies intent, which implies some entity or agency posessing that intent.

IOW, arguing that we are "designed" for heterosexual relationship assumes a divine creator with certain attributes; in effect, this argument is an attempt to force your religious beliefs on people who don't share them.

The only basis, to write marriage laws for them is not practical, but agenda-driven and based on legitimizing through the letter of the law, and in the name of fairness (if heterosexual couples have rights, so should homosexual couples have.) This is hypocritical in that is misses the whole point that homosexuality never has the potential for life, while the other does. The letter of the law is the only grounds that the homosexual agenda tries to stand on, not the pragmatic reality of the true purpose of marriage.

I disagree.

Marriage fulfills many roles, not just procreation. And there are other bases for extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. For example, it's the general purpose of governments to provide benefit to its citizens; same-sex marriage represents a net benefit to society.

The argument goes something like this – let’s use the infertile heterosexual couple as the excuse for homosexuals not reproducing, therefore, should we give a marriage licenses to heterosexuals who can’t have kids. Then let’s make reproducing children is really not the reason for marriage laws, it’s so that we can each get hospital visitations for our other partner (then why do we get blood tests for a marriage license – it’s for the sake of potential healthy births, and diseases that hinder them – government doesn’t look at marriage as only for two people who are in love with each other, they make laws to help insure healthy child-bearing.

Blood tests aren't a requirement for marriage everywhere. Also, the conditions you mention are exclusionary, not inclusionary: they don't demand that married couples engage in safe child-making, they exclude couples who would likely have unhealthy children.

You don't have to promise to have kids to get married. You don't even have to promise to try. What you do have to do (but only in some jurisdictions) is demonstrate that any children that the relationship may bear will not be at undue risk of recessive genetic conditions. That concern is automatically addressed in same-sex marriages.

It doesn’t require marriage laws to protect relationships. People can adopt who are not married.

Not in Arkansas. Not in several other places.

Homosexual couples want sanctioned through marriage to further an agenda of broader acceptance of their lifestyle because it is possible not because they care about producing a future generation for the benefit of the culture. Tell me this is not so. None of this seems to matter anyway - people’s minds are made up.

It's not so.

Or at least just as true for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex ones. Some want kids, others don't.

 

[Magic Man]

As you stated, you didn't rebut his post. Instead, you attacked him with sarcasm. I'm not using "personal attack" as in you were mean and should be reported. I'm using it as in you attacked the person rather than his post. Do you know the difference?

If you really think he attacked the person rather than the post, then that's exactly the criterion for reporting a post. How is saying that a certain post made even less sense than the last one by that person attacking the person and not the post?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You're talking to a deaf man, Mball.

He does hold doors very well, though.

 

[Magic Man]

You're talking to a deaf man, Mball.

Should I use capitals then? Or maybe throw in this smiley: :shout? I know shouting in real life usually works when communicating with deaf people and non-English speakers.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Non-English speakers? You misjudge him, Mball.

That's non-English reader to you, my friend.

 

[Magic Man]

Non-English speakers? You misjudge him, Mball.

That's non-English reader to you, my friend.

Well, I wasn't talking about him specifically. That was more of a general joke not directed at Watchmen.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

I want to throw rocks, grenades and nuclear bombs while personally insult some people here... I better leave...