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

[Sunstone]

The current population of the earth is a bit over 6 billion. The population of the earth is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. The sustainable population of the earth is estimate at between 3 and 3 and a half billion. If those numbers are accurate, the right thing to do is cut back on our population.

 

[Makaveli]

I'm going to act as Devil's advocate here, so do not become angry at what I am about to say.

1. It isn't in the traditional realm of marriage. Yes, I am well aware that minorities could not marry whites and vice versa, but they could get married to each other! That's fine, right guys?

2. Giving gays and lesbians the ability to get tax deductibles from being married will contribute to less government revenue and further our deficit.

These reasons are quite weak without a religious backing, so a secular response to "why gay marriage should not be allowed" is quite close to nil.

 

[Autodidact]

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).

Are you serious? Your argument is that if gay people are allowed to marry each other, the population will go down? Seriously? Uh, O.K., how would that work? If you outlaw gay marriage, then gay people pretend they're straight, marry people of the opposite sex, and have lots of kids, like Ted Haggard? And (assuming you're right) you think that's a GOOD thing?!?!

btw, I'm a homosexual with three children. I think permitting gay marriage would probably contribute to the increase in population, if anything, because people would be more likely to have kids if they could protect them by marrying their other parent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm going to act as Devil's advocate here, so do not become angry at what I am about to say.

1. It isn't in the traditional realm of marriage. Yes, I am well aware that minorities could not marry whites and vice versa, but they could get married to each other! That's fine, right guys?

"Men could not marry men and women could not marry women, but they could get married to each other!"

Hmm... still works for same-sex marriage.

2. Giving gays and lesbians the ability to get tax deductibles from being married will contribute to less government revenue and further our deficit.

My taxes went up slightly when I got married... though this was because in Canada, certain tax credits are given on a per-household basis, not per-person, so my wife and I had to decide who would claim which.

However, this change was because of co-habitation, not strictly because of marriage. In any case, though, the idea of having a "getting married" tax credit is not universal.

 

[3.14]

gay marriage is prone to exploits, want greencard just get first person to marry you, want to adopt just pay some dude to marry you etc

 

[Panda]

gay marriage is prone to exploits, want greencard just get first person to marry you, want to adopt just pay some dude to marry you etc

Normal marriage can do that as well. What is the difference?

 

[Sunstone]

If Gays are allowed to marry each other, Straights will want the same rights, too! Then what will happen? Civilization will soon collapse due to throngs of Straights ceasing to cohabitate and getting married instead!

 

[gnomon]

Well can anyone? Do any even exist?

Not that I've seen.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Can anyone give a non-religious reason why Gays should not be married?

Well..... Sure!........Give me a minute here..........Uh.......well.........:help:.

Ummmmm...........Not really! :no:

 

[Aishikyo]

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).

But here in the U.S, we are supposed to have freedom. As such, people should have the freedom to be married, regardless of gender.
Besides, how does a gay couple getting married affect the fertility rate of the nation, anyway?

 

[gnomon]

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).

There's no correlation between homosexual relationships and lower fertility rates.

There is an apparent correlation between higher standard of living and less procreation.

Nice try, though.

 

[Starfish]

Egad! Come on people, you can do better than that! I've been out of this forum for several weeks, and come back for a brief visit. Darn it, I have to post!

Big non-religious reason: Children. Legalize gay marriage = legalize gay adoption. Also increased pressure on doctors to aid in conception (involving a 3rd party) so that gay couples can produce babies. This says to the world, fathers OR mothers are not important. It says two mothers = a mom & dad. It says two fathers = a mom & dad. It says gender in parents is irrelevent to the children.

Who here really believes that a dad (male parent) is unimportant? Or that a mother (female parent) is unimportant? I don't care how many women are in a child's life, that child needs a father. No woman can be a father. No man can be a mother.

Let gay couples adopt children who have no other options. Of course a loving gay home is better than no home. But don't bring a child into the world to deprive it of a father or a mother ON PURPOSE. It's just not fair to the child.

There, I'm leaving now. I'll be sure to lock up on my way out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Egad! Come on people, you can do better than that! I've been out of this forum for several weeks, and come back for a brief visit. Darn it, I have to post!

Big non-religious reason: Children. Legalize gay marriage = legalize gay adoption. Also increased pressure on doctors to aid in conception (involving a 3rd party) so that gay couples can produce babies.

I disagree. I think they're separate issues.

This says to the world, fathers OR mothers are not important. It says two mothers = a mom & dad. It says two fathers = a mom & dad. It says gender in parents is irrelevent to the children.

What's your take on children being an argument for the other side? If children are going to be in same-sex-parented families no matter what, doesn't it help those children to provide their families with the protections and benefits of marriage?

 

[gnomon]

Big non-religious reason: Children. Legalize gay marriage = legalize gay adoption. Also increased pressure on doctors to aid in conception (involving a 3rd party) so that gay couples can produce babies. This says to the world, fathers OR mothers are not important. It says two mothers = a mom & dad. It says two fathers = a mom & dad. It says gender in parents is irrelevent to the children.

Actually, it still says moms and dads are important. For one thing, heterosexuals are unaffected. They can still go through the motions, have kids and be mommies and daddies. Except of course for those couples who violate nature and take fertility drugs!:no:

Just kidding.

Who here really believes that a dad (male parent) is unimportant? Or that a mother (female parent) is unimportant? I don't care how many women are in a child's life, that child needs a father. No woman can be a father. No man can be a mother.

What if mommy has CAIS and is considered legally biologically male but grew her whole life being told she was female and suddenly finds out, after not being able to have kids, that she is male and no longer has her marriage recognized by the state.

Let gay couples adopt children who have no other options. Of course a loving gay home is better than no home. But don't bring a child into the world to deprive it of a father or a mother ON PURPOSE. It's just not fair to the child.

You mean like in Arkansas where they just outlawed gay adoption?

 

[tomspug]

Well can anyone? Do any even exist?

Considering that the entire issue is centered around the question of whether or not marriage is legally recognized as having religious importance, it seems impossible to answer your question.

The whole debate is whether or not marriage exists within or outside of the realm of religion.

 

[Willamena]

Considering that the entire issue is centered around the question of whether or not marriage is legally recognized as having religious importance, it seems impossible to answer your question.

The whole debate is whether or not marriage exists within or outside of the realm of religion.

Somehow, I don't think that's the issue for the homosexuals.

 

[tomspug]

Somehow, I don't think that's the issue for the homosexuals.

Well, I thought this topic was about the OTHER side of the argument. There IS another side, by the way.

And... YES it is the issue for homosexuals. Homosexuals believe that marriage does NOT exist within the realm of religion, but is something that is determined as a right by the government.

 

[Aishikyo]

Well, I thought this topic was about the OTHER side of the argument. There IS another side, by the way.

And... YES it is the issue for homosexuals. Homosexuals believe that marriage does NOT exist within the realm of religion, but is something that is determined as a right by the government.

Saying that all homosexuals believe that is merely an assumption.

 

[Riverwolf]

There aren't any.

All the so-called "studies" that were done that anti-gay people use, like what Starfish quoted, are studies done against SINGLE-PARENT families to mother-father families. From what I understand, the few studies done against gay parents to non-gay parents indicate that there's NO DIFFERENCE! On the topic of that argument, I grew up with my mother, only seeing my father every two weeks ever since I was seven. I got through puberty just fine ON MY OWN! Whenever my dad tried to explain what was happening to me, I pretty much ignored him. And because I now have to discipline myself (not easy), I will hopefully become stronger in the process.

As to the population argument... that's just ridiculous. I think we can go through about 100 generations before we have to worry about population decline. I'd in fact argue that contraceptives will contribute more to a population decline than homosexual marriage. But again, a population decline is a good thing, at this point. Otherwise we'll just overcrowd the planet, and we haven't even sent a man to mars yet.

 

[No*s]

Hmm, I was expecting a little more show and tell than this.