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

[Autodidact]

Ok, devils advocate here just to throw another example in the firing line!
What about the yin/yang theory Properties of Yin and Yang
Yin and yang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A balanced marriage can be based on the yin yang theory. I cant remember which is female and which is male but the two are completely opposite but together complement each other and are balanced each having a small part of the other within. Only heterosexual marriages can be applied to the yin and yang. You cant have Yin and Yin or Yang and Yang because the two would be unbalanced. Therefore homosexuals cannot work because they are not balanced.

Well I guess is this is important to you, then you should be sure to marry someone whose Qi balances yours. Are you seriously suggesting this woo woo should be mandated by law?

 

[Autodidact]

Does the no response to my idea mean that I have found the one legitimate reason which no-one can answer?

That's one possibility. The other may be that no one thought it worth answering. (Oh yeah, that yin/yang argument just devastated me. I was speechless. I am now convinced that gay marriage should be outlawed.:areyoucra)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Well I guess is this is important to you, then you should be sure to marry someone whose Qi balances yours. Are you seriously suggesting this woo woo should be mandated by law?

Absolutely not! Hint: look up the definition of devils advocate!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Do you think yin and yang are dichotomous opposites? Just curious.

I have no idea what dichotomous means, Ill go look it up and get back to you!

 

[lilithu]

There's no need to get so emotional about a simple disagreement.

The accusation of me being "emotional" is simply a rather lame attempt to discredit me. Either that or you are projecting.

 

[Sunstone]

The accusation of me being "emotional" is simply a rather lame attempt to discredit me.

Perhaps you should just try to take some personal responsibility for reacting in a less than rational fashion instead of pretending I'm at fault for merely pointing out what you freely chose to do.

 

[Sunstone]

I have no idea what dichotomous means, Ill go look it up and get back to you!

I look forward to your getting back with a response.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok, devils advocate here just to throw another example in the firing line!
What about the yin/yang theory Properties of Yin and Yang
Yin and yang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A balanced marriage can be based on the yin yang theory. I cant remember which is female and which is male but the two are completely opposite but together complement each other and are balanced each having a small part of the other within. Only heterosexual marriages can be applied to the yin and yang. You cant have Yin and Yin or Yang and Yang because the two would be unbalanced. Therefore homosexuals cannot work because they are not balanced.

Very well.

That's based on principles... that aren't gender-specific.

I'm a man... but I'm very feminine. If I were gay (I'm not), I just need to find a man who is masculine, so we'd balance each other out. But since I'm not gay, my masculine girlfriend will have to do. ^_^

 

[lilithu]

Perhaps you should just try to take some personal responsibility for reacting in a less than rational fashion instead of pretending I'm at fault for merely pointing out what you freely chose to do.

Perhaps you should back up your accusations instead of merely relying on condescending ad hominems.

You've accused me of being emotional without any supporting argument.
You've accused me of being irrational without any supporting argument.

The only thing I've accused you of here is being incorrect in your assertion.

So which one of us is the emotional, irrational one? :sarcastic

 

[lilithu]

Very well.

That's based on principles... that aren't gender-specific.

I'm a man... but I'm very feminine. If I were gay (I'm not), I just need to find a man who is masculine, so we'd balance each other out. But since I'm not gay, my masculine girlfriend will have to do. ^_^

Yup. :yes: Tho again I would point out, that the balance of yin and yang do not require that all "masculinity" be embodied in one person and all femininity in the other. Each person has both to varying extents.

 

[Scruffitude]

It would increase the number of mother-in-laws. Doesn't that prospect scare anyone????

That wouldn't be an argument against gay marriage. It would be an argument against marriage period.

DA: If you haven't found out what "Dichotomous" means - it basically means "divided into two parts"

At any rate, it looks to me like we've run into a brick wall here. There are no legitimate NON-RELIGIOUS reasons. But far be it for me, a relative newcomer, to declare this argument over...:sorry1:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would increase the number of mother-in-laws. Doesn't that prospect scare anyone????

For some people. Others would have two father-in-laws and no mother-in-laws at all.

Actually, that might be a scary prospect, too. Imagine you're a teenaged boy standing on your date's doorstep knowing that there are two dads behind that door, both very protective of their "little girl"?

You'd sure be motivated to get her home on time, since you'd know that if you were out late, one of them could wait at home while the other one scours the neighborhood looking for you. Eek!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

That wouldn't be an argument against gay marriage. It would be an argument against marriage period.

DA: If you haven't found out what "Dichotomous" means - it basically means "divided into two parts"

At any rate, it looks to me like we've run into a brick wall here. There are no legitimate NON-RELIGIOUS reasons. But far be it for me, a relative newcomer, to declare this argument over...:sorry1:

Thanks, saves me going to look it up, hadnt got round to it yet!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Do you think yin and yang are dichotomous opposites? Just curious.

Hmmm, if I am understanding it properly, no, because there is a little bit of each in the other.

Oh and by the way. If a woman is more masculine, surely she should go for a man which is more feminine not another woman who happens to be more feminine!

I love playing devils advocate it is fun!

 

[Comet]

POINT AND CASE:

Imagine the child of Richard Simmons and Little Richard! Little Richard Simmons!!!!!!!! ENOUGH SAID!

(that is the best reason I can find)

 

[lilithu]

DA: If you haven't found out what "Dichotomous" means - it basically means "divided into two parts"

Or into two classifications. There are things that cannot be divided into parts that nonetheless can be seen in two opposing and complimentary ways. "Up" and "down" would be an example.

At any rate, it looks to me like we've run into a brick wall here. There are no legitimate NON-RELIGIOUS reasons. But far be it for me, a relative newcomer, to declare this argument over...:sorry1:

Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder.

Here are several non-religious reasons against same-sex marriages:

1. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
2. Homosexuality isn't "natural."
3. The purpose of marriage is provide a stable environment for procreation.
4. Society will fall apart.

Note that I do not think any of these reasons are legitimate, tho we've all heard all of them.

Then again, I do not think that most religious reasons are legitimate justifications to ban civil marriages either.

The only religious reason that I can think of that would justify banning same-sex marriages is if you truly believed that your god is so cruel that he would punish all of society for being "tolerant." And if someone truly believes in such an unjust and vengeful god, you have my compassion as your existence must be quite unhappy.

 

[lilithu]

Hmmm, if I am understanding it properly, no, because there is a little bit of each in the other.

Out of yin comes yang and out of yang comes yin. They are mutually dependent on each other.

But that doesn't mean they're not opposites.

One cannot understand the concept of right without the concept of left, and vice versa. One cannot understand the concept of above without the concept of below, and vice versa. Front and back. Hot and cold. These are ALL mutually dependent upon each other, and in being so generate each other. Are they or are they not opposites?

 

[Scruffitude]

Here are several non-religious reasons against same-sex marriages:

Having read a few of your previous posts, I'm pretty sure you're playing Devil's Advocate here so I'll be sure to respond with the tepidness of someone who understand this.

1. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Maybe in the U.S., but not if you take into account the entirety of human history. Once again, I apologize that I can't quite yet post a link to back myself up here (if you're curious, Google "history of marriage" and look for "History of Marriage in Western Civilization" in the search results - the article you're looking for is at the Magnus Hirschfield Archive for Sexology).

2. Homosexuality isn't "natural."

If by "natural" you mean it doesn't occur in nature, then that's a false assumption. Animals can and do form same-sex partnerships. Though this probably opens a whole other can of worms...
If by "natural" you mean something else... well maybe I should just ask what you mean instead of putting words in your mouth. :sorry1:

3. The purpose of marriage is provide a stable environment for procreation.

I'm assuming by "procreation" you mean purely for the purpose of creating children. Women have the advantage over men (at least for the moment) here in that artificial insemination is available. However, I will concede that before science came along the only way to produce a child was through heterosexual intercourse.

4. Society will fall apart.

This has always been a curious attitude to me. It's an argument that has been used in the past against different things, such as allowing mixed-race couples and such. It's such a telling statement that we always seem to think that X will lead to the downfall of society as we know it.
If society is going to collapse, at least as we (in the western world) know it, it will have nothing to do with allowing same-sex marriages. I don't even see how one might leap that giant logical chasm, especially given that the nations that allow same-sex marriages have yet to devolve into chaos as was predicted by the fear-mongers.

Note that I do not think any of these reasons are legitimate, tho we've all heard all of them.

I know. :sorry1: You played Devil's Advocate, and I decided to respond. I can only hope I didn't say anything insulting.

Then again, I do not think that most religious reasons are legitimate justifications to ban civil marriages either.

I'm a bit of a radical in this aspect, I think. If marriage is supposed to be a religious thing, then it doesn't belong in government period. I feel the same way about many other so-called "religious" issues that the government has decided to tackle. The fact is that we run into a tricky area when marriage is legally recognized, but is also one of those so-called "emotion words" that people get up in arms about. I personally can't think of a good solution that would leave everyone satisfied.

The only religious reason that I can think of that would justify banning same-sex marriages is if you truly believed that your god is so cruel that he would punish all of society for being "tolerant." And if someone truly believes in such an unjust and vengeful god, you have my compassion as your existence must be quite unhappy.

Before I became pseudo-atheist, I wanted to believe that God wouldn't create something and then say "Well, yeah, I created this, but part of it is bad and wasn't really part of my plan." I wanted to believe that God would accept and love his creation in its entirety. But nobody seemed to have the same ideas that I did, and I kinda gave up. Anyway this is kinda off-topic.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps you should back up your accusations instead of merely relying on condescending ad hominems.

You've accused me of being emotional without any supporting argument.
You've accused me of being irrational without any supporting argument.

Whatever. Anyone who is interested can go back and read your comments to see for themselves how you've responded. It won't work for you to say there's no evidence.

 

[lilithu]

Whatever. Anyone who is interested can go back and read your comments to see for themselves how you've responded.

Ah, finally something on which we agree.