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

[Sunstone]

Ah, finally something on which we agree.

Excellent.

 

[Worshipper]

I'm not really certain what makes a reason 'legitimate' in this thread. I have the sneaking suspicion that all such reasons will be rejected as illegitimate a priori. I hope that's not the case.

That being said, though, I'd like to try my hand at offering a legitimate, non-religious reason.



The purpose of marriage should be to ensure that property is passed down to people's natural offspring.

This explains the laws we have (though never use) against adultery and fornication, since those activities can result in the creation of natural offspring of non-married couples. It also explains the strict regulations we formerly had against divorce. All those things can frustrate the purpose of marriage by letting property be passed on to people who are not the natural offspring of those who bequeath it.

Allowing marriages between two people of the same sex, though it would not frustrate the purpose of marriage the same way that adultery, fornication, and divorce do, would still serve to weaken the public conceptualization of marriage, distancing it from its rightful goal of ensuring that property and genes are passed on together.

Obviously, the lion's share of the fight against the degradation of marriage lies in returning to a time of nearly-impossible divorce and strict enforcement of laws against adultery and fornication. But some efforts in that fight can rightfully be spent in combatting the legalization of same-sex marriage.



That seems to me to be a legitimate line of reasoning. It's clearly non-religious. That should fit the bill. Now, it may or may not be appealing — I tend to worry, myself, anytime the state (or a faction trying to control the state) starts talking about procreation or genetics or anything of the kind. Nevertheless, I think it's a legitimate, non-religious argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)
The purpose of marriage should be to ensure that property is passed down to people's natural offspring.

Should it? It surprises me somewhat. I think of marriage as a public statement of dedication between a couple in love.

Inheritance rights also follow, of course, but as a comparatively minor consequence.

(...) Obviously, the lion's share of the fight against the degradation of marriage lies in returning to a time of nearly-impossible divorce and strict enforcement of laws against adultery and fornication. But some efforts in that fight can rightfully be spent in combatting the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Isn't that fighting the effects without touching the causes, however?

(...) Nevertheless, I think it's a legitimate, non-religious argument.

I respectfully disagree, but thanks for telling us how you feel.

 

[Autodidact]

The purpose of marriage should be to ensure that property is passed down to people's natural offspring.

No, it's not. Obviously. Otherwise we would not permit:
non-fertile people to marry
elderly people to marry
adoption
stepchildren
estate inheritance rights
and many other customs that we do in fact permit.

Allowing marriages between two people of the same sex, though it would not frustrate the purpose of marriage the same way that adultery, fornication, and divorce do, would still serve to weaken the public conceptualization of marriage, distancing it from its rightful goal of ensuring that property and genes are passed on together.

??? Don't follow. I mean, although this is not in fact the purpose of marriage, apparently gay marriage doesn't frustrate this purported purpose at all, so...

Obviously, the lion's share of the fight against the degradation of marriage lies in returning to a time of nearly-impossible divorce and strict enforcement of laws against adultery and fornication. But some efforts in that fight can rightfully be spent in combatting the legalization of same-sex marriage.

And yet there is no movement whatsoever to do just that. I mean, if that was the issue, wouldn't we be seeing ballot measures prohibiting divorce and the like? Why focus on only 3% of the population rather than 97%? It makes no sense.

That seems to me to be a legitimate line of reasoning. It's clearly non-religious. That should fit the bill. Now, it may or may not be appealing — I tend to worry, myself, anytime the state (or a faction trying to control the state) starts talking about procreation or genetics or anything of the kind. Nevertheless, I think it's a legitimate, non-religious argument.

Yes, it's non-religious, I'll give you that. Otherwise it makes no sense that I can see. The premise is incorrect, and then has no connection to the conclusion. Other that that, it's great.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not really certain what makes a reason 'legitimate' in this thread. I have the sneaking suspicion that all such reasons will be rejected as illegitimate a priori. I hope that's not the case.

That being said, though, I'd like to try my hand at offering a legitimate, non-religious reason.



The purpose of marriage should be to ensure that property is passed down to people's natural offspring.

This explains the laws we have (though never use) against adultery and fornication, since those activities can result in the creation of natural offspring of non-married couples. It also explains the strict regulations we formerly had against divorce. All those things can frustrate the purpose of marriage by letting property be passed on to people who are not the natural offspring of those who bequeath it.

Allowing marriages between two people of the same sex, though it would not frustrate the purpose of marriage the same way that adultery, fornication, and divorce do, would still serve to weaken the public conceptualization of marriage, distancing it from its rightful goal of ensuring that property and genes are passed on together.

Obviously, the lion's share of the fight against the degradation of marriage lies in returning to a time of nearly-impossible divorce and strict enforcement of laws against adultery and fornication. But some efforts in that fight can rightfully be spent in combatting the legalization of same-sex marriage.



That seems to me to be a legitimate line of reasoning. It's clearly non-religious. That should fit the bill. Now, it may or may not be appealing — I tend to worry, myself, anytime the state (or a faction trying to control the state) starts talking about procreation or genetics or anything of the kind. Nevertheless, I think it's a legitimate, non-religious argument.

That only works if you believe that "property" is even possible... which I don't.

I'm afraid humanity has moved a bit beyond the concept of owning family property; people when they're young move out of their parents' house to look for their own homes. Using this logic, that should be illegal.

Sorry, not legitimate in this day and age. 200 years ago, maybe. Not anymore.

 

[Worshipper]

Should it? It surprises me somewhat. I think of marriage as a public statement of dedication between a couple in love.

Why in the world should it matter to the state who we love? What business of the state's are our emotions? It makes no sense for love to play any role whatsoever in the state's dealings. Marriage, as an institution of the state, shouldn't be about love at all.

Inheritance rights also follow, of course, but as a comparatively minor consequence.

I don't think that's how state-recognized marriage began. I think state-recognized marriage was based primarily on matters of inheritance.

Isn't that fighting the effects without touching the causes, however?

How so?

I respectfully disagree

No you don't. You disagree, but not respectfully. If your disagreement were respectful, you would explain what makes that line of reasoning either illegitimate or religious, which is something you haven't done (or, if you think you have, you haven't been sufficiently explicit about it to make it clear that you were even attempting such a course). To just say "I disagree," and to leave it at that is rather disrespectful, actually. If you disagree and don't want to explain why, the respectful thing to do is to keep silence.

No, it's not. Obviously. Otherwise we would not permit:
non-fertile people to marry
elderly people to marry
adoption
stepchildren
estate inheritance rights
and many other customs that we do in fact permit.

We permit a great many things today that we wouldn't have permitted in the past. Looking at today's permissions doesn't necessarily shed light on the discussion. Unless we take the prejudiced position that opponents of same-sex marriage cannot have legitimate, non-religious reasons for their views, then we have to accept the idea that there could be legitimate problems a person might have with some things that are currently permitted. After all, fights like the fight over same-sex marriage in California occurred in an attempt to stop the permission of something that was felt undesirable. If there were never problems with things that were permitted, then there could have been no fight over same-sex marriage in California.

From the line of reasoning I proposed earlier, I would say that infertility would be good grounds for annulment of marriage.

New marriages of post-fertile people would only be possible in the event of lifelong spinsterhood, death, or divorce. Divorce is something we're largely eliminating in this line of reasoning, so that class of marriages would also disappear. Marriages after a life of spinsterhood would be pointless and so forbidden. Remarriages after the death of spouses has historically created problems for the heir of the previous marriage and so would also be forbidden.

Adoption might be possible in the event of orphanage, and it would be the responsibility of the next-of-kin to adopt the child. That way, the dilution of the bond between genetics and property would be lessened as much as possible.

And so forth.

??? Don't follow. I mean, although this is not in fact the purpose of marriage, apparently gay marriage doesn't frustrate this purported purpose at all, so...

It doesn't frustrate that purpose. You are right. But if it is recognized as marriage, then the meaning of the word marriage shifts from referring to its ideal purpose to something else. That semantic shift then makes it more difficult to achieve and/or maintain the ideal form of marriage. It's a semantic corruption that would have to be avoided.

That's also some of why infertility would be grounds for annulment.

And yet there is no movement whatsoever to do just that. I mean, if that was the issue, wouldn't we be seeing ballot measures prohibiting divorce and the like? Why focus on only 3% of the population rather than 97%? It makes no sense.

That's right, there is no large movement to do just that. I find that hypocritical, frankly, on the part of those who oppose same-sex marriage. They say they want to protect traditional marriage, but they're often perfectly fine with divorce-on-a-whim — as long as it's a man and a woman getting divorced. Sheer insanity. If they really want to protect traditional marriage, why don't they focus their efforts on divorce? But I don't think they really want to protect traditional marriage — I think it's just that the thought of homosexual sex makes them squeamish.

Nevertheless, the OP didn't ask us to give the legitimate reason that the major opponents of same-sex marriage have to oppose same-sex marriage. As I read it, it asked us whether there were any legitimate, non-religious reason to oppose it. So the fact that few actual opponents of same-sex marriage adopt this line of reasoning is irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, it's non-religious, I'll give you that.

Good! I'd hate to have to fight this on that front, because I'm not really sure how anything can be utterly non-religious. I'd be very hard pressed to prove that this argument wasn't religious if I had to.

Otherwise it makes no sense that I can see. The premise is incorrect, and then has no connection to the conclusion. Other that that, it's great.

How is the premise incorrect? And how on earth does it have no connection to the conclusion? Saying these things doesn't make them so. Show me!

That only works if you believe that "property" is even possible... which I don't.

I'm afraid humanity has moved a bit beyond the concept of owning family property; people when they're young move out of their parents' house to look for their own homes. Using this logic, that should be illegal.

Sorry, not legitimate in this day and age. 200 years ago, maybe. Not anymore.

Hmm. I think we're going to need a definition of legitimate that we can all agree on at some point here.

Interestingly, when I looked it up in the dictionary just now, the first definition kind of went right along with the argument I presented: "Of a child: Having the status of one lawfully begotten; entitled to full filial rights. Said also of a parent, and of lineal descent." Kind of funny, I think.

But at any rate, if we're going to question the legitimacy of the concepts of property and inheritance (and you could be very right to do so), then I think we'd also have to question the legitimacy of an institution (like state-recognized marriage) designed to regulate those concepts. If we have property and inheritance are antiquated, then so is state-recognized marriage. We should ditch the whole idea of having the state recognize marriages, in that case (which I actually personally believe to be the right solution to the whole problem).

So state-recognized same-sex marriage would be inappropriate not because it's same-sex but because it's state-recognized marriage. It's an antiquated concept that has no place in our current economic structure.

 

[texan1]

That's right, there is no large movement to do just that. I find that hypocritical, frankly, on the part of those who oppose same-sex marriage. They say they want to protect traditional marriage, but they're often perfectly fine with divorce-on-a-whim — as long as it's a man and a woman getting divorced. Sheer insanity. If they really want to protect traditional marriage, why don't they focus their efforts on divorce? But I don't think they really want to protect traditional marriage — I think it's just that the thought of homosexual sex makes them squeamish.

Thank you for eloquently voicing one of my biggest frustrations with those who are making such a huge effort to ban same-sex marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We permit a great many things today that we wouldn't have permitted in the past. Looking at today's permissions doesn't necessarily shed light on the discussion. Unless we take the prejudiced position that opponents of same-sex marriage cannot have legitimate, non-religious reasons for their views, then we have to accept the idea that there could be legitimate problems a person might have with some things that are currently permitted. After all, fights like the fight over same-sex marriage in California occurred in an attempt to stop the permission of something that was felt undesirable. If there were never problems with things that were permitted, then there could have been no fight over same-sex marriage in California.

From the line of reasoning I proposed earlier, I would say that infertility would be good grounds for annulment of marriage.

That one, maybe. IIRC, infertility has sometimes been grounds for annulment in the past.

New marriages of post-fertile people would only be possible in the event of lifelong spinsterhood, death, or divorce. Divorce is something we're largely eliminating in this line of reasoning, so that class of marriages would also disappear. Marriages after a life of spinsterhood would be pointless and so forbidden. Remarriages after the death of spouses has historically created problems for the heir of the previous marriage and so would also be forbidden.

When was remarriage of widows and widowers ever forbidden? Even the Bible explicitly declares it to be acceptable (not to add a religious spin on this, just to point out that it's been culturally acceptable for eons at least).

Adoption might be possible in the event of orphanage, and it would be the responsibility of the next-of-kin to adopt the child. That way, the dilution of the bond between genetics and property would be lessened as much as possible.

When has adoption of non-relatives ever been prohibited?

And even adoption of a niece or nephew would cause problems for the "legitimacy" of inheritance in your model if he or she is given equal status with your biological children, which is implied by adoption as it's practiced in most Western societies.

How is the premise incorrect? And how on earth does it have no connection to the conclusion? Saying these things doesn't make them so. Show me!

I think for your reason to work, you have to assume underlying principles that would be reflected in other ways (as Auto pointed out). The fact that these principles aren't actually reflected in these other ways is an indication that they don't actually apply, and therefore can't be used to justify other things like prohibiting same-sex marriage.

 

[Worshipper]

When was remarriage of widows and widowers ever forbidden? Even the Bible explicitly declares it to be acceptable (not to add a religious spin on this, just to point out that it's been culturally acceptable for eons at least).

When has adoption of non-relatives ever been prohibited?

These things don't have to have ever happened for it to be the case that they ought to happen.

And even adoption of a niece or nephew would cause problems for the "legitimacy" of inheritance in your model if he or she is given equal status with your biological children, which is implied by adoption as it's practiced in most Western societies.

It would create problems. Definitely right. But those problems would be much fewer than the problems presented by adoption of strangers.

I think for your reason to work, you have to assume underlying principles that would be reflected in other ways (as Auto pointed out). The fact that these principles aren't actually reflected in these other ways is an indication that they don't actually apply, and therefore can't be used to justify other things like prohibiting same-sex marriage.

I think that counter-argument incorrectly requires that there have been a perfect society. An underlying principle can be held without being realized in every aspect of society. Our laws and mores are (and have always been) the result of a complex interaction of numerous underlying principles, some of which are at odds with one another. Only if a society were philosophically perfect could all of its cultural practices spring perfectly from an entirely coherent set of underlying principles. Such a utopia has obviously never existed. But I don't think the non-existence of a utopia proves that marriage cannot legitimately be seen as something that should be as I have described it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These things don't have to have ever happened for it to be the case that they ought to happen.

Hmm. I thought you were trying to make a case that how things worked in the past (including prohibitions on remarriage and adoption of non-relatives, apparently) are indications of underlying principles that should still be applied today. Was I incorrect?

It would create problems. Definitely right. But those problems would be much fewer than the problems presented by adoption of strangers.

And they'd be much fewer still if the Muslim model of adoption were followed, where the child is brought into the home and cared for, but is not considered to be a member of the family for the purposes of things like inheritance rights.

I think that counter-argument incorrectly requires that there have been a perfect society. An underlying principle can be held without being realized in every aspect of society.

I don't think so. I think my counter-argument only implies an ideal to be strived for... and I think the fact that no society ever really strived for this "ideal" at all indicates that they didn't view it as an ideal.

 

[Father Heathen]

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).

Wait. So you're saying gay people would produce more children unmarried than they would if they were married? Durrrr......
Besides, the world is already overpopulated as it is, so who cares about pumping out a bunch of babies?

 

[Autodidact]

Why in the world should it matter to the state who we love? What business of the state's are our emotions? It makes no sense for love to play any role whatsoever in the state's dealings. Marriage, as an institution of the state, shouldn't be about love at all.

I've seen this many times. Gay marriage proponents argue for the importance of love, and opponents argue against it.

I don't think that's how state-recognized marriage began. I think state-recognized marriage was based primarily on matters of inheritance.

Think, or know? I think it's primarily a way to formalize the core relationship of a human family. btw, in poking around on wiki for this info, I came across this tidbit:

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.

We permit a great many things today that we wouldn't have permitted in the past. Looking at today's permissions doesn't necessarily shed light on the discussion.

Well, you put a tremendous stock in history, but O.K., are these new, or have they always been permitted? Answer: always. People have always (in our legal tradition) had the right to leave their estates as they wish, with certain limitations. Anyone can disinherit their children today and throughout Western history.

Unless we take the prejudiced position that opponents of same-sex marriage cannot have legitimate, non-religious reasons for their views, then we have to accept the idea that there could be legitimate problems a person might have with some things that are currently permitted.

Again, your logic is flawed. We don't have to decide in advance for something to be so for it to turn out to be so. Let's take a look at the arguments, and figure out if they're good or bad, without prejudging them, O.K.? I looked at yours, and it looks bad. You initial assertion is false, and has nothing to do with letting gay people marry or not.

After all, fights like the fight over same-sex marriage in California occurred in an attempt to stop the permission of something that was felt undesirable. If there were never problems with things that were permitted, then there could have been no fight over same-sex marriage in California.

NOw you're prejudging. You're assuming that because people had objections, their objections must have been valid. A moment's thought will help you realize that objections to social progress are not always valid and, in retrospect, usually not. (women's suffrage, slavery, integration...).

From the line of reasoning I proposed earlier, I would say that infertility would be good grounds for annulment of marriage.

And if it turns out that it isn't, it should indicate that your line of reasoning is incorrect. Guess what: it isn't.

New marriages of post-fertile people would only be possible in the event of lifelong spinsterhood, death, or divorce.

Yup. And?

Divorce is something we're largely eliminating in this line of reasoning, so that class of marriages would also disappear.

And we see that in reality, about 50% of marriages end in divorce, and there is almost no movement to eliminate divorce.

Marriages after a life of spinsterhood would be pointless and so forbidden.

And they're not.

Remarriages after the death of spouses has historically created problems for the heir of the previous marriage and so would also be forbidden.

And they're not. So what we see is that your assertion is false. It does not reflect reality. That is not in fact the purpose of marriage, as we can see by the fact that nothing that YOU assert as consistent with it actually is the case.

Adoption might be possible in the event of orphanage, and it would be the responsibility of the next-of-kin to adopt the child. That way, the dilution of the bond between genetics and property would be lessened as much as possible.

And again, we see that adoption is permitted in all cases. Because you're wrong.

You're the one trying to change the essential function of marriage, not gay people.

And so forth.

And so forth--also wrong. Society just does not look the way it would look if you were right.

It doesn't frustrate that purpose. You are right.

So, not only is your premise wrong, but has little or not connection to your conclusion.

But if it is recognized as marriage, then the meaning of the word marriage shifts from referring to its ideal purpose to something else.

And you just shifted from "history" to "ideal." Not only were you wrong about that history, but there is a whole lot of difference between what marriage has been, and what it should be.

That semantic shift then makes it more difficult to achieve and/or maintain the ideal form of marriage. It's a semantic corruption that would have to be avoided.

And exactly how does that work? How does gay people getting married make it harder for straight people to leave their inheritance to their children?

That's also some of why infertility would be grounds for annulment.

Which it isn't.

That's right, there is no large movement to do just that. I find that hypocritical, frankly, on the part of those who oppose same-sex marriage. They say they want to protect traditional marriage, but they're often perfectly fine with divorce-on-a-whim — as long as it's a man and a woman getting divorced. Sheer insanity. If they really want to protect traditional marriage, why don't they focus their efforts on divorce? But I don't think they really want to protect traditional marriage — I think it's just that the thought of homosexual sex makes them squeamish.

Thank you, Worshipper, I couldn't have said it better myself. This in itself exposes the utter bigotry of this movement. So, rather than waste your time opposing gay marrige, I suggest that you start a thread and join a church that is fighting against heterosexual divorce.

Nevertheless, the OP didn't ask us to give the legitimate reason that the major opponents of same-sex marriage have to oppose same-sex marriage. As I read it, it asked us whether there were any legitimate, non-religious reason to oppose it. So the fact that few actual opponents of same-sex marriage adopt this line of reasoning is irrelevant to this discussion.

Well, I guess if yours is the best they've got, then we've learned that there aren't any. Thank you.

How is the premise incorrect?

It's factually incorrect. That is not, has never been, and should not be, the purpose of marriage.

And how on earth does it have no connection to the conclusion? Saying these things doesn't make them so. Show me!

As you yourself said, permitting gay marriage does not in fact obstruct this purpose. And you showed no actual, practical way in which it does or would.

Hmm. I think we're going to need a definition of legitimate that we can all agree on at some point here.

Something like: factual premises, valid logic?

 

[Autodidact]

These things don't have to have ever happened for it to be the case that they ought to happen.

Ah, that's a different idea altogether. Now you just have to show that these are bad things that shouldn't happen. If you think that inheritance should be the primary purpose of marrige, then you should show us why that would be a good thing.

It would create problems. Definitely right. But those problems would be much fewer than the problems presented by adoption of strangers.

? O.K., what problems do our present adoption laws create? Your proposal is extremely radical, and would result in major social disruption.

I think that counter-argument incorrectly requires that there have been a perfect society. An underlying principle can be held without being realized in every aspect of society. Our laws and mores are (and have always been) the result of a complex interaction of numerous underlying principles, some of which are at odds with one another. Only if a society were philosophically perfect could all of its cultural practices spring perfectly from an entirely coherent set of underlying principles. Such a utopia has obviously never existed. But I don't think the non-existence of a utopia proves that marriage cannot legitimately be seen as something that should be as I have described it.

No, not perfect, just better.

 

[Autodidact]

*clears throat*

An Argument Against Gay Marriage,
by Autodidact, the Devil's Advocate

Since ancient times, the family has been, and continues to be, the core of our social structure. We have learned from thousands of years of human history that the best environment and structure in which to raise children is a family consisting of a man and one or more women. Without this fundamental, stable structure, society would not prosper. We should be very careful, proceed very slowly, in changing this structure, lest we undermine it, and do so only for the most compelling reasons. The desire of a few gay people to formalize their romantic relationships, while admirable, is not a strong enough reason to tinker with the core building block of our society.

There is a reason that we build our societal structure around this model of marriage. There is a biological truth that underlies this structure. Human beings have evolved to raise children with the help of two biological parents, one of each sex. While children do grow up in other arrangements, this is the structure that we have evolved to use, which is why it works so well. Other arrangements may serve when this is not available, but they are not as desirable. This is the only arrangement that is reflected in our traditional concept of marriage, which furthers, promotes and fosters it. While gay people may have children, their parental relationships do not grow out of this biological reality in the same basic way that heterosexuals do. There is no need or benefit to formalizing gay parenting relationships by trying to force them into a biological model that they do not, in fact, fit. Gay people can adopt each other's children, thereby cementing their lifelong commitment to the children. Since gay people cannot reproduce together, out of their sexual relationship, there is no need to formalize this relationship in the same way. If they wish to do so, there are a variety of other legal mechanisms they can use.

 

[lunamoth]

*clears throat*

An Argument Against Gay Marriage,
by Autodidact, the Devil's Advocate

Since ancient times, the family has been, and continues to be, the core of our social structure. We have learned from thousands of years of human history that the best environment and structure in which to raise children is a family consisting of a man and one or more women. Without this fundamental, stable structure, society would not prosper. We should be very careful, proceed very slowly, in changing this structure, lest we undermine it, and do so only for the most compelling reasons. The desire of a few gay people to formalize their romantic relationships, while admirable, is not a strong enough reason to tinker with the core building block of our society.

There is a reason that we build our societal structure around this model of marriage. There is a biological truth that underlies this structure. Human beings have evolved to raise children with the help of two biological parents, one of each sex. While children do grow up in other arrangements, this is the structure that we have evolved to use, which is why it works so well. Other arrangements may serve when this is not available, but they are not as desirable. This is the only arrangement that is reflected in our traditional concept of marriage, which furthers, promotes and fosters it. While gay people may have children, their parental relationships do not grow out of this biological reality in the same basic way that heterosexuals do. There is no need or benefit to formalizing gay parenting relationships by trying to force them into a biological model that they do not, in fact, fit. Gay people can adopt each other's children, thereby cementing their lifelong commitment to the children. Since gay people cannot reproduce together, out of their sexual relationship, there is no need to formalize this relationship in the same way. If they wish to do so, there are a variety of other legal mechanisms they can use.

But love is about transcending our evolutionary limitations. Our brains make it possible and our hearts make it an imperative.

 

[Autodidact]

No one is arguing against love, just pointing out that gay love cannot form the biological basis for a nuclear family.

 

[lunamoth]

No one is arguing against love, just pointing out that gay love cannot form the biological basis for a nuclear family.

Good thing we're about more than just a biological basis.

 

[Autodidact]

Nevertheless, this ancient biological truth is, and should be, reflected in our modern families and social structures, in a positive way.

*How'm I doin'?*

 

[DallasApple]

Nevertheless, this ancient biological truth is, and should be, reflected in our modern families and social structures, in a positive way.

*How'm I doin'?*

Um...You arent convincing me...

Love

Dallas

 

[lunamoth]

'Biological truth' or 'evolutionary truth' must be about change, about adaptation. That which is static will not successfully compete in a changing environment.

*needs more hysteria and a touch of bile*