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

[DallasApple]

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

We are..?????

Love

Dallas

 

[lunamoth]

We are..?????

Love

Dallas

I believe we also participate in a transcendant love.

 

[England my lionheart]

Well can anyone? Do any even exist?

I doubt if anyone can,after all a civil Marriage is basically a contract between two people whether they are gay or not should make no difference,as for a religious Marriage i think you will find plenty.
I have some gay freinds one of which died and miss him and he almost Married his boyfreind,i myself don't see the point in gay anything as i am straight as an arrow.

 

[Autodidact]

In what way has our environment changed so that a traditional family is not the optimum structure in which to raise children?

 

[lunamoth]

In what way has our environment changed so that a traditional family is not the optimum structure in which to raise children?

Shifting sands counselor. Which is important, traditional or biological? You were making your case on biological.

Assuming we are sticking to the biological argument, I think our environment both physical and social is quite different from the way it was at the dawn of humanity. (I'm not even sure we know that monogamy between a man and a woman (or women) was the only family structure found; there may always have been male-male and female-female pair bonds) Anyway, tremendous population growth and competition for resources is a biggie, environmental pollution leading to changes in fertility and human health is another.

Another point. We have not 'evolved' to deal with things like an 8-5 job and an hour-long commute each way, or mothers who work outside the home, but no one seems to be saying anymore that these things are against our nature and so should be abolished. Taking poisons would be pretty anti-evolutionary on a biological basis, yet this is one of the ways we cure cancer. Trying to discern and adhere to a certain evolutionary fitness model is a fool's errand.

 

[Scruffitude]

Since ancient times, the family has been, and continues to be, the core of our social structure.

I'm not sure I agree with the "since ancient times" part of this. Humans were largely nomadic when we first existed and only became tribal about 10,000-12,000 years ago. Even then, the concept of the "family" as you and I know it didn't really come along until much later.

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.

I'll agree with you to a point. It's when you say "... or more women" that I would disagree. Children do best with two parents, and I think it's safe to say that most psychologists and such would agree with me.

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.

And straight people have obviously been an exemplary model for how to keep families together. What is undermining the family structure goes far beyond same-sex couples, and is probably an entirely different topic. Having never been married or produced children, I feel I'm somewhat unqualified to speak on this at length.

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.

There is a reason why we BUILT our societal structure around that model. Somewhere along the way it changed, and for whatever reason stopped working.

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.

Coming from my background, I'm a bit cynical about something that's supposed to work, so I'll just concede that this might be true.

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.

I'm not gay, so I'm just going to have to let this one go. It's not my place to try to disprove you, and it would be hard considering I have no idea how a gay person might feel about this issue.

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.

Practically speaking it usually takes a man and a woman to produce a child. This is a fact nobody can argue. However science has provided women a way to produce a child without the need for a man, and this somewhat complicates the issue.

Anyway those are my thoughts, and I realize you were playing devil's advocate. So please take them with a grain of salt. :sorry1:

 

[Reverend Rick]

If the rights are the same, there is no functional difference.

However, one is still left with the question of why one group of people can get "married" while another group of people can only be allowed "civil unions." To draw an analogy with the Civil Rights movement, even if separate but equal were truly equal (and obviously it was not), there would be the question of why things were separate in the first place.

This would be an excellent question for Barrack Obama. He supports Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians. Could it be the fact that being raised by a white grandparent and being half white himself, would be a possible explanation for this obvious oversight on his part? I may have to change my opinion of him being a member of Reverend Wright's church. Being a member of a black church did very little to shape his understanding of the black struggle. Could he really be telling the truth about not having any knowledge about Wright? What did he do for all those years in the church, sleep?

If they already are capable of making the distinction, then the "marriage is a sacrament" argument loses a lot of validity. And since they are capable of making the distinction for other groups of people (atheists, divorcees) but not gays and lesbians, that to me suggests that the objection isn't about protecting marriage so much as being against gays and lesbians.

Spot on Lilithu! This is why you cannot find much support for civil unions for everyone and let a marriage be defined by each seperate church.

As an American, I want total equality for everyone, but insist on religion being another issue all together.

I must say that I do not support atheists or divorcees marrying. I do see how hypocritical some religions have become however. Too many churches are selectively choosing what part of the bible they subscribe to and what part they want to ignore. How convenient of them practicing their self serving homophobia. Just as I support any Churches decision on who they marry, I hold dear the right of others to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. This is religious freedom. It should not affect others who do not agree however.

You raised an excellent point. Selectively eliminating one group but allowing another to join in matrimony while ignoring the scriptures for one group while enforcing them on the other to the letter is proof positive evidence that they are more interested in attacking Gays than they are living by the scripture.

 

[LuisDantas]

This would be an excellent question for Barrack Obama. He supports Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians. Could it be the fact that being raised by a white grandparent and being half white himself, would be a possible explanation for this obvious oversight on his part?

He's a politician. He makes concessions in order not to alienate his support basis. That's part and parcel of politics, and I gather that you know that already.

It is up to the voting public to tell him not to concede too much.

I may have to change my opinion of him being a member of Reverend Wright's church. Being a member of a black church did very little to shape his understanding of the black struggle. Could he really be telling the truth about not having any knowledge about Wright? What did he do for all those years in the church, sleep?

Cheap shot, ain't it? And so unwarranted.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Cheap shot, ain't it? And so unwarranted.

Luis, My post was balanced before. I was even agreeing with Lilithu on this rare occasion. You only addressed half of it.

Unwarranted? In a nutshell, I said I believed Barrack now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Autodidact]

I must say that I do not support atheists or divorcees marrying.

You don't support atheists marrying?!? Why on earth not? *can't wait to hear this one*

The next major social movement coming to your neighborhood: Atheist Marriage.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You don't support atheists marrying?!? Why on earth not? *can't wait to hear this one*

The next major social movement coming to your neighborhood: Atheist Marriage.

Your definition of marriage and mine are different dear. When you hear the word marriage, you think of legal rights. Just so you understand, I am all for your legal rights. We all should have Civil unions that bestow legal rights equally to everyone.

When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?

Irreconcilable differences is NOT in the Bible. :no:

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, My post was balanced before. I was even agreeing with Lilithu on this rare occasion. You only addressed half of it.

Unwarranted? In a nutshell, I said I believed Barrack now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Uh? Do you honestly believe that is a valid reading of what you wrote before? :areyoucra

 

[Reverend Rick]

Uh? Do you honestly believe that is a valid reading of what you wrote before? :areyoucra

Tell you what, read the part of the post that you and autodidact did not quote and get back to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

You mean this?

I do see how hypocritical some religions have become however. Too many churches are selectively choosing what part of the bible they subscribe to and what part they want to ignore. How convenient of them practicing their self serving homophobia. Just as I support any Churches decision on who they marry, I hold dear the right of others to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. This is religious freedom. It should not affect others who do not agree however.

You raised an excellent point. Selectively eliminating one group but allowing another to join in matrimony while ignoring the scriptures for one group while enforcing them on the other to the letter is proof positive evidence that they are more interested in attacking Gays than they are living by the scripture.

I happen to agree with this and actually admire your courage in saying so this clearly. Not much to add, so I declined to comment. That's all.

But it still does not make that cheap shot any less of a cheap shot, sorry...

 

[Reverend Rick]

But it still does not make that cheap shot any less of a cheap shot, sorry...

I do have a reputation to live up to after all.

 

[Autodidact]

Your definition of marriage and mine are different dear. When you hear the word marriage, you think of legal rights. Just so you understand, I am all for your legal rights. We all should have Civil unions that bestow legal rights equally to everyone.

When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?

Irreconcilable differences is NOT in the Bible. :no:

Well that's a weird definition.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a completely religious definition. One that makes marriages a matter of whatever churches the couple decide to ask recognition to, while leaving all legal effects up to civil unions.

Fair enough, and a logical consequence of the separation between Church and State.

 

[Autodidact]

Your definition of marriage and mine are different dear. When you hear the word marriage, you think of legal rights. Just so you understand, I am all for your legal rights. We all should have Civil unions that bestow legal rights equally to everyone.

When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?

Irreconcilable differences is NOT in the Bible. :no:

Well O.K., but who is arguing about what churches do? I mean, churches can already marry, or not, whomever they like. Not just atheists, but in general many churches will only marry members of their religion. Nothing controversial there. Nor do I think many atheists would want to marry in a church.

 

[Scruffitude]

When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?

When I hear the word "marriage" I think a union of two things, not necessarily meaning a romantic couple being joined legally. How is either of our definitions more legitimate than the other one? Tradition?

Do I really need to bring up what "traditional" marriage used to mean again? :no:

 

[Reverend Rick]

When I hear the word "marriage" I think a union of two things, not necessarily meaning a romantic couple being joined legally. How is either of our definitions more legitimate than the other one? Tradition?

Do I really need to bring up what "traditional" marriage used to mean again? :no:

You raise a good point. You must concede however that the more we define things, the less confusion there is for everyone.

The religious do not own the word "marriage". Gays and Lesbians can and do find churches to marry them every day. Their vows are no better or worse than anyone else's. They have every right to call their relationship a marriage as anyone else.

The quickest path to same sex marriage is to seperate church and state and give everyone a civil union that bestows legal rights to everyone.

Until we get the state out of the marriage business, other people can have a say on what the official definition of marriage really is and deny a whole group of people their rights. This is democracy in action and is why we live in a republic.