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

[LuisDantas]

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.

I wish. Separating church and state is easier said than done.

Besides, I fear your understanding of marriage as a purely religious matter is pretty hard to enforce.

Going strictly by a goal of giving equal rights at the soonest, the way to go is probably to keep pushing for full same sex marriage rights. Which, besides, also helps in increasing awareness of general homosexual rights, and that is a good thing

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.

That's arguably not very important. Urgent as legal recognition is, it is still a secondary matter when compared to the rejection of homosexuals in a more general way. Winning a vote is fine and dandy, but not nearly as significative than attaining actual acceptance.

Come to think of it, that's probably the main reason for so much unease among the GLBT community; not so much the legal impediment itself, but the grim realization that there is still so much ill will towards them. You just made me realize that both sides of the controversy appear to have underestimated the importance of acceptance itself. Thanks!

 

[Autodidact]

Rick: the problem is that the vast majority of people don't want the government to grant civil unions only.

Anyway, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick: the problem is that the vast majority of people don't want the government to grant civil unions only.

I would have to agree with that. I believe it is the one thing both sides agree on. :yes:

Anyway, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

I'm glad you asked Autodidact, a civil union is an agreement that can be terminated and entered into countless times with no limit.

A marriage is a sacred union that can only be terminated once and never entered into ever again excepting death or infidelity on your partners part.

In a Civil union, you are joined together by the state. In a marriage you are as one before God.

Now, let me ask you a question. I know why the religious right clings to the word marriage. Why would an atheist queer cling to the word as well?

 

[Autodidact]

I would have to agree with that. I believe it is the one thing both sides agree on. :yes:

I'm glad you asked Autodidact, a civil union is an agreement that can be terminated and entered into countless times with no limit.

A marriage is a sacred union that can only be terminated once and never entered into ever again excepting death or infidelity on your partners part.

In a Civil union, you are joined together by the state. In a marriage you are as one before God.

Now, let me ask you a question. I know why the religious right clings to the word marriage. Why would an atheist queer cling to the word as well?

Well according to your definition, there is no marriage in America. What you are talking about bears no relationship to legal reality. And of course, the whole struggle is about legal rights. What I mean is, what you're calling civil union sounds like what the government calls marriage.

I don't usually call myself queer, Rick.

Anyway, V and I have reservations about marriage as a model for our relationship. We like the commitment part, but not the history of people as property, captive brides, arranged marriage, dowry, polygamy, and the core idea that it is a formalization of a financial arrangement. Marriage is in fact a heterosexual institution, in the most negative sense of the word. That is, it is patriarchal, and based on a core concept of a man owning a woman. Our relationship is primarily about love, and we all know you don't have to love each other to marry. We also value independence, and have experienced that valuing each other's independence leads to greater intimacy. The word that we use most is collaboration, and I like to call her my collaborator-in-life. That conveys the concept of two separate people working together. I do like the idea of throwing a party to announce to everyone I know how much I love her and want to share my life with her. I like the idea of committing to her, because it's so beneficial to me--I get so much out of it, that I want to keep the deal. I would never want her to think that I'm with her only because I said I would, but rather, would like her to know that since I'm no fool, I choose every day to be with her, as long as she'll have me.

So that's my personal thing. What bothers me isn't getting married or not, it's not having the rights that other people do. Just like I don't want to join the military, but would want the right for gay people to serve openly there. See what I mean?

 

[Scruffitude]

In a marriage you are as one before God.

We're slipping back into a religious discussion here. You're using a religious reason in a discussion about non-religious ones.

Now, let me ask you a question. I know why the religious right clings to the word marriage. Why would an atheist queer cling to the word as well?

It almost sounds like you're saying the religious right has more claim to ownership of the word. They certainly didn't invent it, as it was a concept invented by the Greeks long before the Catholic church got in there and specifically REDEFINED it to mean a sacred bond. As for the "atheist queer" part, I can't respond to that because I'm neither.

At any rate, this has probably gotten off topic a tad.

I don't usually call myself queer

Sorry, I hope I didn't offend you by repeating his term.

Anyway I'll probably let you two duke it out because I don't feel like I'm contributing much right now.

 

[Starfish]

You say that like you expect everyone to share your view that two mothers or two fathers is a bad thing or that legalizing gay adoption is bad. I would disagree with everything here except your last sentence. That's the point, gender in parents is irrelevant to the children. That part is true, and you should accept it.



Why are they so important? Which is more important to you: having two loving parents who want the best for their children or having a mother and a father? Personally, I'd take the first option every time, even if it was two people of the same gender. Is an abusive drunk of a father more important than a woman who loves her child and treats them correctly?

The most important is having two parents, a mother and father, both loving and committed to each other and to the child, and raising the child together. And comparing a functional mother to an abusive drunken father is unfair. Women can be drunks as well.


You do realize that children of gay parents have a very high rate of happiness and being well-adjusted, right? Higher than children of straight parents. Again, I know you expect to throw this sort of thing out there and have everyone go "Oh yeah, you're right", but you're wrong. You seem to think that the gender of the parents has some amazing effect on the children, and you are wrong.
What you're saying is, other than physical differences, there are no differences in the genders. None. Absolutely none. Men and women, boys and girls are exactly the same emotionally. Therefore, children simply need two parents, because gender does not matter. If you believe that, either you are fooling yourself, or you have not raised children.

Which is expendable? Mom or Dad?
Thanks for stopping by, and now maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread, legitimate non-religious reasons against gay marriage.
My reasons ARE non-religious, and legitimate to the majority of our population.

.....

 

[Autodidact]

Starfish: I think you're using colors, instead of the quote function? It's confusing, but I think I'm responding to you. (?)

The most important is having two parents, a mother and father, both loving and committed to each other and to the child, and raising the child together.

It turns out that
The most important is having two parents, both loving and committed to each other and to the child, and raising the child together. It turns out that it doesn't matter whether it's a mother and a father, or two mothers, or two fathers. Either arrangement works equally well.

It's not because the genders are identical, but because the differences between them don't have a significant impact on child-rearing. What matters more is that they are there, they are committed, they chose to have the child, and they have some clue what they're doing. As to which is expendable, the answer is neither and both. Two moms or two dads work equally well. In many ways, they do better than two opposite-sex parents. Sorry, you may not like it, but that's reality. And I'm sure you agree that being legitimate to the majority of the population is not the same as being legitimate, right? That would be the fallacy ad populum, and no Mormon outside of Utah could possibly buy that, or they'd have to convert to mainstream Christianity.

 

[DallasApple]

Quote:
The most important is having two parents, a mother and father, both loving and committed to each other and to the child, and raising the child together.

Well then instead of throwing time and money to make it illegal for gays to marry..Throw it at aiming for laws to require that anyone (includign gays) that want to brign children in the world are FIT to be parents..Make it a legal requirement for the wanna be parents to undergo an extensive psychological examination..As well as parenting classes....

That way we can stop the REAL abomination..That is the children all over the U.S that are being molested or raped by their OWN parents..verbally abused..or not properly provided for ...beaten ..and treated like insects...

Because your delusion of all these parents that love each other and are dreamy wonderful parents does not match the current statistics..

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Quote:
The most important is having two parents, a mother and father, both loving and committed to each other and to the child, and raising the child together.

Also if having "two" parents "male and female" is THE most important thing? Why pick on the very small percentage of same sex couples who want to simply get married.?.(who may or MAY not even want children)...And start throwing money and propositions for laws that forbid single parent homes?..Because there are by FAR more children being raised by ONE gender alone than their are same sexes that may want to raise a child...

Because after all..Its about the poor little children...having a man AND a woman rasing them..

Love

Dallas

 

[Starfish]

Starfish: I think you're using colors, instead of the quote function? It's confusing, but I think I'm responding to you. (?)

It turns out that
The most important is having two parents, both loving and committed to each other and to the child, and raising the child together. It turns out that it doesn't matter whether it's a mother and a father, or two mothers, or two fathers. Either arrangement works equally well.

It's not because the genders are identical, but because the differences between them don't have a significant impact on child-rearing. What matters more is that they are there, they are committed, they chose to have the child, and they have some clue what they're doing. As to which is expendable, the answer is neither and both. Two moms or two dads work equally well. In many ways, they do better than two opposite-sex parents. Sorry, you may not like it, but that's reality. And I'm sure you agree that being legitimate to the majority of the population is not the same as being legitimate, right? That would be the fallacy ad populum, and no Mormon outside of Utah could possibly buy that, or they'd have to convert to mainstream Christianity.

Are you bringing religion into this thread? Why do you feel the need to throw Mormonism into the topic, as if it's going to prove some point against me? I see this tactic too often here.

Auto, you have I have gone around and around this many times. Neither of us are likely to budge. (For what it's worth, again, I have no doubt your children are happy.)

When you purposely commit a child to two mothers, you are purposely denying it of a dad. That says you feel that fathers are expendable. When two men deny a child of a mother, they are saying that mothers are expendable. Simple logic.

I, and a lot of others with me, disagree. Both genders contribute to the child's emotional upbringing. They are both needed for a reason. They both contribute role-modeling. A child learns to understand/trust men through a good father. Same with mothers. It's a balance. It's not the only way, but it's the best way.

As far as studies, I've posted studies in the past but because they come from a conservative, or possibly Christian source, you discount them. So I won't bother. You can find a study to support just about anything.

IMO, the vast majority of legitimate studies confirm what common sense has already told us.

 

[DallasApple]

Isnt single parent adotion still O.K ???...I know the law in florida they passed was no adotion to couples unmarried cohabitating?..But you can adopt if you are single?

Why not protest that law?..That law is going completely against the importance of a child beign raised by one man and one woman ...Is it not?

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Not to go on and on ...But if one man (alone) is fit to raise a child or one woman alone is fit to rasie a child (alone)..Then wouldnt it makes sense that two heads are better than one?OH I forgot..Its not really about the children..Its about the parents having gay sex together..

Love

Dallas

 

[Starfish]

Also if having "two" parents "male and female" is THE most important thing? Why pick on the very small percentage of same sex couples who want to simply get married.?.(who may or MAY not even want children)...And start throwing money and propositions for laws that forbid single parent homes?..Because there are by FAR more children being raised by ONE gender alone than their are same sexes that may want to raise a child...

Because after all..Its about the poor little children...having a man AND a woman rasing them..

Love

Dallas

No one is "picking" on same-sex couples. We simply want to preserve the definition of marriage as it has always been. They can still have all the rights. They can still live their lifestyle.

I WISH I did have the power to force more responsibility into adults. I WISH I could eliminate unwed pregnancies and abusive homes. I WISH I could ensure all children "dreamy wonderful" parents. The best any of us can do is live our own lives responsibly, to do our best to give our children all that they deserve, and to speak out to anyone who will listen. It's a losing battle, nonetheless. We're already on that slippery slope.

 

[Starfish]

Isnt single parent adotion still O.K ???...I know the law in florida they passed was no adotion to couples unmarried cohabitating?..But you can adopt if you are single?

Why not protest that law?..That law is going completely against the importance of a child beign raised by one man and one woman ...Is it not?

Love

Dallas

Not to go on and on ...But if one man (alone) is fit to raise a child or one woman alone is fit to rasie a child (alone)..Then wouldnt it makes sense that two heads are better than one?OH I forgot..Its not really about the children..Its about the parents having gay sex together..

Love

Dallas

Again, it depends on the child. Does the child have any other hope of adoption? If not, then any loving and safe home with a parent or parents, is better than none. But I don't agree with singles adopting babies, who are in demand by married couples and easily adopted.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you bringing religion into this thread? Why do you feel the need to throw Mormonism into the topic, as if it's going to prove some point against me? I see this tactic too often here.

Auto, you have I have gone around and around this many times. Neither of us are likely to budge. (For what it's worth, again, I have no doubt your children are happy.)

When you purposely commit a child to two mothers, you are purposely denying it of a dad. That says you feel that fathers are expendable. When two men deny a child of a mother, they are saying that mothers are expendable. Simple logic.

I, and a lot of others with me, disagree. Both genders contribute to the child's emotional upbringing. They are both needed for a reason. They both contribute role-modeling. A child learns to understand/trust men through a good father. Same with mothers. It's a balance. It's not the only way, but it's the best way.

As far as studies, I've posted studies in the past but because they come from a conservative, or possibly Christian source, you discount them. So I won't bother. You can find a study to support just about anything.

IMO, the vast majority of legitimate studies confirm what common sense has already told us.

I try to use comparisons that my readers will understand and relate to.

No, they don't. You are wrong. Cite me a single legitimate study, one that compares intact, two-parent, lesbian and gay families, to intact, two-parent, heterosexual studies, preferably a blind study, that supports your conclusion that children in the latter do better than the former. I don't care if the researcher is a Conservative Christian or a doctrinaire Marxist, as long as they use good methodology. In fact, I don't see why I should even know a researcher's religion. Of course, if the "researcher" is a liar, like Paul Cameron, that's different. But of course, not all Conservative Christians are liars.

If the data supported your view, I would change mine. Can you say the same?

btw, what does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Are you under the impression that prohibiting gay marriage will prevent gay people from having children? Are you trying to prevent gay people from having children? What is the relevance of your argument?

 

[Autodidact]

Again, it depends on the child. Does the child have any other hope of adoption? If not, then any loving and safe home with a parent or parents, is better than none. But I don't agree with singles adopting babies, who are in demand by married couples and easily adopted.

Because in fact, children do better with two parents than one. That's factual. It is not factual that children with straight parents do better than those with gay parents.

 

[DallasApple]

No one is "picking" on same-sex couples. We simply want to preserve the definition of marriage as it has always been. They can still have all the rights. They can still live their lifestyle.

I WISH I did have the power to force more responsibility into adults. I WISH I could eliminate unwed pregnancies and abusive homes. I WISH I could ensure all children "dreamy wonderful" parents. The best any of us can do is live our own lives responsibly by giving our children all that they deserve, and to speak out to anyone who will listen. It's a losing battle, nonetheless. We're already on that slippery slope.

But why "wish" for those things..Put some power behind it..Organize..File papers with the courts..Raise milions and millions of dollars to advertise and gain support for the cause..People can "vote"...We are talking about the lives of milions and millions of children...That the LAW permits to go on..Children being raised by one parent...Which goes AGAINST the laws of nature..

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Again, it depends on the child. Does the child have any other hope of adoption? If not, then any loving and safe home with a parent or parents, is better than none. But I don't agree with singles adopting babies, who are in demand by married couples and easily adopted.

Yeah I realize that..The fat healthy pefect little white babies are reserved for the creme of the crop..(the ones that REALLy care about children)..The older ones have to wait around to be adopted by misfits..They arent as "desirable" to the people(males and female) who are married and really really want children...

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

No one is "picking" on same-sex couples. We simply want to preserve the definition of marriage as it has always been. They can still have all the rights. They can still live their lifestyle.

Permitting more people to marry does not change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is the rights, responsibilities and legal consequences of marrying. Permitting same-sex marriage does not change this, and calling it that is basically dishonest. It's an attempt to frame the issue as something it isn't. This is a cheap, bully tactic, and attempt to win the argument by hiding what it's really about.

Please explain how, if gay people cannot marry, they still have all the rights? If you are prohibited from marrying, do you have all the rights?

 

[DallasApple]

Because in fact, children do better with two parents than one. That's factual. It is not factual that children with straight parents do better than those with gay parents.

They do???The children do better with two parents??? Well then its an OUTRAGE that they are allowing single people to adopt!!! We should oranize and raise MILLIONS of dollars to put an end to that..If we do nothing???We are saying its O.K..and WE are part of the problem...

Love

Dallas