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

[Magic Man]

So what type of upbringing gives the child the better advantage in this one world?

I think we can all agree that that is an upbringing by two loving parents who only want the best for their children. If you want to assert that those two parents have to be of different genders, then you need to show objective proof that the genders actually make a positive or negative impact.

 

[Green Gaia]

So what type of upbringing gives the child the better advantage in this one world?

The one that provides love, stability and support.

 

[Autodidact]

Hmmm. Your post is certainly provokes thought. You could be right. OTOH regardless of where children come from, whether they exist before birth, as I believe, or if they spring into existance at birth, they still come into the same world. The world of SS parents and the world of traditional parents is the same one world. The society is the same. It's still a world where men and women, with all their differences, coexist and interact. So what type of upbringing gives the child the better advantage in this one world?

Thanks for your point of view. It's all interesting.

The type with prepared, intentional, caring, competent parents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmm. Your post is certainly provokes thought. You could be right. OTOH regardless of where children come from, whether they exist before birth, as I believe, or if they spring into existance at birth, they still come into the same world. The world of SS parents and the world of traditional parents is the same one world. The society is the same. It's still a world where men and women, with all their differences, coexist and interact. So what type of upbringing gives the child the better advantage in this one world?

Isn't it more appropriate to ask which option is best out of the ones available for that particular child?

My personal view is that for any given potential human being, there are only two:

- be born into whatever family that child would get... same-sex parent or not, Chinese or German, rich or poor, etc., etc.
- not be born at all.

To me, it's not a question at all of whether same-sex couples are better or worse than opposite-sex couples at providing an environment for raising kids (though for the record, I do think they do just as good a job); it's a question of whether it would be better for the child to be born or not.

I really do think that what makes an individual person an individual person are inexorably linked to who that person's parents are, both in terms of genetics and upbringing. If the child of a same-sex couple were born to an opposite-sex couple, that child would be someone else.

To put it another way:

Say you've got a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple. Both are thinking about raising a family. The same-sex couple is trying to decide whether to have a kid (let's call her Alice). The opposite-sex couple is also trying to decide whether to have a kid (let's call her Betty).

It seems like your position is that if you have to choose between them, you'd prefer that Betty be born more than Alice. However, you don't have to choose between them. Betty can be born (or not) whether or not Alice is born (or not).

When that same-sex couple is making their decision, they only have two options:

- to have and raise Alice.
- not to have Alice.

They don't have the option of getting the opposite-sex couple to have Alice, because if they tried to do that, they wouldn't get Alice, they'd get Betty.

There are two, and only two, options for Alice:

- to be born into a same-sex-parented family
- not to be born at all

Similarily, there are two, and only two, options for Betty:

- to be born into an opposite-sex-parented family
- not to be born at all

Regardless of your opinions on whether the same-sex couple should have kids, Alice will never be born into an opposite-sex-parented family. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make it happen.

I think to argue that this isn't the case and that there's some proto-version of Alice floating around in the aether somewhere who can be implanted into any baby regardless of his or her parents, then you have to base your argument on religious belief.

 

[Autodidact]

Now my head is spinning. What would have happened had my parents never met? Anyway, does any of this relate to gay marriage in any way? Is there any reason that Starfish's irrational prejudice against gay parents should serve as a rationale to deny gay people the right to marry?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now my head is spinning. What would have happened had my parents never met? Anyway, does any of this relate to gay marriage in any way?

Peripherally. I think she's arguing that opposite-sex-parented homes provide a better environment for raising kids than same-sex-parented homes. My point so far is that not only is her claim incorrect, it's also irrelevant. Regardless of her acceptance or not of the studies you've pointed out showing that her claim is incorrect, her claim wouldn't be a valid reason to limit same-sex couples from having kids even if it were true.

Is there any reason that Starfish's irrational prejudice against gay parents should serve as a rationale to deny gay people the right to marry?

Nope.

 

[Alexander007]

Here's my idea...

I don't support gay marriages in any form. They are not a natural form of marriage so I don't see how anyone could go about saying they are okay or not ok. By the very nature of their conduct, they are not acceptable and conducive to family life. To avoid infringing on people's rights, I'd say,"that's not my concern", and confine that to the dustbins where it belongs. The issue of gay marriage should not even be considered... but--

but people's relationships with each others should be taken in to consideration more and more. If a person has dictates on how their affairs should be run, then they are followed, and the family can not overrule that. This refers to the matter of wills and individual rights.

And one more, governments should not meddle in the affairs of individuals. Period. This includes in deciding if marriages between gay people are legal or not. They can meddle in the affairs of public servants all they want, but they should let the individuals run their own lives.

I believe that individual rights are individual rights. When they are individual rights, the individual decides, not the government or a corporation. Individual rights involve pursuit of happiness, the business of living, the ownership of property and all the other hoopla. If people were busy insisting that corporations and institutions not meddle in their affairs, you'd find that the issue of "gay marriage" is a minor matter and not worth a discussion. There are much bigger fish to fry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's my idea...

I don't support gay marriages in any form. They are not a natural form of marriage so I don't see how anyone could go about saying they are okay or not ok. By the very nature of their conduct, they are not acceptable and conducive to family life.

...except for the lives of all the families for which they are acceptable and conducive to.

And one more, governments should not meddle in the affairs of individuals. Period. This includes in deciding if marriages between gay people are legal or not. They can meddle in the affairs of public servants all they want, but they should let the individuals run their own lives.

I believe that individual rights are individual rights. When they are individual rights, the individual decides, not the government or a corporation. Individual rights involve pursuit of happiness, the business of living, the ownership of property and all the other hoopla. If people were busy insisting that corporations and institutions not meddle in their affairs, you'd find that the issue of "gay marriage" is a minor matter and not worth a discussion. There are much bigger fish to fry.

Yes, like trying to figuring out how to determine whether the buildings you live in and the food you eat are safe in this Libertarian utopia you're suggesting.

 

[Magic Man]

Here's my idea...

I don't support gay marriages in any form.

And you don't have to. All we ask is that you don't oppose them to the point of not allowing others to have them.

They are not a natural form of marriage so I don't see how anyone could go about saying they are okay or not ok. By the very nature of their conduct, they are not acceptable and conducive to family life.

This doesn't make sense. How are they not a natural form of marriage? Two people are attracted to each other. They go out, fall in love and decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. So, they pledge to do just that. What's unnatural about that?

Why are they not acceptable or conducive to family life? It's two people who love each other and want to procreate so that they can raise children with love to be good, upstanding adults. So, where do you get this notion?

To avoid infringing on people's rights, I'd say,"that's not my concern", and confine that to the dustbins where it belongs. The issue of gay marriage should not even be considered... but--

Well, the first part is at least acceptable. The second part: Why shouldn't it be considered?

And one more, governments should not meddle in the affairs of individuals. Period. This includes in deciding if marriages between gay people are legal or not. They can meddle in the affairs of public servants all they want, but they should let the individuals run their own lives.

Generally, I agree. I don't think the government should meddle in people's private lives unless they are unnecessarily harming others.

I believe that individual rights are individual rights. When they are individual rights, the individual decides, not the government or a corporation. Individual rights involve pursuit of happiness, the business of living, the ownership of property and all the other hoopla.

Agreed.

If people were busy insisting that corporations and institutions not meddle in their affairs, you'd find that the issue of "gay marriage" is a minor matter and not worth a discussion. There are much bigger fish to fry.

I'm not sure I understand this part. What do corporations and institutions have to do with it?

Unfortunately when it comes to people's rights, there are no bigger fish to fry.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here's my idea...

I don't support gay marriages in any form. They are not a natural form of marriage.

There is no such thing as a "natural form of marriage" anyway. Marriage a human invention, a social construct.

 

[Alexander007]

Come on. Ok. here is what I mean. I don't think it's a good thing to vote in. To avoid having to vote agreeing to it, the motion should be shelved. Apparently people do mind if I vote against it. But I am voting with me in mind, not them. So you should not protest my vote, which is against. See? it's an individual right to cast a ballot that says no, or yes. If the motion were taken off, they do what they want, but I don't have to vote saying I want to ban them, and I still have my conscience that I didn't vote either for something that I don't think is right, or for voting out another person's rights. Personally, I think that Proposition 8 is a divisive piece of legislature, and I'd so love to find out who drafted it and passed it for approval. How do you pass such a bill without conflict? They should probably amend it so it is more palatable to most of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Come on. Ok. here is what I mean. I don't think it's a good thing to vote in. To avoid having to vote agreeing to it, the motion should be shelved. Apparently people do mind if I vote against it. But I am voting with me in mind, not them. So you should not protest my vote, which is against. See? it's an individual right to cast a ballot that says no, or yes.

It's also an individual right for people to disagree with you and to say so.

If the motion were taken off, they do what they want, but I don't have to vote saying I want to ban them, and I still have my conscience that I didn't vote either for something that I don't think is right, or for voting out another person's rights.

So you'd be happier if the government just came down with an edict that was in opposition to your own views, so long as you didn't have to vote on it? Interesting.

Personally, I think that Proposition 8 is a divisive piece of legislature, and I'd so love to find out who drafted it and passed it for approval. How do you pass such a bill without conflict? They should probably amend it so it is more palatable to most of us.

In what way, and who do you count in "most of us"?

 

[TomTomCollier]

No I can't think of a legitimate non-bliefe-based reason to oppose Gay marrige, other than the same arguments against swearing in public, that is to say it seems to offend alot of people, and even though I think I am Bi sexual (as I once kessed another guy and I liked it), I still can't deny that when I see gay people kissing or huging or dancing seriously, it's just, well, weird.

However I think it mainly feels weird only becasue it is not somthing we are used to seeing, like a purple cow, it's not wrong, its just unusual.

The most common gut reation argument is "It's clearly unnatural" However, mounting research comes to light that in fact most out-and-out gay people are born that way, they are wired to be that way, yes it deviates from the "norm" but then the norm is only set by predominant genetic ratios of occurance in a population. A fully gay person is comparable to an albino (well acctualy gay is far far more common) but an Albino is not geneticaly "normal", they are noticable different from the majority, however it is not unnatural, as they were born that way, so to have white hair is entirely naturaly occuing. And they are not nessercerily handicaped. If say (and I know this is silly) the earth got coverd in Snow and humans needed to be camoflarged from wolves (say) then albios would be king! they would survive cos the blend to the snow and everyone eles would die, and for the human species to be albino would become "normal". I know this is a bit waky but its just to make a point, and perhaps this is how white people deviated geneticaly from the original dark skinned humans.

Anyway, so Gay people are natural! it is as natural for them to feel attracted towards the same sex and repulsed by the opposite, as it is for a heterosexual to be attracted to opposite sex and repulsed by own sex.

So it is natural, it is not a handicap, and quite frankly that argument that if everyone was gay we would procreate is stupid, because we clearly are not all gay, and considering the way the human population is going, I think people should be thanked for not having children.

Plus of course, they are no different in any other way, they are still valuable members of society, they may be able to offer a unique perspective on age old gender rows, and I belive there is no reason why they cannot be loving parents to an adopted child. Would a child be happier with one dad that beats them, or 2 dads that love them? Just a thought.

Tom x