Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[Comprehend]

I would prefer one legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

see post 16

 

[Prometheus]

Okay, Comprehend, I will concede that point. However, is it not a benefit to society to have couples adopting children rather than keeping them in foster homes? Is it not a benefit to the economy that couples buy homes to live together in? Is it not a benefit to the fight against STDs that we have men and women all over the country committing to one partner instead of staying single and thus, perhaps, living a more promiscuous lifestyle?

Those are three benefits that homosexual marriages would give off the top of my head. If your argument is, "Heterosexual couples are encouraged by the government to marry because they benefit society, and homosexuals are not encouraged to marry because they do not benefit society" then I would consider that argument refuted.

 

[Prometheus]

You should post it in a secular subforum, then.

I'm not attempting to be insulting here, but if I did that, I would be preaching to the choir.

In my experience, most people opposed to gay marriage are religious and/or use religious arguments. I put it in this forum so that the people who really should see it do so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are talking about legal recognition of the gay marriage, not the gay marriage itself.

I'm sure other's share this same opinion, but I see marriage as nothing more than a legal term.

 

[Comprehend]

Okay, Comprehend, I will concede that point. However, is it not a benefit to society to have couples adopting children rather than keeping them in foster homes?

I think it would depend on the home they are raised in. I don't think there has been enough time to gauge what effect homosexual parents have on an adopted child (if any) and whether it is better or worse than being raised in a foster home. I think it will take time to determine whether it is a benefit or not.

Is it not a benefit to the economy that couples buy homes to live together in?

yes but homosexual couples do this anyway don't they? The encouragement to buy homes is given by the Fed with it's interest rates, it is not encouraged via marriage recognition.

Is it not a benefit to the fight against STDs that we have men and women all over the country committing to one partner instead of staying single and thus, perhaps, living a more promiscuous lifestyle?

yes, but this is encouraged/discouraged via condom promotion, safe sex education, treatment/health costs, etc.

Those are three benefits that homosexual marriages would give off the top of my head. If your argument is, "Heterosexual couples are encouraged by the government to marry because they benefit society, and homosexuals are not encouraged to marry because they do not benefit society" then I would consider that argument refuted.

well, my argument wasn't that heterosexual marriage was just any benefit but the specific benefit of supplying the country with people. That particular thing (procreation) is of particular importance to a country. While I will agree that the 3 benefits you have suggested may indeed be benefits, they are not benefits the government seems to feel are important enough to encourage by recognizing homosexual marriage.

I wasn't arguing at all the homosexual marriage does not benefit society. I have no idea whether it will/does or not. My point was rather that heterosexual marriage is incouraged specifically because it creates children which end up being the labor force for society and the government. This is what the govt. wants to encourage (IMO).

I understand that it is possible to list benefits that homosexual marriage offers to society and government. I think the question is, is it a benefit the government values enough to encourage the behavior...

anyway, I respect your opinion. I was just trying to demonstrate what I beleive the governments rationale behind it's policy is...

 

[Prometheus]

I understand that it is possible to list benefits that homosexual marriage offers to society and government. I think the question is, is it a benefit the government values enough to encourage the behavior...

anyway, I respect your opinion. I was just trying to demonstrate what I beleive the governments rationale behind it's policy is...

Well, if it has benefits and no negative effects, then the government has every reason to encourage it I'd say.

 

[McBell]

see post 16

I did.
And I still have to ask for one legitimate legal argument to ban same sex marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract.
This is something post #16 tends to ignore.
The legal contract commonly referred to as "marriage" grants certain specified rights and privileges to those who enter into the contract.

Post #16 claims that marriage is for procreation and that those who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry.
This is simply false because it allows for couples who CANNOT procreate to still enter the legal contract based on the gender of those entering the contract.

So in a nutshell, post #16 is merely gender discrimination.

 

[McBell]

well, my argument wasn't that heterosexual marriage was just any benefit but the specific benefit of supplying the country with people. That particular thing (procreation) is of particular importance to a country. While I will agree that the 3 benefits you have suggested may indeed be benefits, they are not benefits the government seems to feel are important enough to encourage by recognizing homosexual marriage.

Yet there are millions of babies being born out of wedlock, meaning that the mothers have not entered into the marriage contract and yet have found some way to procreate.

I wasn't arguing at all the homosexual marriage does not benefit society. I have no idea whether it will/does or not. My point was rather that heterosexual marriage is incouraged specifically because it creates children which end up being the labor force for society and the government. This is what the govt. wants to encourage (IMO).

Yet this argument falls through do to the fact that there are so many babies being born out of wedlock.

I understand that it is possible to list benefits that homosexual marriage offers to society and government. I think the question is, is it a benefit the government values enough to encourage the behavior...

huh?
Recognizing same sex marriage = encouraging same sex behavior?

anyway, I respect your opinion. I was just trying to demonstrate what I believe the governments rationale behind it's policy is...

The rational behind the government staying out of the same sex marriage debate is that as soon as the federal government starts looking into the situation they will have to allow same sex marriage.
Why?
because marriage is a legal contract.
There fore there has to be a legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
And no, post #16 will not work.
I have already shown how it is merely gender discrimination.

 

[Comprehend]

I did.
And I still have to ask for one legitimate legal argument to ban same sex marriage.

first you would have to explain why the reason I gave is not legitimate.

Marriage is a legal contract.
This is something post #16 tends to ignore.
The legal contract commonly referred to as "marriage" grants certain specified rights and privileges to those who enter into the contract.

No, marriage has been a religious ceremony for almost the entire existance of the institution. It is only recently that governments decided to recognize marriage and confer benefits upon it. The legally recognized rites are a government addition to the religious rite.

Post #16 claims that marriage is for procreation and that those who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry.
This is simply false because it allows for couples who CANNOT procreate to still enter the legal contract based on the gender of those entering the contract.

So in a nutshell, post #16 is merely gender discrimination.

oh really? please show me where post 16 says that. In a nutshell, you have no idea what I said apparently. :sarcastic

 

[Comprehend]

Yet there are millions of babies being born out of wedlock, meaning that the mothers have not entered into the marriage contract and yet have found some way to procreate.

yep, and the government doesn't want to encourage babies being born that way. which is why it chooses to encourage marriage...

Yet this argument falls through do to the fact that there are so many babies being born out of wedlock.

nope. it doesn't. The government wants to encourage the best way for children to be raised and that appears to be in a heterosexual family historically.

huh?
Recognizing same sex marriage = encouraging same sex behavior?

well, almost, you seem to have difficulty reading and remembering what I write. if the government confers legal benefits upon same sex marriage, it is encouraging same sex marriages. That isn't so difficult to understand. Just like the government encourages buying a hybrid vehicle by giving tax benefits to people who buy them and it discourages behaviour by taxing it such a cigarette taxes.

The rational behind the government staying out of the same sex marriage debate is that as soon as the federal government starts looking into the situation they will have to allow same sex marriage.
Why?
because marriage is a legal contract.

allowing same sex marriage isn't what the debate is about. It is about conferring the same benefits on homosexual marriage as it does on heterosexual marriage.

There fore there has to be a legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
And no, post #16 will not work.
I have already shown how it is merely gender discrimination.

and I have shown how you are merely wrong. you have either failed to actually read my post or you are misrepresenting it. Try being honest and respond to the post rather than saying it is something it isn't.

secondly, everyone has already agreed that this isn't about banning same sex marriage so I don't know why you continue to talk about it.

so far you have just misrepresented my argument and then argued against that. We call that a straw man fallacy. it's annoying and boring.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I see what you mean. Very often I've observed that it seems the only emotion men are really free to show in public is anger. That's not a healthy thing. And women have their own constraints.

I've never understood what the big deal with makeup was. Men wore it in the 1970s and no one got their knickers in a twist. Makeup is just a matter of fashion.

And what constitutes a "dress" anyway? What the heck are kilts?

All of a sudden, kilts and makeup have been a fashion trend among many of the young men at the school where I work. I find it really neat.

I'm not sure why lesbians are more accepted. Certainly straight men aren't as turned against them as they are gay men, but then they there is a common completely absurd fantasy about doing it with two lesbians. As if the lesbians would notice he was in the room, other than to kick his butt out for interfering. Oh well, no one ever said sex was logical.

I agree that that is certainly a reason. But I don't know; I still have the sneaking suspicion that it is also due to gender roles. Women being emotional, tender, and touchy-feely is generally more accepted. Stereotypically, anyway. Maybe someday I'll do a study on it...

Some parts of our culture find crying in public more acceptable. Not everywhere will you be expected to "practice manly restraint." (There's a story behind that phrase having to do with the Space Programme, but it's too late to type that up right now.)

Yes, and I'm wondering if it isn't due to changing gender roles...

 

[gnostic]

Do governments or religions force heterosexual couples to procreate?

Being married doesn't always imply that the couples want to procreate and start families. So the idea of procreation is absurd.

I actually find the idea of gay couples to be repulsive, something that I could do (meaning, it not my sexual preference), but it is their lives and it is not for me to interfere if they are attracted to the same sex. So the bottom line is that I don't oppose to gay marriage. And I do oppose discrimination, which is basically what some self-righteous government and religion doing.

 

[roli]

I can guarantee you there is not one single reason why Homosexuality should be condemned. It seems as if too many people are wasting too much of their time over something that can't possibly hurt anyone.

Not only are we an apparently sophisticated and knowledgable people compared to past generations,but we have along the way become a seeker sensitive people who must appear politically correct in today's society,or else appear intolerant and and indifferent and stand amongst the crowd.We are a people who can't even distinguish natural and unnatural.Physiologically speaking we are desensitized to unnatural behavior,yet hypocritical and contridictory at the same time.
We say in our politically corrrect demeanor, man can be with men and women likewise with women, knowing it was never meant to be any form of natural practice,as the organs and orifices make it self explainatory, but it appears only a perversion at best,yet we call incest,beastiality,pedophilia inhumane.abhorent
Or do we.Under our breathe we may call a spade a spade,but amongst other people we are intimidated to not speak against same sex relations

My question where will it end, is there an end in sight ??
Maybe those who are pro gay would think how perverse it really is if there own family where to come out of the closest.
It is in all honesty the furthest thing from noramality,but we tend to live within the confines of what the popular opinion seems to be and the voice of reason becomes obscured as relative thinking takes it's place.
Where are e heading people,

 

[Prometheus]

but it appears only a perversion at best,yet we call incest,beastiality,pedophilia inhumane.abhorent

Incest causes genetic deformities.
Bestiality is rape.
Pedophilia is rape.

Homosexuality is consensual and causes no deformities.

 

[UnTheist]

Calling it 'unnatural' is not a valid argument. If that's the reason why it's wrong, then get rid of every single electronic and other man-made device you own. Calling it unnatural doesn't mean anything.

Homosexuality is not only natural, it has been proven genetic.

Pedophilia, rape, and beastiality (beastiality isn't a bad thing, really. It's just kinda gross) are not in the same category as Homosexuality. They all can cause serious harm. Gays cause no such problems.

The only way to get through it is accept it.

Anyone has yet to show one reason why Homosexuality is harmful to society and Humanity.

And don't put the Bible into this. It is a SECULAR argument

 

[Jistyr]

If we were to legitamently ban homosexual marriage because they are unable to create offspring, then we in would in turn have to do so to all couples that would be unable to reproduce. Something such as that would lead not allowing people who have sexual disorders that keeps them from having children to get married, which is in my mind ridiculous. So the fact that they are unable to reproduce is not a legitament argument to me.

Edit:
I must also point out that banning homosexual marriage is not going to help the least bit. Just because those who are homosexual would not be able to marry, does not mean that they would suddenly forget their homosexual tendancies and marry someone of the opposite gender and then have children. They would not contribute anymore to how many people are born whether they can be married or not. Besides... Assuming that allowing them to be married would be entirely harmless, their marriages would at least be a slight boost for our economy and provide more jobs for those who plan and service weddings.

 

[gnostic]

How is it hurting you, roli? In what way is hurting you?

Is none of your business (or mine, for that matter) on how two consenting adults love one another.

Are you hurt in anyway when heterosexual couples choose not to start a family? If no, then why should it be any difference if gays or lesbians choose to be together? You are in no way affected, roli. Even if what they are doing is a sin in your book, then it is the price that they would pay, and this is still none of your business.

Or are you trying to play Jesus and pay the sins for others?

What you have said so far amount to discrimination, and discrimination can often lead to persecution.

 

[UnTheist]

So the fact that they are unable to reproduce is not a legitament argument to me.

Well, they can reproduce. They just aren't sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

 

[Jistyr]

Well, they can reproduce. They just aren't sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

Well, yes. I should have said that they were not willing to reproduce. Nice catch though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the question is, is it a benefit the government values enough to encourage the behavior...

I beg to differ. I could live in a house with nothing but gay men for a year, and that still would not "encourage" me to start being gay. I am willing to bet alot of people here would vouch for this, even in the opposite direction, of having a gay living with straights. Not allowing gay marriage certainly doesn't seem to prevent people being gay, or comming out to the world as being gay.

Maybe those who are pro gay would think how perverse it really is if there own family where to come out of the closest.

Actually, I wouldn't mind. I have even had a few good friends throughout life who are gay or bisexual. One of my gay friends is even having me watch over the few posossions he has while he serves in the Navy. I pray he isn't outed during the 8 years he is contracted to.

It is in all honesty the furthest thing from noramality,but we tend to live within the confines of what the popular opinion seems to be and the voice of reason becomes obscured as relative thinking takes it's place.

Popular opinion in my area seems to be that of hate the gays. Even the biggest part of my family can be considered "gay-haters." And those that don't hate them, see them as severly messed up in the head, but "more power to them" or "to each thier own."

I still have yet to read one valid and legal reason why it shouldn't be allowed. Thier are plenty of heterosexual people to keep the number of citizens up, it happens "out in nature," which seems to imply it also naturally occurs with people. And my biggest argument; Why would you want to "become" something that recieves an almost global reaction of hatred and discrimination? If you think about it, seeing everything the gay community has to deal with on a daily basis, why on earth would anyone just suddenly wake up one day and decide to be gay?