Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[RevOxley_501]

Just one. I've yet to hear one secular argument for opposing gay marriage that hasn't been refuted and if I can get one that makes sense to me, I, too, will have the open-mindedness to oppose gay marriage.

I hereby challenge you to change my mind.

two words:


Anal Seepage






























btw im JK...i pray that one day Gay marriage will be available to all .:foot:

 

[Comprehend]

What lie?

The lie I already have shown you and you conveniently tried to ignore. Post #80. The one you don't seem to have an answer for and that you keep avoiding.

You haven't paraphrased what I wrote nor my argument and you know it, that is called lying when you say something you know isn't true. Particularly when I have pointed out exactly how you are wrong. since you tried to hide from my explanation of my argument and the post, I'll remind you. This time try to respond to it. POST #80.

The post explains exactly how you are wrong and why you are lying.

Lastly, it is you who has forgotten the OP, we were just asked for a secular argument. I gave one, you tried to modify the OP to fit your own issues and then promptly began accusing me of discrimination rather than attempting an honest reply. It seems pretty obvious that you can't respond to my argument and so rather than being honest and admit it is a legitimate reason, you lie. Oh well, it's your reputation... You seem to have a history of it. You have yet to actually respond to my argument, all you can do is call it names.

You can start with post #80. good luck.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yes, society should set standards. If it didn't, then driving would be a much more dangerous business.



Driving isn't a right, by the way, but that isn't the point.

I'd just like you to consider the following rights and benefits of married couples.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint parenting; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint adoption; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]immigration and residency for partners from other countries; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]joint filing of customs claims when traveling; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]crime victims' recovery benefits; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]loss of consortium tort benefits; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]domestic violence protection orders; [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;[/FONT]
Taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

These are a small sample of the 1,049 rights that are extended to married couples in the U.S. and they are being denied to homosexual couples based solely on gender. How can you claim this shouldn't effect anyone?

So what? That comes with society's right to establish standards...like a stiff fine for speeding. No consequences means no standards.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Agreed.
However when states have conflicting laws the federal government is to step in and settle the differences.
There are several states that have flat out stated that they not only will deny same sex marriages from being legal within their borders, but will deny the legitimacy of same sex marriages from states that have legalized it.

Therefore the Federal Government will have to step in and set things straight.

That's what happens when courts overstep their authority in the first place. Those states had laws imposed by the courts. (So much for the Constitution's worth.)

 

[Green Gaia]

Discrimination by the government against GBLT people will one day end. Keep the hope and truth alive and don't let those who wish to discourage us from fighting for equality and justice stop or slow us down. Choose love. Choose life. Choose hope. :rainbow1:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Discrimination by the government against GBLT people will one day end. Keep the hope and truth alive and don't let those who wish to discourage us from fighting for equality and justice stop or slow us down. Choose love. Choose life. Choose hope. :rainbow1:

Green, one day this will happen no doubt. The OP asked for a secular argument, and when given one, started calling everyone homophobic. Since I have came to this forum, I have racked my brain trying to come up with a way religion could be respected and the gay and lesbian community could have legal rights added to their relationships. I guess I want everyone to be happy and that's never going to happen.

Starting threads like, "what's wrong with gays" or "give me a secular argument" is asking for division. The next thread should be, "Let's all call each other names and upset everyone". If there is ever going to be a solution to this inequality, it is going to have to have mainstream support. This is not going to happen with "in your face" parades and folks trading insults. Not everyone who is religious is your enemy and a good beginning would be to search out some common ground instead of labeling us all bigots and homophobes.

 

[Prometheus]

Green, one day this will happen no doubt. The OP asked for a secular argument, and when given one, started calling everyone homophobic.

I asked for a secular argument that has not been refuted and every one that I've seen in this thread has.

Since I have came to this forum, I have racked my brain trying to come up with a way religion could be respected and the gay and lesbian community could have legal rights added to their relationships. I guess I want everyone to be happy and that's never going to happen.

Well, if you want a good thing to happen in the world but your religion opposes it, I'd say you'd have to rethink your religion. No true religion would ever oppose good.

Starting threads like, "what's wrong with gays" or "give me a secular argument" is asking for division. The next thread should be, "Let's all call each other names and upset everyone".

If you call questioning peoples beliefs "causing division" then, yes, I am. That doesn't make what I'm doing wrong. However, I've never called anyone in this thread a name and if anyone is upset then it's probably because they don't like having their beliefs challenged.

If there is ever going to be a solution to this inequality, it is going to have to have mainstream support. This is not going to happen with "in your face" parades and folks trading insults. Not everyone who is religious is your enemy and a good beginning would be to search out some common ground instead of labeling us all bigots and homophobes.

I don't agree with how many gay rights parades are done, either. I agree that cross-dressing, being almost or fully naked, and flaunting promiscuity is not sending a good message at all. However, most gays and lesbians are not this way. I may not agree with how some want to package it, but I agree with the content.

I never called anyone here a homophobe or bigot. So please don't twist my words. I said that the reason that gay marriage is being so vehemently opposed in this country is homophobia.

This said nothing about why you, specifically, oppose it. I was speaking generally.

Besides, when the vast majority of actual homophobes are also a part of a religion that calls being gay an abomination, I think I have sound reasoning to conclude what the problem is. No need to point out that I'm generalizing and that there are exceptions. I'm aware. That doesn't change that 9 times out of 10 when you ask a Christian in Alabama how he fills about gay marriage he's going to be against it.

Now then, can you please respond to what I said in my last post to you. I will quote directly:

Reverend Rick, your argument is that the government wants to encourage more children being born.

I would just like to ask, then, why polygamy is illegal? That seems to produce many more "taxpayers" for even less government investment.

 

[Prometheus]

So what? That comes with society's right to establish standards...like a stiff fine for speeding. No consequences means no standards.

Then to use your same analogy, straight people are on the road with the green light and gays are currently on the intersecting road with the red. The lights never change. If they alternated then both could be happy and things could run smoothly.

However, this isn't a very good analogy because it implies straights have to give up something to allow gays to "drive."

In reality, giving gays the same rights as straights would not effect straights. It would be more like two parallel roads on which both are green all the time instead of one red and one green.

 

[Quiddity]

None that would impress. If those who oppose it are right, then emperical data will come later to support it.

 

[McBell]

The lie I already have shown you and you conveniently tried to ignore. Post #80. The one you don't seem to have an answer for and that you keep avoiding.

You haven't paraphrased what I wrote nor my argument and you know it, that is called lying when you say something you know isn't true. Particularly when I have pointed out exactly how you are wrong. since you tried to hide from my explanation of my argument and the post, I'll remind you. This time try to respond to it. POST #80.

The post explains exactly how you are wrong and why you are lying.

Lastly, it is you who has forgotten the OP, we were just asked for a secular argument. I gave one, you tried to modify the OP to fit your own issues and then promptly began accusing me of discrimination rather than attempting an honest reply. It seems pretty obvious that you can't respond to my argument and so rather than being honest and admit it is a legitimate reason, you lie. Oh well, it's your reputation... You seem to have a history of it. You have yet to actually respond to my argument, all you can do is call it names.

You can start with post #80. good luck.

It walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, yet you call it a dog.

This is no different than those who push creationism by calling it intelligent design.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Let’s see what the pro-gay “marriage” people are saying:

• 1. To hell with society’s right to set standards
  2. To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide
  3. To hell with the Constitution
  4. To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences
  5. To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom
  6. I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

That’s it. That’s all they’re saying.

 

[Prometheus]

To hell with society’s right to set standards

Slavery was once a set standard. You should restate that to say, "To hell with society setting unjust standards"

To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide

Majority opinion has never defined morality.

To hell with the Constitution

Once again, owning a slave was once constitutional. The constitution is an ideal. We amend the constitution to keep that ideal going. To not change it would be to let it stagnate.

To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences

Sounds like the "separate but equal" approach back when blacks and whites had different schools, etc. Sorry to be a broken record in comparing this to racism, but I often find it to be a good analogy.

To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom

Wisdom is to be able to change ones mind when new evidence comes to light. And no idea is correct based solely on how long it's been around.

I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

I think that is extremely offensive. If you've ever been in love you might understand why it's offensive by putting yourself on the receiving end of this statement.

 

[Comprehend]

It walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, yet you call it a dog.

This is no different than those who push creationism by calling it intelligent design.

that's what I expected. zero substance once again, you have utterly failed at presenting any semblance of an argument.

your inability to address my argument is embarrassing.

 

[Comprehend]

I asked for a secular argument that has not been refuted and every one that I've seen in this thread has.

beg your pardon? Nobody has refuted mine thank you.

 

[Majikthise]

Let’s see what the pro-gay “marriage” people are saying:

• 1. To hell with society’s right to set standards
  2. To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide
  3. To hell with the Constitution
  4. To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences
  5. To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom
  6. I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

That’s it. That’s all they’re saying.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm pro gay marriage and don't fit into the crap you just spewed.
I believe in society's right to set standards when they make sense. Deport illegals, disclose info about child molesters to everybody (but my preference is the death penalty), let employers know if they are hiring someone with AIDS, to name a few.
Forgeting the ballot box when it comes to human rights I'll concede to.
The constitution is the foundation of individual human rights.
How long til someone states qualitatively that as an atheist marriage is not something I am allowed.
Feel good? I have friends and family who are gay and you couldn't tell unless you knew them.
Yours is nothing but prejudice based on fear and ignorance.

 

[Prometheus]

beg your pardon? Nobody has refuted mine thank you.

So that there is no confusion and I don't get into a spat with you like Mestemia has, please be kind enough to restate your argument as plainly as you can. If I can't show it to be bad logic then I will accept it. If I can, you must admit that it is refuted. Agreed?

 

[UnTheist]

Let’s see what the pro-gay “marriage” people are saying:

• 1. To hell with society’s right to set standards
  2. To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide
  3. To hell with the Constitution
  4. To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences
  5. To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom
  6. I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

That’s it. That’s all they’re saying.

Just hilarious. I cannot believe how pathetic those statements are.

 

[Gentoo]

Wow, this thread got vicious.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Let’s see what the pro-gay “marriage” people are saying:

• 1. To hell with society’s right to set standards
  2. To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide
  3. To hell with the Constitution
  4. To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences
  5. To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom
  6. I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

That’s it. That’s all they’re saying.

Sorry, but all I've heard from the anti-gay marriage is "Eww...it's icchy!"

To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom

Something that also could be said of the other side...

I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

1. Love is experiential, and overall definable by the individual.
2. Individuals experience what they believe is love with a member by the same sex.
___________________
___________________
Homosexuals experience love.

Marriage is (or should be) based on love, not legal issues. How is this unreasonable?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sorry, but all I've heard from the anti-gay marriage is "Eww...it's icchy!"

Well, except Comprehend's...(It is advantageous for the government to encourage heterosexual marriage as it increases the workforce.)

While the argument makes sense, I think it would be a far more ecological and humanitarian advantage for homosexual marriage to be encouraged. It could arguably promote adoption of the already existing children over creating new ones.

(Did that make sense?)

Something about it seems wrong, though. It is disregarding the qualitative advantages of individuals. Does the quantitative advantage to society outweigh that?