Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[Truth_Faith13]

"How many heterosexuals do, regardless of religious persuasion?" - Exactly! but this thread is about gays/lesbians so didnt mention that! Although I did give an example - my friends - all are heterosexual!

"All I know as a non-religious lesbian is that I would love nothing more than to be in a life-long committed relationship." - I hope you find it and you find happiness too, everyone is entitled to that!"

The one thing about gays/lesbians is if we were to legalise it "fully" so that your partner is considered a spouse. How far should we go, should we allow as someone else stated mutli marriages between husband and wives, wife and husbands (as many ppl live in threesomes!) - at least they can procreate!, should we allow someone to marry their pet (after all a dog is considered a mans best friend!) the list is probably endless. I guess its how far should you push something, human rights, political correctness etc etc... (but thats a completely different topic and nothing to do with religion! )

You can probably tell I dont really agree as such with gay/lesbain relationships - actually I am unclear on the matter - same as religion! I guess i just believe if we all were meant to mingle how we wanted, then our bodies wouldnt be so different, ie, women have to do the child bearing! etc etc etc?

But I wish you luck in your quest to find someone..

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Ok throwing in my two cents even though I said I would avoid this thread. A piece of paper does not a relationship make. If homosexuals wanted to be monogamous they would, regardless of the government not recognizing their relationship as a marriage. There are plenty of couples who aren't legally married, yet they stay with one another out of fidelity, and love. So I fail to see how not having a legal document changes a person's feelings toward one another, and their option to commit.

Good point! A legal document doesnt make the relationship, however it does give the relationship more rights from a legal point of view! I think too many people (Im not saying all.. although I am yet to find many ppl to feel the same way I do.. especially at my age 21!) are losing values, to be in a relationship for love, care, respect etc of the partner and to remain commited to them!

 

[Mister_T]

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. What does it matter if two willing people in love want to get married? Who does it hurt? More importantly, what business is it of anyone elses?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I think is dehumanizing is telling two consenting adults who are in love that they aren't allowed to express that love through marriage.

I agree with this 100%.

I agree with what you say in an ideal world - but how many gays/lesbians who are likely to be non-religious (due to most religions frowning upon it) stay with one partner for the rest of their lives? theres also a high incidence of adultery. I dont agree with it, but its the unfortunately the world we live in. Some of my friends have had 20 sexual partners and their 21!!!

Actually, thier are far more religions that are accepting of homosexuals than religions that don't. And as far as specific religions, some denominations are accepting and some aren't. While it public thinking is that Christianity is intolerant of homosexuals, thier are some churches that do not have any problems with it. I believe I read it on RF that a LDS, Catholic, or someother other denomination that generally frowns upon homosexual relations, does allow a gay man to be a priest. He does not have partake in any homosexual relations, but he is still gay.
And look at how many religious heterosexuals stay with one partner throughout thier life time? I know far more people who have been divorced and remarried, and having a few different sex partners in between, than those who have stayed married to the same person throughout thier life.

So if gay marriage was to become a legal marriage, would we be right to disallow polygamy?

'
Polygamy is completly different issue. True it deals with an illegal marriage, but the issue at hand is one person marrying one other person of the same gender, not one person marrying multiply people.

Ok throwing in my two cents even though I said I would avoid this thread. A piece of paper does not a relationship make. If homosexuals wanted to be monogamous they would, regardless of the government not recognizing their relationship as a marriage. There are plenty of couples who aren't legally married, yet they stay with one another out of fidelity, and love. So I fail to see how not having a legal document changes a person's feelings toward one another, and their option to commit.

This I agree with. The piece of paper just makes it legal, and settles some issues about who gets what when one of the people involved in the relationship dies, and has a few tax deductions, and few other legal changes, such as making you less likly to be selected for a draft if one should arise.
Maybe some gays want to get married for the legal purposes involved with marriage, such as inheritance, some to have what has been denied to them, and some because "we love eachother, so why not?"

 

[Mike182]

So if gay marriage was to become a legal marriage, would we be right to disallow polygamy?

no, we would not. that's just my opinion though.

 

[!Fluffy!]

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.

I thought the thread was about whether or not there are any valid non religious reasons to ban gay marriage.

Now it's suddenly about condemning homosexuality?

 

[Darkness]

should we allow someone to marry their pet (after all a dog is considered a mans best friend!

This is a straw man because the dog cannot say I do. Maybe you could get away with marrying a parrot, though.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

This I agree with. The piece of paper just makes it legal, and settles some issues about who gets what when one of the people involved in the relationship dies, and has a few tax deductions, and few other legal changes, such as making you less likly to be selected for a draft if one should arise.
Maybe some gays want to get married for the legal purposes involved with marriage, such as inheritance, some to have what has been denied to them, and some because "we love eachother, so why not?"

Actually I was getting at something else. I know that the paper makes it legal and all that goes with that. What I was really addressing was that it was brought up about a page or so ago the HIV issue and homosexuals not being really monogamous. Then it was refuted on the basis that if the marriage could be recongnized legally then that would be an encouragement to have one-on-one relationships. To which I answered the quote you quoted from me. I was saying that monogamy can be done regardless of legalities, so that not having a legal marriage does not affect, or shouldn't affect monogamy.

I probably should have made it more clear what I was talking about in the first place, sorry for any confusion.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I thought the thread was about whether or not there are any valid non religious reasons to ban gay marriage.

Now it's suddenly about condemning homosexuality?

isnt discussing non religious (or religious for that mater reasons) to ban gay marriage still condemning homosexuality??? after all if they cant get married, its saying its not right.

Anyways I dont think anyone is seriously condemning homosexuality.. just discussing! I dont necessarily agree with Gays/Lesbians (I am not entirely sure to be honest) but I dont condemn them (I think that is too harsh a word).

I personally think they should be allowed to get married. Its not hurting anyone else. It is up to them. If they love someone then they should have the right to marry.

(your probably thinking of contracticted myself - you will also find out through posts that I am "on the fence" with a lot of things and will be able to argue both sides! - its very confusing!!! )

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Actually I was getting at something else. I know that the paper makes it legal and all that goes with that. What I was really addressing was that it was brought up about a page or so ago the HIV issue and homosexuals not being really monogamous. Then it was refuted on the basis that if the marriage could be recongnized legally then that would be an encouragement to have one-on-one relationships. To which I answered the quote you quoted from me. I was saying that monogamy can be done regardless of legalities, so that not having a legal marriage does not affect, or shouldn't affect monogamy.

I probably should have made it more clear what I was talking about in the first place, sorry for any confusion.

Got you now! Thanks!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

This is a straw man because the dog cannot say I do. Maybe you could get away with marrying a parrot, though.

But theres some people who cant talk also! cant they get married then?

hehe...

sorry thats got nothing to do with this thread. I must stop changing the point of the thread. I analyse things to much and can interlink issues easily!!!

 

[Mister_T]

This is a straw man because the dog cannot say I do. Maybe you could get away with marrying a parrot, though.

Seriously, if people don't know the difference between marrying a dog and marrying a human they should go back to school and further their education.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Seriously, if people don't know the difference between marrying a dog and marrying a human they should go back to school and further their education.

sorry that was me being silly, but in a way it proves a point on how far should we go with rights etc... (which in a way is related to this topic). I mean they are on about giving rights to robots!!!

 

[Mister_T]

sorry that was me being silly, but in a way it proves a point on how far should we go with rights etc... (which in a way is related to this topic). I mean they are on about giving rights to robots!!!

The sad part is that people actually use that as an argument against gay marriage as well as pedophilia. Equating gay marriage to either of those is completely ludicris.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The sad part is that people actually use that as an argument against gay marriage as well as pedophilia. Equating gay marriage to either of those is completely ludicris.

Whoever uses it for pedophilia is sick in the mind! I certainly wouldnt compare Gay marriage to that!!!

 

[!Fluffy!]

isnt discussing non religious (or religious for that mater reasons) to ban gay marriage still condemning homosexuality??? after all if they cant get married, its saying its not right.

why? i think it could be two separate issues...

Anyways I dont think anyone is seriously condemning homosexuality..

yet those were your words...

just discussing! I dont necessarily agree with Gays/Lesbians (I am not entirely sure to be honest) but I dont condemn them (I think that is too harsh a word).

that's good, i don't think any religion gives us the right to condemn each other.

I personally think they should be allowed to get married. Its not hurting anyone else. It is up to them. If they love someone then they should have the right to marry.

i think it's the slippery slope argument that people are worried about (polygamy, NAMBLA, that sort of thing), tho i could be wrong about that. personally i see nothing wrong with civil unions outside the church, if it is the religion aspect causing the problem.

(your probably thinking of contracticted myself - you will also find out through posts that I am "on the fence" with a lot of things and will be able to argue both sides! - its very confusing!!! )

yes it is!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

where have I said "I condemn homosexuality" ?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

This thread is a waste of time.

I raised a secular argument because that is what this thread is about. Those who responded either did so from an emotional level, from ignorance, or used reasoning one might expect from a third-grader. No one, not one, raised a reasonable objection. All fit somewhere on the list of six.

 

[McBell]

yes, I know you keep trying to argue that. However, it isn't at all what I said. I have proven you are a liar, keep going, it makes you look even worse...

You have proven nothing other than you would much rather resort to ad hominem than address what was posted.

You have been flat out asked by more than one person to explain what you meant, since it is not inline with what you actually said, but instead you whine about how everyone is supposedly changing what you said.
the fact is, no one is changing what you said.
They are merely removing all the fluff and window dressing from it and addressing the core premise.

Funny, is it not, that I am not the only one who was not fooled with your fluffing and buffing?

your continued refusal to explain what you meant, since it is something other than what you actually said, is rather revealing.

So you go right ahead and keep calling me a liar.
whatever you must do to avoid the fact that your whole argument, as presented thus far, is nothing more than a "marriage is for procreation" argument.

What I find rather interesting is that it seems as though you are the only one who thinks that what you have presented thus far is not a "marriage is for procreation" argument.

I wonder why that is, with everyone seeing how you are claiming that it isn't, they still seem to think that it is?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You have proven nothing other than you would much rather resort to ad hominem than address what was posted.

You have been flat out asked by more than one person to explain what you meant, since it is not inline with what you actually said, but instead you whine about how everyone is supposedly changing what you said.
the fact is, no one is changing what you said.
They are merely removing all the fluff and window dressing from it and addressing the core premise.

Funny, is it not, that I am not the only one who was not fooled with your fluffing and buffing?

your continued refusal to explain what you meant, since it is something other than what you actually said, is rather revealing.

So you go right ahead and keep calling me a liar.
whatever you must do to avoid the fact that your whole argument, as presented thus far, is nothing more than a "marriage is for procreation" argument.

What I find rather interesting is that it seems as though you are the only one who thinks that what you have presented thus far is not a "marriage is for procreation" argument.

I wonder why that is, with everyone seeing how you are claiming that it isn't, they still seem to think that it is?

I havent read all of comprehends posts (there are too many all together and I am too lazy to search ) but I read his initial one about offspring and as far as the GOVERNMENTS point of view I think he has a slight point. After all, more people means more taxes!!!! and they make more money! Greedy arent they?!!!