Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage? Pt. 2

Original thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...religious-arguments-against-gay-marriage.html

Is there opposition to denieing a minority equal rights on a premise other than religion?

I'm just curious. In part one I had not read any persuasive arguments, all were either thinly veiled religious arguments, or ridiculous notions that procreation is a necessity of marriage, or marriage is essential for the survival of the species.

Now onto part 2.

 

It's... well... 'yucky'.

 

I will reiterate, in summary, what I said in the last post:

"Marriage" is NOT a gay tradition. It is a heterosexual tradition. Therefore, it is impolite (and impolitic) for gays to encroach upon it over the objections of a substantial proportion of the heterosexual community.

If gays want a civil union with all the benefits intrinsic to a heterosexual civil union, fine. It would be legally in error to deny them equal civil rights. However, they should have the social grace of using a title for gay civil unions other than that of "marriage," lest they come off as rude, obnoxious, and pathologically self-absorbed.

 

Marriage is more than a "tradition".

 

The same can be said of most traditions, that they represent more than just the occasion.

Now, what is your point?

 

Marriage is not a heterosexual tradition, its a legal benefit.

 

It means that the argument you presented, doesn't justify denying an entire segment of the human population the EQUAL rights they seek.

You don't have a right to NOT being offended. People honor and break "traditions" all the time and marriage "traditions" have evolved vastly throughout history. If all a person has in opposition to gay-marriage is "tradition", then I'd say they must GET OVER IT.

 

BULLSH*T!!!

It is a heterosexual tradition and has long been a heterosexual tradition, even in cultures that did not possess written codified law.

Please refrain from blatant intellectual dishonesty. It's annoying.

 

No there is not, other then a little more paper work.

 

In a multicultural society, there are homosexual people who wish to be married and should be allowed to be legally married.

We cannot deny homosexual people that right, merely because someone claims to be "offended" by the same. And it is not that homosexual marriage replaces or denies others' "traditions", it simply allows others to live life and partake of rights and benefits which are reasonable for them to possess.

Some people didn't want Blacks and Whites to "marry"; the reality with that (as it is with homosexuals), is that someone opposing such "marriage", isn't enough to justify DENYING others the right to the same.

 

Gays should be allowed to form civil unions with all the legal benefits it entails for heterosexuals. However, they should not co-opt the title of "marriage" over the objections of the heterosexual community. That would be rude.

Fallacy of False Analogy.

The interracial marriages to which you are referring were heterosexual, not homosexual. Race and sexual orientation are NOT synonymous terms.

 

They should be allowed to enter into legal "marriage"; whether you or anyone else wants to OWN the word "marriage" or not.

Get over the word; you can still have you "heterosexual marriage".

 

But those two things are directly associated with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That points to other things worth discussing.

 

Um, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Tradition is irrelevant, unless you believe that other past traditions are beneficial, marrying off underage girls, opposition to interracial marriage, etc.. It is a legal benefit.

 

In other words, you're just going to keep repeating the same inane blurbs, over and over and over again, as if they might somehow improve with age.

They won't.

Why don't you just say that you don't give a danm how the heterosexual community feels about the issue, and be done with it?

 

It may be irrelevant to you. It may even be irrelevant to me. But to those people who revere the tradition, it is NOT irrelevant. It is important to them.


BTW: Your wiki reference does not exactly support an assertion of marriage being a gay tradition. In fact, it suggests just the opposite. (Seriously, Nero???... One of the most notoriously evil personages in all of human history. That's your example? What are you, a comedian?)

 

What in the world are talking about?

 

Look, you aren't going to convince me that what I know isn't so. So no, the answers I'm giving you, aren't going to change. Yes, expect that you'll either be responding to me repeatedly as you did above, or putting up something I won't protest against (one way or the other).

I am certain I'm correct; there is no "aging" to my response (unless I'm truly convinced, that something other than what I'm saying is actually true).

We SURELY have the right to DISAGREE with one another.

I care about people's feelings, but I also KNOW that isn't what the LAWS governing people's rights are based upon; if they were, there would be a great many restrictions upon ALL human beings... of very unfair laws allowing people's basic rights to be violated. We cannot base all of out laws upon traditions or feelings; that would not work.

 

People who describe the pursuit of equality as impolite and encroaching are the one's whose actions are rude, obnoxious and pathologically self-absorbed.

 

The only reason for making gay people call their marriages "civil unions" is so that some people can feel good about how 'progressive' they are on the issue of homosexuality while allowing them to retain the delusion of their superiority and the marginalization of gay people as 'different', 'other', etc.

 

Says the guy whose entire argument is a fallacious appeal to tradition.

 

I'm only too happy to oblige. I don't care how you or anyone else feels about my marriage.

Meanwhile, let's dispense with the foolishness that the "heterosexual community" collectively shares your feelings. There are many heterosexuals who support the full equality of people who are gay, including legal recognition of our marriages as marriages.

 

No, the reason is to smooth things over with the heterosexual community, assuming that the gay community has an actual interest in maintaining good relations with the heterosexual community.

Incidentally, heterosexual marriages are a type of civil union, and gay people are obviously "different, other, etc." or we would not be having this pleasant discussion.

 

Are you suggesting that marriage is NOT a heterosexual tradition?