Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

Now you are starting to get the point.

If it is not immoral then why bother changing the law? Gay you mean queer? If God had wanted you to have sex with a man he would have given you the tolls for it. Think about it and then go outside and try to connect the two male ends of a hose. It doesn't work, it's not natural and no law that man can make will make it work.

GP

 

Such as the position you're holding????

GP

 

it does before 2 years. making this an irrelevant argument. it has no relevance to the topic, because it's not binding.

 

your basing your entire argument denying homosexuals the right to marry on procreation. I'm simply pointing out the idiocy of that argument. You will of course whine and cry that it's a strawman, but it's simply the argument you keep making.

 

TOTALLY

I think that a kids upbringing reflects the people who brought him up. Weather it be a perfect mom/dad or an orfanige. Both have the potential to provide enough love etc, and both have the potential to suck. I think this arguement is a 50% or a wash.

Ya, but old people who can't have kids get married. Why not gays? Who cares. BTW, government social engeneering is a bad idea. Do you want guys like Harry Ried and The Obama telling you how to live?

I agree, this is why I think government needs to stay out of the marriage bussiness.

I do.

This is why the federal government should be social engineering the country. This is why we need a flat tax.

You really know a lot about "gay" issues...

 

Seems to be a common belief among liberals. That mothers and fathers raising their own children, as opposed to not doing so, provides no advantage to children or society that an orphanage wouldnt provide.
Some, "it takes a village" BS I guess.

 

Id say the 30 state constitutional Amendments, 10 other states with DOMA statutes and 4 other states with regular statutes limiting marriage to a man and a woman, because only a man and a woman can procreate, demonstrates that you are the one engaged in idiocy and suffering from a detachment from reality.

 

What you point out in the "Amendments" and "DOMA", only demonstrates (in most cases), the unnecessary and abject prejudice of the "majority"; people's RIGHTS should not be put up for popular vote. I'm virtually certain, that many COMING court cases will address and correct that "legal" problem; the 'moral' issues will rightly be taken-up within the hearts and minds of 'individuals'. (And yes rectification of the present situation, that will take some time.)

 

The popular vote merely confirmed what has been in place since the individual states had been in existance, enacted by the legislature.
And tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent rights. The limitation of these tax breaks and governmental entitlements to heterosexual couples is no more a denial of rights as the limitation of tax breaks and governmental entitlements to the owners of small businesses is a denial of rights. NOT AT ALL.

 

There was a time when other unconstitutional and immoral laws were "in place". The rights of individuals should not be put up for a "popular vote"; especially where something like gay marriage and equal rights is concerned. You are in-error, but probably won't realize it in your lifetime.

Say what you want to, but it is clear enough that two people being married should entitle them to the same positive outcomes as any other couple.

You aren't justifying anything in the real sense, by saying what you do. You just remind/encourage homosexual people and their advocates to fight-on for complete justice and equal rights.

Ultimately, you will be found to be 'incorrect'. Things change, and in this case... they certainly SHOULD.

 

I'm saying that mothers and fathers raising their own kids can be worse, can be better. It's a wash 50%.

 

on the contrary. if one of those states had a requirement for the ability/intention to procreate in order to marry, you might have a point. since they don't, it's an idiotic argument. how many more times do you need this particular argument refuted before you move on to something new?

 

On the contrary, you will not find any reference in the law to sexual 'preference'. The law does, however, include a gender-based exclusion. That said, "gender discrimination' more commonly refers to the disadvantaging of one gender (usually women) as compared to the other. Laws that prevent the legal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages don't disadvantage one gender more than the other.

What it mainly entails is discrimination that employs gender as a tool to express animus toward the group most likely to enter into a same-sex union - "homosexuals".

(emphasis added)

The bolded 'and' would be 'and/or' in the USA, which does not require a marriage to be recognized by any church to have legal standing. Marriage may have a religious association, but for many people it does not.

Therefore, civil marriages are recognized based on law, not religion. The choice of whether or not to marry as a religious matter has no bearing on civil recognition.

A legal marriage is the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION, whether the couple is religious or not. In other words, we already have a word for civil unions: marriage. There is no need to change it to accommodate those with religious objections to homosexuality.

I'm also not a fan of the Pride events. But I have to disagree with you about civil unions. It's naive to think that pushing for civil unions will result in legal equality. The moment you require separate institutions, you introduce the perception of difference and therefore inequality, and the perception translates into civil unions being treated as inferior regardless of the law attempting to make them equal. It also introduces the almost certain inevitability that lawmakers will tweak either marriage or civil union laws down the road in a way that makes them unequal to each other even on paper. What's more, the people fighting most intensely against marriage equality are just as opposed to civil unions, or any other form of status for same-sex couples' relationships. They aren't going to roll over and play dead just because we start pursuing civil unions. Moreover, you're asking me to accept that my marriage isn't a marriage, and I'm not going to do that.

CIVIL marriage is a legal status, not a 'religious state' - regardless of who is using the term.

Nor do I, so it's a moot point.

 

Hard to believe this thread has lived to 43 pages without a legitimate argument.

All are thinly veiled religious arguments that wish to deny homosexuals to the right to marry, ignoring all legal benefits to such a union.

 

Check out my post a page back, It's full of bad ass arguements

 

And as more court cases over time proceed... more of the nation will find how "thin" those arguments are for certain.

 

Thats nonsense. The BC Romans celebrated homosexual behavior. And yet their marriage laws

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Had nothing to do with animus then and it has nothing to do with animus towards homosexuals now

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

BIOLOGY excludes the gays

 

Without a legitimate argument you are capable of refuting.

Opinions based upon motions and hormones. That all anyone has in response.

 

Ignore the above; it's simply irrelevant to the topic.

And I suggest that when others see you offer the above position, they label it "irrelevant", and move along.

 

You consider your "argument" as being "legitimate", when it doesn't even relate to the issue at hand. That's simply alogical.

 

My argument doesnt involve a requirement for the ability/intention of procreation. Sooooooo not really even sure of what your point is the 250 times youve pointed out that procreation isnt a requirement of marriage. No one claimed it was. And since you people are to blinded by your homo ideology to believe anything I state, I provided TWO supreme court precedents stating exactly the same thing.

And here is where you again point out that "procreation isn't a requirement of marriage" and convice yourself and the peanut gallery that youve made a point.

 

Yeah, thats the best argument you people have come up with yet.

 

I and the courts I was quoting. Of course the homosexuals think all that legal stuff is irrelevant. They know what they want and wont stop whinning like little titty babies until they get it.

 

Our Constitution establishes a government of limited specific and enumerated powers.

Therefore, unless someone can point me to the text that specifically prohibits same-sex marriage, "the Constitution" is not a valid non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

If anything, it's a valid argument against the federal government recognizing or defining marriage in any way.

 

Im not going to bother busying myself copy and pasting 30 different state constitutional amendments here on the forum, and will instead allow you to wallow in your delusions of ignorance and laugh. LOL!