Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

The point is equally valid whether procreation is a requirement, or merely a potential. Cant imagine why you would think otherwise and your inability to even string together a few words explaining why makes me think you probably cant.

 

AGAIN BULLS quote was "the Constitution" NOT the federal constitution

You simpletons couldnt comprehend what the constitutions says. US constitution requires at a mininimum that distinctions drawn in the law be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. The distinction of heterosexual couples is rationally related to the legitimate govenmental interest in encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their kids together. ONLY mothers and fathers can create a kid.
Extending marriage to homosexual couples and government loses that legitimate governmental interest that justified the discrimination between the married and unmarried. Turning what was previously constitutional discrimination into unconstitutional discrimination.

 

My arguments dont involve a requirement of marriage. Got anything relevant to my arguments?

 

your arguments use the inabilty to procreate(even though homosexuals can and do procreate) as a reason to deny them the right to marry. I'm simply pointing out the idiocy of that argument.

 

No, you just proclaim that procreation isnt required and then proclaim my argument has been refuted. Looking like a fool since my arguments dont involve a requirement of procreation.

 

And calling arguments that have succeeded again and again in the courts, "idiocy" isnt an argument without at least stringing together a few words to explain why.

 

your argument is that since homosexuals can't procreate(even though they can and do)they can't get married. I simply point out that there is no requirement for procreation to get married, thus destroying your argument.

by the way, I'm not the one who looks foolish here.

 

except your arguments have been defeated in recent court cases.

 

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Yes, it is simple

 

Two people of a different race procreates just fine. THATS why discrimination against interracial marriages is unconstitutional. Two people of the same sex can never procreate.

 

Applies quite nicely to my arguments. You people always claim arguments are irrelevant when you cant deal with them.

 

Except marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Or are you now saying that infertile heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry? Or what about people that just have no desire to have children?

Grasping for straws much?

 

Actually, it has everything to do with marriage laws. Proclaiming that it does not, again and again, really isnt an argument.

No

Most births are born to couples who didnt desire to become pregnant. Government has just as much interest in the well being of those children as those that result from planned pregnancies

LOLOLOL!!! A comedian.

 

Yeah, "always". Please, stop with the BS.

 

Correct. Marriage (at least in America) has never been legally contingent upon having children.

If some of these people posting have certain 'religious' beliefs... their answer would be 'yes'.

Virtually anyone out here advocating that homosexual people should not be allowed 'legal' marriage with benefits... is grasping for straws.

 

No one claimed it was.

Yes you are. CONSTANTLY

 

Many have implied it, and very strongly so.

I disagree; even so, live with it.

 

The slippery slope is a fallacy, we are talking about granting two consenting adults legal rights. The *exact same legal rights* that are granted to heterosexual couples. There is not a slope to slide down, no raping children, no raping dogs. Its a non-point.

Also, homosexuality is not a choice, so that is a non-point as well.

 

I know you have a tough time distinguishing between the strawmen and the actual arguments being made but the many who have implied it are exclusively among those crafting the strawmen.

 

???? Nooo, you are advocating for "gay marriage" not marriage for "two consenting adults".

 

Do you think that two non-consenting individuals will be "legally" married?

 

Well, we have marriage now.

One man one woman.

Two consenting adults.

I am advocating that homosexual marriage should be allowed.

Two consenting adults.

I am arguing in favor of two consenting adults. Its rather obvious.

 

Describe these "canons of marriage", please.

This is essentially a strawman. No one here advocated that humans should behave like animals. YOU are the one (well, one of a few) who made the statement that married people are expected to produce babies.

That's a statement about societal expectations, not the legal parameters governing civil marriage. People are not required to show an ability nor an intent to procreate when applying for a marriage license.

We are talking about civil marriage here - a human construct, regardless of any beliefs one might hold about marriage as a religious institution. As a human construct, humans can change the definition of civil marriage.

 

Yeah, as long as they are "gay". Thus the term "gay marriage" as opposed to making marriage available to any two consenting adults.