Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

Religion is mostly a fossilization of preexisting convention. The question of why something is incorporated into a religion is simple: because it was already a cultural habit. The much more interesting question is why this or that activity became a cultural habit in order for it to be deemed worthy of absorption into religion in the first place.

 

Herbert Marcuse, attack on morality as the agent to bring the Marxist changes he sought in western society, which incorporated the tactical and un-named as yet, political correctness vehicle.

That vehicle became the primary tool for gays. When you can silence debate, as a tactic, you ineviatabley raise your argument to certain levels of gain.

That tactic has it's consequences however, as it does not simply go away in a society, and does not remain exclusive to the homosexual cause. It becomes entrenched, and that is extremely destructive to a society.

It places sensitivity above truth, in many areas of society, beyond the homosexual tactical usage of it. Now, for the most part, everyone pretty much despises political correctness, and yet, it is still the leading tactic employed, which becomes resultant in an anything goes society.

Does this mean someone like me, an atheist, hates gays? No. Does it mean I hate their vehicle of choice to further their cause. Yes.

 

..... an example?

 

Which America has never been.

You didn't understand a word I said.

What he does not and will not understand is what religion is.

He might as well have asked why he can't drop a load and trade it for a BMW.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I am well aware of what religion is, however you do not realize your belief is an Abramic god is just as valid as Santa Claus.

However what I have not heard is a non-religious argument against gay marriage.

 

The state is NOT a third party to the marriage contract.

They just register the marriage.

Religious ceremony is to sanctify the contract based on your faith.

 

Is it.... using mythology to deny people basic civil rights like what you are doing?

I am confused, please enlighten me.

 

Conspiratorial nonsense, paranoid fantasies, and a slippery slope fallacy to boot.

 

The idiocy of this statement is amusing. The argument completely non religious is simple. You want to grant privileges to a group of people who cannot prove their lifestyle is more than a choice. Heterosexuality can prove it isn't a choice and therefore is covered.

If you allow a group who cannot prove their lifestyle isn't a choice, anyone could make the same claim to these privilages of every number, age or lifestyle and you couldn't stop them.

Simple, non religious. Now, argue against that chuckles.

 

By "choice" what do you mean? That somehow homosexuality is a choice despite the mountains of empirical evidence that points to the other direction? Why would barring tow individuals from enjoying the same legal benefits that marriage offers be justified?

*senses a masquerade of religion*

 

Tex, I've shown you many times it's not a choice. If you're going to keep saying that, make sure I haven't posted here before.

 

Nope. Bias is the problem.

You may believe whatever you like, but it's a "which came first" unanswerable question, since marriage likely predates our known history (beliefs that the Bible records mankind's history from the very beginning and is a reliable, factual representation of that history notwithstanding).

Whether or not it should is certainly debatable. So long as it does, it must treat similarly situated people the same under the law, despite irrelevant differences. The debate then turns to whether or not the sexes of the parties involved is relevant to government recognition of a marriage. I am of the opinion that they are not.

And that's where we part company. My marriage is not dependent on recognition from the government, nor the blessing of any religious entity. It exists whether either acknowledge it.

A marriage is contractual in nature (two parties capably consenting without coercion in commitment to a living arrangement that unites them economically, at a bare minimum). It therefore has no need of religion, and very little really of government.

Legal marriage pretty much amounts to the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION. There is no need to change the terminology, beyond an attempt to pacify a group of people trying to assert an invalid right of ownership of the institution.

If the term civil union applies to everyone, fine. I find it silly, but I'd live with it. I will still consider myself married, regardless. I strongly object to the term only applying to same-sex unions while opposite-sex unions get to keep exclusive use of the word 'marriage'. The only reason to maintain parallel institutions under differing terms is to make some people feel better by allowing them to think they're being tolerant while maintaining a misplaced sense of superiority - else they would be perfectly happy to share either terminology.

The reality is that many of the people who object to same-sex couples' unions having the status of marriage likewise object to giving those relationships any status at all - including as civil unions.

On the other hand, I object to the notion that same-sex couples have to live together responsibly for x number of years before it would be 'right' to provide them with marriage recognition. No such requirement is placed on opposite-sex couples, after all.

Not that I don't see your point - I do. Mine is that if we're to be truly equal, then the length of time, etc. shouldn't matter any more than it does in the recognition of opposite-sex couples' marriages.

I don't need no stinkin' church to tell me I'm married.

Like I said above, either civil unions replaces marriage as the legal, government recognized term for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike, or we keep the term as marriage for both. This is not even debatable in my mind. There can be no equality using different terms. The very forcing of different terms on a couple based on the sex of each bespeaks an inequality and that one is inferior to the other. Wholly unacceptable.

 

What a statement out of ignorance.

Straight people cannot prove that their sexuality isnt more than a choice than homosexuals.

Now tell me why your 'choice' deserves more rights over my 'choice'.

 

Of course they can.

For one procreation requires a man and a women so genetically to perpetuate the species, those two will have to have heterosexual sex. Or did you not get that in 4th grade biology?

Second and most compelling, there is a biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli that is the same for all people male and female straight or gay that prepares the body for procreation ie heterosexual sex.

If homosexuals really are genetically inclined to be homosexual they would never react the same way heterosexuals do to sexual stimulation.


Scream and cry all you like, you can't change the facts.

 

1 - Procreation has NOTHING to do with ones sexuality. It would be nice if you put your thinking cap on now and then.

2 – There is a biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli that is the same for all people. Heterosexual people have a sexual reaction to the opposite sex, and homosexual people have a sexual reaction to the same sex. This has been proven:

Gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains, research shows

Scream and cry all you like, you can't change the facts.

 

I think that's what I just said.

 

Not privileges, sir, rather rights. You are guaranteed the right to equal protection under the law--as are all your fellow citizens. Erecting arbitrary barriers to the civil franchise is simply unconstitutional. The ONLY reason we allow this perpetual discrimination to continue is because *most* Americans are religious and believe marriage is the union of "one man and one woman." They are unable to separate the cultural, religious, and social institution of "holy matrimony" from the civic franchise of "lawful matrimony." Talk about idiocy!

Your argument regarding homosexuality being a choice or not is wholly irrelevant. Our rights are not secured by virtue of the "choices" we make--they are secured by virtue of our birthright as citizens. Sorry, uhhh... chuckles?

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. "

- Thomas Jefferson

 

I am going to wager this is not the first time you have presented him with this information.

 

First time I presenting him this link.

Not that I expect the information to sink in mind you

 

Then I lost the wager, you can have my avatar. lol

 

lol....you can keep your avatar, I like the one I got!

 

Do you then use the same argument against religious freedom?

After all, religion is a choice, is it not?

 

The procreation angle was to prove the genetic link in heterosexuality.


It would be nice if you actually read the argument now and then

I love blowing apart junk science. Thank you so much for the opportunity

Savic and her colleague Per Linström took MRI brain scans of 90 volunteers who were divided into four groups of similar ages according to whether they were male, female, heterosexual or homosexual. The scans showed the right side of the brain in heterosexual men was typically 2% larger than the left. Lesbians showed a similar asymmetry, with the right hand side of the brain 1% larger than the left.

Not only cant they not conclude this happened in even a majority of cases they can't even conclude what factor led to this "similarity"

Nothing to scream about. You've presented a theory that cannot be factual because they can't even determine the cause or the number of people found with this condition.

LOL Always amusing to watch the pro gay marriage side throw out these junk science studies.

My favorite part of this "study" which you obviously did not read:

Savic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it.

So even they do not claim it is factual yet you run this up the flagpole as fast as you can without even reading it.

Enjoy your fail little buddy

Next time read the study before posting it.

 

That is actually guaranteed in the 1st amendment, unlike homosexuality which is never once mentioned

 

Another update on this "Study" from the actual author! LOL Time to dash your hopes one more time

First, in the report the reporter writes: "It's a finding that adds weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical underpinning and is not learned behavior."

THIS IS INCORRECT AND NOT STATED IN THE PAPER

As I understand your article in PNAS, you specifically offer learning as a hypothesis for your findings. Isn't this true? I believe the reporter is misleading on that point.

THIS IS VERY UNFORTUNATE; AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT

Second, the AP report says: "In lesbians, both male and female hormones were processed the same, in the basic odor processing circuits, Savic and her team reported." I understand that the study did show that AND (male condition) was processed akin to other odors by lesbians. But wasn't there also some hypothalamic processing of EST (female condition) by lesbians?

YES! AND ALSO CONJUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS SHOWED A COMMON HYPOTHALAMIC CLUSTER IN THE HYPOTHALAMUS:

It was weaker and apparently not in the anterior hypothalamus but didn't you also find dorsomedial and paraventricular hypothalamic activation? So it would be inaccurate, would it not, to say "both male and female hormones were processed the same?"

YOU ARE FULLY CORRECT

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HOW DO I ACCESS THE AP REPORT??

Ivanka Savic

ADDENDUM: Someone posted and asked why I changed the AP wording when I wrote to Dr. Savic. I did not change it but it appears the AP did from saying homosexuality had a "physical underpinning" to a "physical basis."

http://wthrockmorton.blogspot.com/2006/05/lesbians-and-pheromones-part-2-email.html


LOL Even the author says her study was misrepresented! hahahahahaha