Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

And I didn't mention the Constitution. Anywhere.

Religion isn't genetic either, but that does not exclude it from being a civil right.

I couldn't care less if it is a choice. Religion is a choice, and I support freedom of religion as well.

Size?

Anyway, as long as the people involved are consenting adults, I don't care.

No real argument in sight as all, just resistance to change with no reason offered besides a slippery slope argument (you know, the one with a logical fallacy named after it).

I'd really rather the states pass legislation individually.

Well, that's what happens when you give out stupid for free. Lots of people buy it.

And that's a shame.

Nah.

That would be dribble, but no one said that. I complain about stuff that doesn't directly effect me all of the time. Hell, I'm straight, so restricting gay marriage doesn't effect me either.

If someone's rights were being violated if gay marriage were allowed, I'd be against it. He seems upset about it, and keeps eluding to this "forcing" him to do something, so I'm asking how he is being harmed in any way because he is the one claiming that his rights would be violated in some way.

Yeah, you could. Good thing no one is using that as an argument for gay marriage.

Sure is. Ain't it great what you can prove when you invent your opponent's position for them?

Now, back to what I was accusing him of making up: he claims that, despite the fact that I have repeatedly argued against making speech and beliefs a hate crime, that I'm part of some homofascist conspiracy to outlaw conservative Christianity. That's what I'm accusing him of making up.

 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Minorites are protected. Whats your next BS aregument?

 

To make it even more simple for you: if you are going to restrict someone's liberties, you need a judicial reason for doing so. There are plenty of reasons for restricting something like pedophilia. There are no secular, non-fallacious reasons (slippery-slope arguments and arguments grounding in tradition and nothing else are fallacies) for restricting gay marriage.

 

To add on to what yardmeat said.

Consent

When BPOTH PARTIES can give their consent legally, then whomever wants to marry whomever, there is no legal ground to deny them this right.

When a 5 year old or a dog can give their legal consent, then we'll discuss bestiality or pedophilia.

 

I'm with you; I'm convinced that technology such as that in the following link, will eventually SILENCE those who question whether or not homosexuality is AS MUCH of a person as 'heterosexuality'. What they are figuring out, is HOW we think, therefore they can learn WHAT we think. The article is over 2 years old; one can only wonder how much further they gone with this (the CIA/military...etc.).

All these IDIOTS who think that people DECIDE to be 'homosexual', are simply out of their minds. A GUY doesn't turn attraction off/on; and few who were gay in the past (in this society and others) would ever WANT to be homosexual. Being that way, was likely the HARDEST thing I've had to face in this life; it made me strong in ways that many do not know AND also take for granted in their own lives. Yeah, I've lived through the hatred and rejection, that I hear directed AT homosexuals and homosexuality almost daily. And I never became 'numb' to it, just learned to FACE it... as many learn to do with adversity.

Scientists are able to look into people's heads (more and more over time); soon, they'll likely know which kids in school are really gay... helping them to start off better in life period.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jc8URRxPIg"]Amazing Stuff[/ame]

 

Someday we'll find a cure to this Genetic disorder. Perhaps at minimum we can test for gayness and abort the (*)(*)(*)(*) in the wombs so no one has to live gay again.

 

Then again, so is the homosexuality in animals argument; but of course it does require at least a rudimentary understanding of human nature to grasp that, which necessarily excludes dogmatic atheists.

And pedophiles are a minority. Right?

You can't restrict liberties that never existed to begin with. You can only refuse to create them, which of course is not an infringement of anyone's rights.

People like yourself who are so heavily invested in obvious lies are in no position to pronounce judgment on what constitutes a fallacy.

 

Better yet, they'll "know" even when the kids themselves don't. Won't that be great?

 

Your personal attack has been reported.

 

I'm not so sure you're saying anything pertinent. What do you mean, exactly?

 

Hear hear, I agree. We should get heterosxuals off this planet. Then people can live happy lives

 

Liberty is the ability to choose to do something. You can restrict someone's ability to choose to do something regardless of whether or not they have had that ability before.

My liberty to buy fully automatic weapons, for example, is restricted.

There are a lot of times when it is justified to restrict a liberty, if the exercise of that liberty violates the rights of others. Gay marriage (barring your conspiracy theories) does no such thing.

By that logic, slaves never had any of their liberties restricted, which is asinine.

My judgement has nothing to do with it. The FACT that these argumentative tactics are fallacious can be demonstrated by counterexample.

If the slippery slope argument or the argument from tradition were valid, they could be used to object to ANY and ALL change regardless of content. The American Revolution (and certainly the Constitution), for example, would be completely invalid if either of these arguments were true.

 

I am amazed by the large number of proud bigots that exist in America.

 

Please, we're not talking about the right of two guys to proclaim themselves married, we're talking about their right to have that "marriage" recognized as legitimate by the rest of society.

If you could see your way clear to avoid any reference to the arguments you're evidently having with whatever phantoms inhabit your cranium, that would be great.

 

We are talking about the legal benefits that come with legally-recognized marriage. There are plenty of marriages that are not "recognized as legitimate by the rest of society" that are still legally recognized (again, flip through the entertainment section of your local paper.

lol, this coming from a guy who was arguing with an imaginary version of me earlier? You know, the one that was arguing the exact opposite of what I was arguing in real life? We come down from that trip yet?

According to the way that you are currently defining "liberty," slaves did not have their liberty restricted. Plain and simple. If you'd like to change your definition, go ahead, that's what I was trying to get you to do anyway.

 

First, your own definition of liberty doesn't encompass any of that. Second, if that's all homosexual activists wanted, they'd be satisfied with civil unions. They insist on being called their arrangements marriages because they feel inferior, for the perfectly good reason that they are inferior.

Which is...?

From what?

 

Someday scientist will find the switch that makes a person gay and then be able to flip that switch so that he's not gay, genetically speaking. Until they figure out how to flip the switch though the information gathered can be used to help heterosexual couples decide whether or not they want to keep or abort the fetus. How much you want to bet they will decide to abort if they "know" that the baby will be born gay in the hopes that the next baby won't be.

If your actually born that way, born gay, we'll be able to spot it in a fetuses dna and do something about it.

It's simple science.

 

Our constitution states that we will be equally protected and have equal rights to one another. Federal regulation recognition of marriage and giving special rights to married people that single people don't have is a violation of the constitution. You people are fighting the wrong fight. We single people demand equal rights too!!!!!!!!

 

Well, they are there yet, and that doesn't appear to be one of the reasonable goals of science at this point. We'll see what comes of the notions you express.

BTW, none of this is "simple" (scientifically or otherwise); if it were, there wouldn't be so much research, discussion or controversy over the same.

 

Sure it does. There is no reason why two people of the same gender should not have all of the liberties enjoyed by two people of different genders, including things like hospital visitation rights, etc.

Civil unions do not contain all of the same liberties that marriage does. If both civil unions and marriage had the same rights, I, for one, would call that a victory. I can't and don't speak for the rest.

They already *do* call their arrangements marriages. If that is all there was to it, the argument would be over.

There is nothing stopping them from calling it "marriage" and, if they did get legal rights, there would still be nothing forcing you to call it "marriage."

There is nothing legally preventing them from having a marriage ceremony and using the term marriage. The only difference is the legal rights associated with the arrangement.

There is no reason why two consenting adults should ever be restricted from entering into a contract with each other that does not interfere with the rights of anyone else. Government should exist, at a minimum, to protect the rights of its citizenry and enforce contracts between them.

There is NO non-religious, non-fallacious argument that has been offered for disallowing two consenting people of the same gender from entering into a marriage contract. All we have, other than religion and a slippery slope argument (that tries to completely redefine the situation in order to "win" . . . hm, we can't possibly win this argument if it is about gay marriage, so let's make it about something else instead) is an argument from tradition. Why shouldn't we let them get married? Um, because we haven't before! That's a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) reason, and despite claims of its secular nature, even that argument goes back to religion.

And, despite your claims to the contrary, I firmly support your right to believe idiotic bigotry and to spew it.

I even support your right to pretend that you are somehow different from the bigots that discriminate based on race, gender, or religion, even though you all sing the same "they are inferior" song.

You defined liberty as something that can't be "restricted" until it is first granted and then taken away. That would mean that someone who is born as a slave never has their liberty restricted. Obviously, there is a flaw in your definition.

 

Hey, if government stepped out of marriage completely, that'd be fine with me too. As long as consenting adults are treated equally, I don't care.

 

No it does not. Your definition only includes rights that require no government participation.

Nonsense. Civil unions can be defined in any way a legislative body chooses to define it, and therefore can be constructed to confer any right other than recognition by the state as marriage.

Not much gets by you, does it?

The record shows you're either lying or mentally ill.

Anyway, my patience has run out. I'm sick to death of having to constantly correct you on the most elementary errors.

 

You and a LOT of people need to get used to the 'reality' that there is NO GOOD REASON to deny homosexual people the same rights/benefits as all other Americans.

Any argument(s) seeking to go around that, are typically on their way to being defeated by fair and reasonable people (whose numbers in this country are increasing from era-to-era).

 

.[/QUOTE]

BS, coupling of male and female in lifelong commitment to each other is not marriage. Marriage is a ritual of that, and for example marriage vows are derived from the religous ceremony.

You said it, 'many religions'. If your referring to a marriage ritual then that further supports my position.

More BS. I said I support equivilant policy support for gay people to marriage. So no it is not any sort of argument for marginalization. You cant just claim something which excludes gays has to include gays because you want it to. The word marriage applies to something based on, modelled on and resembling of past and current day religious rituals. Just because societies development meant it got tied up into policy does not mean you should be able to turn it around and destroy the culture and practise of religious marriage because it now has policy implications. Why dont you just invent your own word and develop equivilant policy that marriage provides... then most everyone will be happy.

What battle? The word gay is irrelevant to anyone so noone cares. The word marriage is relevant to people and people care about it because they do not want to be discriminated against by your concept of popular usage. Your actually endorsing the marginalization of a group into a minority to achieve your own selfish gains which could be achieved by other methods that do not incur that upon others.

Its a shame your so blind you cannot see past your own self importance as a community that you ignore the effect it has on others. Its blinding your perspective so you attack anyone who disagrees with your position. I am not asking any government to reserve any 'honor'. I am saying the same things you want from being allowed to 'marry' should be pursued in a manner which is not offence to a large section of the community.

 

Each era in this nation brings more reasonable thinking to bear upon laws pertinent to this issue.

At some point, the (essentially unwarranted) discrimination against homosexual people in America, will be shunned/outlawed.

We've wasted far too much moral and intellectual energy, seeking to maintained the legal prejudices, which court case after court case generally proves is unconstitutional.