Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

My definition includes rights that are currently restricted by the government.

If you are suggesting a form of civil union that has ALL of the same legal rights as a marriage does then I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I was wondering how it got past you.

Oh really? Let's take a look at the record:

You defined a liberty as something that has to first be granted and then taken away in order to be restricted.

Returning to the slave example. The slave never had the liberty of self-determination to begin with, so, by your own words, his liberties have not been restricted.

Again, if you want to change your definition from the one I quote above, please do. But let me guess, the Homosexual Agenda edited your post to make you look bad?

I know, I know, imaginationland is so much more comfy than reality. If you keep trying to "correct" reality, you are bound to get a little exhausted. It is easier just to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

It's hard, but if you finally come around to providing an non-religious argument for why the government should not treat relationship contracts between two consenting people of the same gender the same way that they treat relationship contracts between two consenting people of different genders, please do.

 

Their unalienable rights have been protected long before "gay marriage" became a household term.

haven't been made by me, so they're not my concern.

Reasonable from the perspective of the mentally impaired, at least.

 

I've been following this thread and even composed a couple of responses, which I haven't posted either because something else comes up or I get timed out. Is it the server or what? At any rate, you know which side I'm on.

And I've come to the conclusion that if the arguments that the opposition has posted here are the best that they can put before the public then my partner and I haven't got much to worry about. It may take a while. But whats been submitted here from the anti-equality contingent isn't going to convince anyone who isn't already in the choir.

I've been at this a while on a face-to-face basis and I think I have a pretty good idea of what works. Harvey Milk had it right. It all boils down to coming out, engaging people, and living your life as honestly as you can. And what might be kind of germane to the OP, on a personal basis people with conservative political views seem pretty open to giving us the same rights that they have. People with fundamentalist religious views don't.

 

I'm not debating "unalienable rights", not one iota. Denying homosexual people their unalienable rights however... I'll oppose that the rest of my life and so will millions of others living (and yet to be born).

Say what you want; you don't have any good, valid reason (legally) to deny homosexual people the same rights as heterosexuals. And I don't blame ANYONE for getting all over you or anyone else for propagating the idea/notion that any rights should be withheld.

There's no reason to tolerate 'bigotry' (whether embedded in law or individual attitudes). It seems that YOU want things to stay the 'same'... but reality shows us that things will/must change.

 

BS right back at you. Marriage is the relationship. The ritual is also popularly referred to as a marriage, but it's not the only definition. I guess you've never heard of common law marriages.

There's no obligation for anyone to use vows derived from a religious ceremony. People sometimes write their own.

What's more, you're simply denying reality. Perfectly legal marriages are recognized by the government, religious ceremony or not. They exist. If you want to pretend they don't you're welcome to do so - but no one is obligated to support you in that delusion.

No, it doesn't. Your position is that marriage originated with religion. Which religion, then? Are the rest just copycats? Nonsense. Many different religions coming up with rituals to formalize a marriage isn't evidence of marriage originating in religion - it's evidence that many religions have seen value in marriage and superimposed themselves on it.

That claim doesn't change the character of your other statements.

You can't claim that gays are excluded just because you don't wish to share the word with them.

Appeal to tradition, with no convincing evidence that this is the origin of marriage.

Oh, grow up already! Same-sex couples marrying doesn't "destroy the culture" nor the "practise of religious marriage". That's some pretty deep crap you're spewing. Guess I should have worn my waders to this discussion.

We have no need. The word marriage works just fine. If you don't want to share it, then go invent your own word to separate yourself from us. We have no obligation to cede the word to you just because you have some misplaced sense of ownership.

Appeal to the majority.

If you're unaware of the culture war going on with gay people and their relationships as one of its primary targets, then you're very uninformed.

There is nothing about a same-sex couple getting married that discriminates against anyone. That's a bunch of empty rhetoric - a lot of pointless noise.

The only people being 'marginalized' are bigots - and then only in their own imagination.

No effect other than hurt feelings over not feeling special and superior to same-sex couples. Cry me a river.

Disagree with my position and I will naturally poke holes in your arguments.

If not government, then whom? You most certainly are begging for that honor to be reserved to religion. I say it's undeserved, and will not stand.

And that's offensive to me. I have no obligation to live my life to prevent others making themselves feel offended, because the reality is that my very existence is offensive to many of the people making these complaints. If you want to think that's selfish, then you're entitled to your opinion - just as I'm entitled to believe that it's my life, and that anyone who doesn't like my being married to my husband can go hang.

 

Your just being argumentative, proving my point... congratulations.

I'm not. Its the gay position that it deserves to be included in the religious ceremony of marriage ie; included in someone elses belief. Go back to ranting how marriage is not necassarily a religious ceremony because it just reiterates your unwilling or unable to understand my point, but thats ok because closeminded arguments tend to be close-minded so I expect it from people holding your position.

 

Marriage *is not* a religious ceremony. You can have a religious ceremony if you want one, but vast number of people are married without such a ceremony. Marriage is not inherently religious.

This is marriage, this is what the gay and lesbian communities are seeking under equal protection:

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.


Just because people continue to say its a religious institution does not make the meme true.

 

No. Jesus put you in the mercy seat. But you rebel against him.

 

You're just ignoring my points.

...ignoring the diversity of the gay community, which has a wide range of beliefs about marriage. There is no "gay position" on marriage, per se.

You're just plain wrong in your assertion that we're seeking inclusion in a religious ceremony and thereby someone else's belief. As an agnostic, I have no such desires.

It isn't.

It's not a matter of being unwilling or unable to understand your point, but one of disagreeing with it and regarding it to be false.

Oh, the irony. You're the one displaying your closed-mindedness by continuing to insist that marriage is only a religious ceremony despite the clear evidence that marriage carries many meanings, including having a civil aspect with no connection to religious rites.

You wish to claim ownership of marriage for religion as its place of origin, but can offer no credible proof of this. You ignore points that refute your claim and indulge in repetition of your failed arguments.

Stomp your feet and whine about it, if you like. It won't change the facts, or your misinterpretation of them.

 

Perhaps more disturbing in all of this is the refusal to acknowledge that many gay people are religious and have married according to their own religious beliefs.

There is no universal religious definition of marriage.

 

I notice no one even took a stab at my question:

Since humans are very likely naturally polygynous, and since marriage was a social convention before I was a religious one, what were the real reasons for the rise of heterosexual monogamy?

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...guments-against-gay-marriage.html#post4298196

Since no one seems to know, it puts us in a sort of Manhattan Project situation, toying with things dangerous and not well-understood.

The Demon Core

Does this mean I'm coming out against gay marriage? Of course not. It means that in my opinion most of us are not taking into account all relevant factors when trying to decide about this issue.

 

Anyone else not able to access page 14?

 

Wrong!!!....Harvey Milk did not have it right.
First he was an ********....Who shared it with other men.

Yah.... he came out, engaged people, and shared his aids sickness....But, then again with other gays.

Conservatives will never will never give your type the same rights normal civilization has.

God Bless those all religions that put down the gay life syle, and pervert sick society.

 

No. Evidence points to it not being a choice. However, this is irrelevant. Even if homosexuality was 100% choice, that's still not a valid reason to deny them the right to marriage.

So, while your argument was not religious, it also wasn't logically sound. Try again, this time, without nonsense.

 

Neither is heterosexuality. Which would mean, by your reasoning, that no one has the right to marry, regardless of orientation.

 

Probably because it's actually irrelevant to the question of civil marriage recognition. Monogamy is a matter of agreement between the couple, not a condition of the marriage being legally recognized.

 

Pretty sad that so many of you people aren't able to hold conversations with anyone but yourselves.

Unless the bigots are on your side, of course.

Yeah, me and everyone who agrees with age of consent laws.

Yes.

The mercy seat IS the judgment seat, and He sure as Hell didn't put me there.

There is no universally accepted definition of legitimate consent either, but that doesn't keep us from maintaining age of consent laws.

 

Is there anyone here who doesn't agree with age of consent laws?

Yes, but age of consent laws are based on reason (and, btw, appear nowhere in the Bible), and anti-gay-marriage laws are strictly religious.

 

Except klepos harm other people by stealing their belongings.

And pedophilia harms children.

Gays getting married harms no one.

You are horrible at this. Learn to reason.

 

I am one to admit I do not care much for Muslims, or their Islamic beliefs.

But, after learning and knowing how they are firmly against Gays. And in their countries, when they find them, and what they automaticaly do to them.
Awesome stuff....All about the cleansing of their land.

Now I do have a small respect for their religion.

 

So I take it you are going to stop pretending that you don't hate homosexuals? You are going to sit here and celebrate the way that they imprison, publicly beat, and execute homosexuals and still make-believe that you don't hate them?

That does not surprise me in the least. Your version of Christianity is about a "civilized" as their version of Islam.

For the record: I think way that Muslim extremists treat Christians is just as disgusting as the way they treat homosexuals.

 

So, over 150 posts in, and the answer to the question asked in the OP appears to be a firm "no."

 

Ah yes, "separate but equal". Where have we heard that one before? Didn't work the first time around either. The phrase itself is even self-contradictory.

 

And if all blacks wanted was water, they'd have been satisfied with those drinking fountains.

 

Please, no act of petty theft ever came close to the harm done to children raised by openly homosexual parents, even barring molestation.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

Since one can be a pedophile without ever having molested a child, it is every bit as much a "sexual orientation" as homosexuality. This being the case, on what grounds does one deny an open pedophile who has never been accused of molestation a position as a kindergarten teacher? Hmmmm?

Neither does making battleships out of cotton candy, and it's just as much beside the point.

Ummm, the voices in your head?