Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why gay-marriage should be illegal

[JimG]

Gay marriage is not the greatest threat to marriage, only one of the final nails in the coffin. Credit for the greatest subversion of marriage goes to no-fault divorce and unmarried cohabitation. No fault divorce turned what had been a lifelong commitment into an arrangement of convenience. No matter what the vows may say, the union is an at will union, severable by either party for any or no reason.

When a fundamental aspect of civilization such as marriage is less legally binding than a home mortgage, there’s nothing left for civilization to build on. Well, we can see what happened with subprime mortgages. Subprime marriages are having a similar effect.

 

[fix]

No one on the thread that I could see. I was speaking in general not just those in this discussion.

I didn’t mean to imply you had said anything uncharitable. Again I meant generally. And I don’t expect anyone to compromise their convictions on either side. But we should listen and try to understand and respect each other even if we disagree. I don’t see how that’s compromising. God bless!

I appreciate the tone you convey here. Certainly we should respect every person. The problem we have with this one topic is that disagreement is quickly termed uncharitable.

What you really ask is for people to consider that the impossible is possible? It really is nothing short of that.

 

[Pantheist]

What you really ask is for people to consider that the impossible is possible? It really is nothing short of that.

What was once thought as impossible is now shown to be possible, and then actual. This is a type of progress, is it not?

 

[fix]

I see. If two rational people come to a bad conclusion, I’m not sure I would qualify it as “insane”, certainly not in some definitions, because that itself would imply a contradiction.

A sane person cannot commit an insane act? I think it happends all the time. If you want to use different terms then we could say rational people may act irrationally at times. We all know that to be true.

This is a very large question, far too large even for legislation (for society encourages behavior outside of legislation, by social pressure through understood taboos and mores). Freedom would be the interest of society in refraining from legislating against all bad decisions. And this because society may be wrong, and may accidentally legislate against good decisions, which would be far worse (though this at least accidentally happens and goes on even now, it should be discouraged).

I do not see the state as the author of freedom.

From a purer philosophical perspective, God (the sum total of all that is) communicates to us (parts of God to other parts of God) by use of reason, as well as (from mode to mode) by communication. No one mode of God exhausts God, for God is a single substance comprised of infinite attributes each with infinite modes, and so one mode would not have the faculty to declare with certainty what is good for all. So not all things should be legislated, but, it seems to me at this time, only those things that encourage freedom for people within their natural limits, both to continue existing, and to move and act as they will. This freedom, of course, would be compromised, if it interfered with the freedom of others.

What is freedom?

I am unsure. How do you define liberty?

Well , in relation to this discussion one starting point is here.

 

[fix]

What was once thought as impossible is now shown to be possible, and then actual. This is a type of progress, is it not?

Well, can evil ever be good?

 

[JessMBH]

Well, I haven’t read all of the posts.(I know, shame on me…)

The other night I was lying in bed thinking of some way that I could prove (without religion or using God) that homosexuality is wrong. What I came up with really made sense to me and I thought it might make sense to some other people.

Lets pretend there is no God or religion of any kind. We can kind of take a scientific approach. We have two types of human. We have some humans with one kind of reproductive system and the other kind of human has another type of reproductive system. One cannot procreate without the other. Dosen’t it make sense that because that one needs the other or no offspring will be created that two of the same shouldn’t be put together? Why should sperm go with sperm and egg go with egg? How will that ever create offspring?

To me it’s just common sense and a part of nature that men and men shouldn’t go together, as well as women and women.

Of course, there is a GOD and I believe what he has to say on the matter. =)

God Bless

 

[RyanML]

What you really ask is for people to consider that the impossible is possible? It really is nothing short of that.

I suppose so. I believe that there is a lot of gray area in the matter of human sexuality. It’s not all black and white. It’s real easy for folks to say “your evil” or “your mentally ill” because they don’t understand or are uncomfortable with the issues. People tend to think of homosexuality in terms of behavior and sex, but it’s not that simple. There are all sorts of spiritual, psycological, and emotional aspects to it, none of which are bad or need to be “repaired”. It doesn’t bother me if people disagree, I just would rather they know where i’m coming from than just make assumptions or generalize with stereotypes.

 

[Writer]

I would say marriage is a natural institution. It is not some thing concoted by some government. It is between one man and one woman. It is consistent with the natural law and common sense.

Research demonstrates same sex parents are detrimental. Common sense demonstrates it is detrimental. The moral law demonstrates it is deterimental.

Marriage is not necessary for the reasons stated here. There are other remedies.

True marriage promotes happiness. Faux marriage does not promote happiness. People can be decieved. People can cope. But that is not real hapiness.

Good health is not the result of marriage. The purpose of marriage is not to promote physical wellness. Marriage is not a insurance statistic used to fabricate social policy.

Marriage is not about legal constructs as an end unto themselves.

You mean desensitizing the population to homosexual acts.

A prouctive citizen is one who contributes to society. If people are real victims that can be addressed through the law. If they are not real victims then that may be addressed through discussing these issues in the public arena, not be using law as a cudgel to force the acceptance of vice.

Well said, I would only add that, for me, it helps to understand the agenda of the homosexual movement. In the late 1980s, a wonderful pianist and articulate speaker named Steve Swayne was the ministry coordinator of a Free Methodist university where I attended. Today, he works as a music professor and writes for gay publications. While his life story is likely a sad one since leaving the environment of a Christian university, I think it helps to be aware of what these people really want, what their aims are. In Steve’s case, for example, he wants to abolish marriage completely. Civil unions for everyone is what many people like Steve support. We need to know what their ultimate aims are, so that we can stand up against this moral entropy at each and every opportunity.

Here’s one of Steve’s misguided articles.

indegayforum.org/topics/show/31462.html

 

[Pantheist]

A sane person cannot commit an insane act?

Not what I said.

I do not see the state as the author of freedom.

What is freedom?

Excellent question.

Do you mean philosophically, or politically?

I would define freedom, philosophically, as “that which exists from the necessity of its nature alone, and is determined to act by itself alone.” (Spinoza, Ethics, Book 1, Definition 7a) In which case, only God is free.

In terms of policy, or even more specifically, of legislation, freedom is the individual’s ability to do what he wishes without restriction or consequence, save those restrictions and consequences that arise from nature. Clearly, if we maximize this freedom for all, it will involve restrictions for some.

Well , in relation to this discussion one starting point is here.

An excellent work, but one I would find not to qualify as non-religious.

 

[Pantheist]

Well, can evil ever be good?

Interesting question. If we use Spinoza’s definition (one I question) Good is “what we certainly know to be useful to us.” (Spinoza, Ethics, Book 4, Definition 1) and evil “what we certainly know prevents us from being masters of some good.” (Book 4, Definition 2). Certainly a lot goes behind these, but by these definitions, no, something that is evil cannot be good, and something that is good cannot be evil.

But something that was once evil might later become a good, though this would be very unlikely, I’d imagine.

I am unsure.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Well, I haven’t read all of the posts.(I know, shame on me…)

The other night I was lying in bed thinking of some way that I could prove (without religion or using God) that homosexuality is wrong. What I came up with really made sense to me and I thought it might make sense to some other people.

Lets pretend there is no God or religion of any kind. We can kind of take a scientific approach. We have two types of human. We have some humans with one kind of reproductive system and the other kind of human has another type of reproductive system. One cannot procreate without the other. Dosen’t it make sense that because that one needs the other or no offspring will be created that two of the same shouldn’t be put together? Why should sperm go with sperm and egg go with egg? How will that ever create offspring?

To me it’s just common sense and a part of nature that men and men shouldn’t go together, as well as women and women.

Of course, there is a GOD and I believe what he has to say on the matter. =)

God Bless

Oh man, I don’t even know where to begin anymore.

 

[wynnejj]

I’m not sure I support gay marriage or not.

I think I’d rather see all powers of the state to declare whether marriage is legal or not dissolved. It’s not really within their power, or at least shouldn’t be, as far as I can reckon.

Although ultimately I don’t agree with dissolving the legal institution of marriage, I don’t consider your proposal far-fetched at all. It seems to me that the legal institution of marriage had its original laws enacted to protect & foster the raising of a traditional family where dad is the bread winner and mom is the home maker. With so many dual income childless marriages, the reasons for the laws seem less meaningful.

 

[wynnejj]

Not exactly a rigt wing rag:
boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/

This article is the most rational non-religious argument that I have seen posted.

 

[whatevergirl]

That may be true of any number of illicit acts. Including man/animal contact.

Ok, so that proves some group decides they want to act as they desire regardless of right or wrong or how it effects others. What is to stop any other group from acting in the same way justifying your position?

How many must engage in this conduct before it ceases to be a “silly” analogy?

Sorry, I cannot accept your basic premise.

what premise? I believe the homosexual lifestyle to be sinful. I’m not sure what premise you mean. I just don’t agree with your argument against it.

 

[GratefulDad]

Rather interesting this Boston Globe article from above.

boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/?page=1

Homosexual lifestyle is proven to be self extinguishing, it is not a go forward strategy for a thriving society.

Also this writing from Romans Ch1, it predicted a lot of what we are seeing today.

16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek.
17
For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous by faith will live.”
18
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
19
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
24
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

[royal_archer]

Marriage reduces state spending on benefits
Broken relationships are the cause of much state benefit spending and the partner in a same-sex marriage will provide an unpaid carer in the event of sickness or injury

It also increases the costs because it increases the number of people covered by the employer’s policy. To address this to the unemployed is a false argument in that the “marriage” does not change the status of the unemployed person it only shifts the burden.

Marriage promotes happiness
Happier people contribute more to society, and cost less

Marriage promotes health; married people are healthier than unmarried people; marriage reduces promiscuity and cuts the risk of AIDS transmission between gay men; better health reduces the costs of providing healthcare. (If this is false please provide your resource)

Another false arguement AIDS is not caused by straight marriage. Nor does a gay “marriage” guarantee that AIDS carriers will not continue to transmit diseases. However banning sexual relations outside of marriage would reduce the spread of these diseases.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage will be a powerful force for removing the remaining stigma faced by homosexuals

You presume that the stigma should be removed? I feel it is our right as members of society to hold negative opinions towards those who continue to engage in perverted acts.

This may enable homosexuals to be more productive; it may reduce the cost to society of dealing with discrimination and hate crimes directed at homosexuals. (If this is false please provide your resource)

Are you asserting that those involved with hate crimes would be less likely to perpetrate an attack on a pair of gay individuals if they were married?

Per the question in your thread:

1. Copy right infringement Marriage is a term coined and used by the religious community with a defined meaning. This term can not hijacked and used outside of it’s meaning. For instance I can not go around calling my self a doctor and then cry discrimination just because the AMA does not feel I have receive the right education. Likewise Gay “marriage” does not meet the minimum qualification to be refered to as a marriage.
2. Property rights. If I own a company I have the right to give out bennefits to my employees based on my values. If I choose to provide insurance to the spouses of my employees I have the right to choose not to give out those bennefits. It is deceitful for individuals to concoct new relationships that are outside of the established definitions in order to coerce me into giving them the bennefits I would give to those who meet the established deffinitions of those relationships. For instance if I offer medical insurance to an employee their spouses and their or their spouses children, and an employee has a wife who is a principal at a school with 500 children, They can not manipulate the use of the term children to force me to provide insurance to every child who attends that school. One of the primary drivers of the gay “marriage” agenda is to force employers to provide insurance bennefits to same sex partners.

 

[Et_Cetera]

To all those who are opposed to gay marriage: Why are you so concerned with the private actions of others?

 

[royal_archer]

To all those who are opposed to gay marriage: Why are you so concerned with the private actions of others?

1. Because we care and want to protect their mortal souls.
2. Because they seem to not want to keep them private. They want the unions blessed in public and they want to force us to recognize there unions and in the case of employer bennefits want us to subsidize them.
3. It is offensive, disgusting, perverted behavior that should not be put on public display.

 

[Zehos]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman; that’s the way it always has been throughout history and in every human society for which we have reliable information on the matter. The government shouldn’t be involved with marriage whatsoever if you ask me, but if they must, shouldn’t they preserve the institution as it is?

Civil unions are one thing, but marriage is a religious matter, not a civil one. If gays want the financial benefits of civil marriage, fine, they can knock themselves out, just don’t call it marriage!

“If it’s not necessary to change it’s necessary not to change.”
–Viscount Falkland

Agrees! They can have the civil part, just let it be called something else.

 

[Pantheist]

1. Because they seem to not want to keep them private. They want the unions blessed in public and they want to force us to recognize there unions and in the case of employer bennefits want us to subsidize them.

We subsidize other couples. Why not them?

From a perspective that would appeal to a non-theist such as myself, or frankly, we’ll be canceling each other’s votes, and that’s no good.