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

[Scottgun]

Thanks. I’ll let readers decide if there really is a stopping point between allowing homosexual unions and whatever union one can come up with.

 

[wynnejj]

As a dog lover and a bachelor, I feel that I am married to my pet. I often tell friends: “She’s ugly as a dog, but she’s the best girl friend I ever had.” We haven’t got to that sex thing yet , but if I could get some tax breaks I sure wouldn’t mind getting a piece of paper that says we’re man-dog married. We’d just keep it clean, Catholic and celibate. What you think? My dog’s really in favor of it, because she’s been rescued once and she wants a forever home real bad.

 

[whatevergirl]

While that’s somewhat funny, this is the reason Christians are mocked with the arguments against same sex marriage. Allowing two same sex human beings to marry will not promote people to want to marry their pets…come on.

A rational non religious argument would be that the two people will never be fully fulfilled. It goes against the natural order of things. Two male dogs cannot reproduce…two male butterflies cannot reproduce…etc etc…We are not of the animal kingdom, but it goes to show, that opposite gender ‘mating,’ is necessary for the natural order of things to continue…I think that while two gay people in a union, can adopt children, I still think that they long for the procreative aspect of marriage, which there will never be one. Adoption is not the same as procreation. While it’s a noble and beautiful thing to adopt, again, research shows that children grow up BEST in households where there are two loving parents of the opposite sex. Notice I said two loving parents…because I know someone will offer up that there are many hetero couples who are abusive…I’m beating you to the punch. lol

Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, there is a natural order to life. To nature. To reproduction.

Another argument stemming off of that is…if a gay couple would like to have children, they MUST go outside of the union to do so. Now, two hetero people in a marriage might have to do that, should one or both be sterile. But, the procreative POSSIBILITY is still there. There is no possibility of two men or two women having a baby, together, without using a third party. That right there shows why it’s not a healthy arrangement. Because now, another party has to be involved in the marriage.

I lean to thinking that this could lead to legalizing polygamy, over people wishing to marry their pets.

 

[Pantheist]

As a dog lover and a bachelor, I feel that I am married to my pet. I often tell friends: “She’s ugly as a dog, but she’s the best girl friend I ever had.” We haven’t got to that sex thing yet , but if I could get some tax breaks I sure wouldn’t mind getting a piece of paper that says we’re man-dog married. We’d just keep it clean, Catholic and celibate. What you think? My dog’s really in favor of it, because she’s been rescued once and she wants a forever home real bad.

I think that if your dog expresses in a clear and understandable way, and without strong coercion, that she would like to be united to you by a civil union, there should be nothing against it, presuming your dog as already argued that she and other dogs should be able to vote (etc.) and should be responsible for paying taxes.

The last one would be a hurdle. Otherwise, what would the civil union mean, in terms of the power of the state?

 

[fix]

While that’s somewhat funny, this is the reason Christians are mocked with the arguments against same sex marriage. Allowing two same sex human beings to marry will not promote people to want to marry their pets…come on.

You know I find it ironic that people will take offense, or claim absurdity, when things like pets are mentioned. If you go back only 30 years or so the notion that two same sex people should even consider “marriage” would be met with laughter. Many would have simply thought the person was being silly or perhaps insane.

Now, you see the “pet” argument as being too over the top. In another 30 years will you still hold the same position?

 

[Pantheist]

Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, there is a natural order to life. To nature. To reproduction.

I agree with the thrust of your statement. It does not logically follow from man-man to man-dog, and for fairly clear reasons.

But for the case you make, I agree it is possible, and even likely, that same sex unions are to a degree unhealthy and unfulfilled, and lead often to divorce.

Should the natural order be legislated in all cases?

 

[chrisb]

I agree with the thrust of your statement. It does not logically follow from man-man to man-dog, and for fairly clear reasons.

But for the case you make, I agree it is possible, and even likely, that same sex unions are to a degree unhealthy and unfulfilled, and lead often to divorce.

Should the natural order be legislated in all cases?

Grace and Peace,

I guess the first thing we should ask ourselves is ‘what is the purpose of laws’? Why do we have them and why should we enforce them? From this understanding we could then determine if there is any reason to enforce the natural law among members of society for the good of the people.

Could we address this before to pursue this topic any further?

 

[Et_Cetera]

Scottgun, were you trying to compare homosexuals with animals? Most of this thread is appalling.

 

[Pantheist]

Scottgun, were you trying to compare homosexuals with animals? Most of this thread is appalling.

I think, in Scottgun’s defense, that he is not trying to compare gays to animals, but rather gay unions to animal unions, to wit, that there is no good and obvious secular reason for allowing one but forbidding the other.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Sorry then, did I misread what side Scott is on? I am trying to do work between a little posting. Either way, I support gay marriage.

 

[Scottgun]

Scottgun, were you trying to compare homosexuals with animals? Most of this thread is appalling.

No. It’s a *reductio ad absurdum *argument.

And I find you question highly ironic because there is one place we see homosexuals compared to animals: from homosex defenders themselves. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone say there are examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kindgdom, therefore it is ok for humans. This reveals the depraved nature of homosex that its proponents takes this dehumanizing approach and is an example of “concupisence darkens the intellect”.

 

[Pantheist]

Sorry then, did I misread what side Scott is on? I am trying to do work between a little posting. Either way, I support gay marriage.

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.

 

[rpp]

so you’re saying the law should not allow gays to hold title as joint tenants? or that sexual preference should be a bar to inheriting property?

you’d wreck society trying to save it.

It is not surprising that people with bad intentions would twist the words of another. Since you had to lie to make your point about my post, your point has no value. And you have no credibility. You cannot bge believed because you lie about what other people say just to make them angry. That is evil intent. Clearly you are unable to contribute ore participate in a reasonable discussion.

 

[RyanML]

Do any of these people who oppose any sort of legal recognition of gay relationships personally know gay people or do they just go by what they read in the news and see on TV? As a very happy, healthy, and partnered gay man, I have no idea what most of you are talking about.

 

[Pantheist]

Do any of these people who oppose any sort of legal recognition of gay relationships personally know gay people or do they just go by what they read in the news and see on TV? As a very happy, healthy, and partnered gay man, I have no idea what most of you are talking about.

It’s statistics, and it’s hard to argue with, at least in principle.

Doubtless there are outliers, and you may be one of them. It is unlikely both that you would be completely honest about the struggles of your relationship here (you shouldn’t have to be here), as well as that all homosexual relationships are unhappy.

The fact that more homosexual relationships end in separation suggests, if the statistics are to be believed, that either because of internal or external social pressure, or because of the natural conditions of the relationship-type, homosexual relationships are less healthy, in general, than heterosexual ones.

Does that mean all of them should be made illegal? I don’t think so.

 

[wynnejj]

While that’s somewhat funny, this is the reason Christians are mocked with the arguments against same sex marriage. Allowing two same sex human beings to marry will not promote people to want to marry their pets…come on.

I was trying to be humorous, but I actually disagree with your analysis. Money & the absurd legislation & interpretation of law are the course we are staying right now. What would stop two roommates who are not gay from getting a gay certificate of marriage for some advantage that the law provides for gay marriages? What if this benefit was so advantageous that it was commonplace for college roommates to get a gay certificate of marriage (it means nothing anyway) with intent to divorce (it means nothing anyway) at the end of the year?

The benefits of gay marriage as a stabilizing influence are not supported by the facts, if the British experience is any indication based on the documentary on BBC “The Trouble with Gays”, cited in the link on my first post of this thread. Gays have pretty much accomplished all their political & societal objectives in Britain, but the final analysis is that they are entrenched in wild sex and drug obsessions today.

“Christians are mocked with arguments” is the manifestation of demonic possession. I can’t understand why we argue with the devil. As Christians, we simply state our beliefs, take it or leave it. Then we vote for the best moral society we can get. Pro-Abortion and Pro-Gay will always win the argument when the premise is that there is no God, because their arguments are often very logical (as at the Garden of Eden). The results of cooperation with intrinsic evil is always chaos and despair.

 

[Wirraway]

It is not surprising that people with bad intentions would twist the words of another. Since you had to lie to make your point about my post, your point has no value. And you have no credibility. You cannot bge believed because you lie about what other people say just to make them angry. That is evil intent. Clearly you are unable to contribute ore participate in a reasonable discussion.

what are you talking about? are you even reading the posts in order? much less reading them at all?

 

[RyanML]

It’s statistics, and it’s hard to argue with, at least in principle.

Doubtless there are outliers, and you may be one of them. It is unlikely both that you would be completely honest about the struggles of your relationship here (you shouldn’t have to be here), as well as that all homosexual relationships are unhappy.

The fact that more homosexual relationships end in separation suggests, if the statistics are to be believed, that either because of internal or external social pressure, or because of the natural conditions of the relationship-type, homosexual relationships are less healthy, in general, than heterosexual ones.

Does that mean all of them should be made illegal? I don’t think so.

I would be the first to say that many gay relationships are unhealthy, but not because they are gay relationships. Too many relationships are based on superficial foundations and will never last. The idea that love is an act of the will that involves sacrifice and selflessness and not an emotion tied to youth and a hot body and great sex is something i believe is horribly lacking in both gay and straight relationships. This culture of obsession with sex is certainly not a problem just in the gay community, but it is definately a problem. Perhaps folks should look to find positive real life examples, like couples that have been together 20,30,40, or even 50 years.

 

[Pantheist]

The idea that love is an act of the will that involves sacrifice and selflessness and not an emotion tied to youth and a hot body and great sex is something i believe is horribly lacking in both gay and straight relationships.

I agree there.

 

[Scottgun]

Do any of these people who oppose any sort of legal recognition of gay relationships personally know gay people or do they just go by what they read in the news and see on TV? As a very happy, healthy, and partnered gay man, I have no idea what most of you are talking about.

Yes. Both friends and relatives. I’ll grant that anecdotal evidence doesn’t carry much weight, save to say that every one of those relationships confirmed the objective depravity of homosex. That some people can play with matches while standing over a puddle of gasonline and not blow themselves up does not make playing with matches over gasoline a good act.