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

[Pantheist]

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?

Why should this be stopped?

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?

Again, why is this a problem?

 

[JRamosSFO]

Marriage cannot truthfully be discussed in a non-religious context. Marriage was instituted through religion. Marriage is not required to protect the civil rights of homosexuals, or to gain property rights. It is a desire of some homosexuals to aquire a false “right” to marriage, in order to validate their unnatural relationship and force a change is society’s definition of marriage. This is unacceptable in the Catholic Faith, and always has been.

 

[peter116]

I don’t see why we have to dance to the OP’s tune. Marriage is an institution founded by Christ. It has been hijacked by the secular world and demanded as a right to establish nonsense like same sex marriage. Restricting debate to the secular world only on an absolutely Christ-centered issue is like playing water polo in the Sahara.

This thread fails.

 

[Pantheist]

I don’t see why we have to dance to the OP’s tune. Marriage is an institution founded by Christ. It has been hijacked by the secular world and demanded as a right to establish nonsense like same sex marriage. Restricting debate to the secular world only on an absolutely Christ-centered issue is like playing water polo in the Sahara.

This thread fails.

I actually would tend to agree.

And as America is not a Christian nation (or if it is, I don’t think it should be), then the issue fails.

Or, I should better state, since I’m not a Christian, the issue fails with me. I will likely vote to legalize gay marriage, if and when I am given an opportunity.

But I hope the thread continues, because if the Christian position on gay marriage can be defended in a way amenable to general secular culture, it would more likely succeed.

 

[Pantheist]

Marriage cannot truthfully be discussed in a non-religious context. Marriage was instituted through religion. Marriage is not required to protect the civil rights of homosexuals, or to gain property rights. It is a desire of some homosexuals to aquire a false “right” to marriage, in order to validate their unnatural relationship and force a change is society’s definition of marriage. This is unacceptable in the Catholic Faith, and always has been.

I have no problem with this. So should gay civil unions be made illegal?

Should the government really be saying anything about marriage, a religious institution, at all?

 

[RyanML]

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.

Point taken. But as there are two sides to every argument and both sides of this issue are vehemently opposed, I think the only consensus would be that we agree to disagree.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

 

[rpp]

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

Well, you clearly are not reading my posts. But I am reading yours. You lied and twisted what I said into something I would never say. That is an insult and a lie. Admit you lied and we can fix this. Otherwise, you will only further prove you are someone who cannot really participate in a reasoned discussion.

 

[Pantheist]

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

An excellent and well-delivered case. It also seems to establish that children are potentially damaged by this situation. And it’s from a neutral (or supposedly neutral) source.

I could potentially conclude two things from this: one, that gay civil unions are potentially dangerous to the welfare of the state, and two, that the state is more effective than God at upholding his own institution.

Instead, I will have to think about this, as there are too many variables (welfare, the particular culture being considered, and other things). Further research is required.

 

[RyanML]

By the way, just to state my position, I do not agree that same-sex marriage should be leagalized. I understand marriage to be a sacrament and the government should have no say in such matters. I support civil unions but it is my understanding that many of the legal benefits of such unions can already be aquired through other leagal means.

 

[Pantheist]

Well, you clearly are not reading my posts. But I am reading yours. You lied and twisted what I said into something I would never say. That is an insult and a lie. Admit you lied and we can fix this. Otherwise, you will only further prove you are someone who cannot really participate in a reasoned discussion.

I would think, in good charity, that there is simply a misunderstanding.

After all, nothing false was stated about what you said. There were simply questions asking you to clarify your position. All you need do is answer the questions, and explain that the questioner misunderstood your meaning (or if you wish “drastically” misunderstood your meaning).

 

[JRamosSFO]

I have no problem with this. So should gay civil unions be made illegal?

Should the government really be saying anything about marriage, a religious institution, at all?

I don’t know the legal technicalities of a civil union. I believe that homosexuals should not be denied any civil rights. No, the problem here is that the government is speaking on a religious institution.

 

[Nickkname]

Cutting straight to the chase because I have to go to work.

Marriage promotes a stable society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones

Marriage promotes a stable society by providing the best environment for successful families (families are the fundamental unit of society)

Marriage provides an efficient and tested social structure in which to bring up children. Research demonstrates that same-sex parenting works as well as heterosexual parenting.

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

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)

Marriage binds the partners into a single unit for third party dealings

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

bbc.co.uk/ethics/samesexmarriage/for_1.shtml

Rational, non-religious arguments for why gay marriage should be illegal:

**1. **Traditional marriage (man and woman) provides the procreative building block of society – homosexual marriage dose not

**2. **Traditional marriage has existed since the dawn of mankind – homosexual marriage has not

3. Traditional marriage provides families, and the balance of a mother and a father for children – homosexual marriage dose not

**4. **Traditonal marriage usually lasts for a life time – homosexual marriage dose not

5. Homosexuals usually just want the benefits that come with marriage, but a civil union dose not equal marriage

6. Homosexuals usually compare their discrimination to interracial marriage discrimination, even though interracial marriage still includes one man and one woman, who are fundamentally different from one another and who fit the traditional “man and woman” definition of marriage

7. Homosexuals tend to have an increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, especially during long-term relationships

8. Homosexual “marriage” would open up a new can of evil on the world: polygamy, marriage for convenience, and beastiality marriage. By changing the marriage from a man and a woman to party A and party B, it opens up the door for men and women to take multiple parties into marriage, including animals if so desired. Furthermore, as stated above, homosexuals usually just marry for the financial benefits of marriage, not love. (However it is noted that people who take part in government-sanctied marriages do already do this)

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_marriage#Social_arguments

 

[Pantheist]

I don’t know the legal technicalities of a civil union. I believe that homosexuals should not be denied any civil rights. No, the problem here is that the government is speaking on a religious institution.

I agree. The government shouldn’t be saying anything about marriage.

People should be allowed to say what they like about it. If Jews allow gays to marry, then gays can have a Jewish marriage. Or an Anglican marriage. But not a Catholic marriage or a Mormon marriage. One man and five women might be able to have a Mormon marriage but not a Catholic or Anglican one. I have no problems with that.

 

[EasterJoy]

Marriage promotes a stable society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones

Transient adult relationships have their place. There is no reason for the state to provide a legal framework to bind every adult relationship.

Marriage promotes a stable society by providing the best environment for successful families (families are the fundamental unit of society)

Marriage provides an efficient and tested social structure in which to bring up children. Research demonstrates that same-sex parenting works as well as heterosexual parenting.

That same-sex parenting is being compared to “heterosexual parenting” which indulges itself in a 50% divorce rate! This is a “neat trick”: wait until marriage has become a parody of itself, then slip in a same-sex parody as its equal!

Marriage is meant to bind not just two parents to bring up children of no particular origin, but to bind particular people to each other into a family unit: a child’s* own* parents and siblings.

The misunderstanding that marriage is about providing “some sort” of parents or “some sort” of family comes out of the rationalizations used to promote our permissive divorce laws.

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

The Catholic Church does not have a problem with unmarried people providing for each other in community. That’s what happens at monasteries after all, isn’t it? The problem comes when sexual relationships which are fundamentally non-procreative of their very nature attempt to pretend that they are the same as procreative relationships.

If the state is concerned about the cost of broken relationships, the state should address the shocking state of marriage, rather than sinking the institution altogether.

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

Where did this come from? People can pursue their own happiness. The idea that this requires state sanction is repugnant.

Marriage is intended to promote responsible behavior between people who have made a commitment to a life-long bond of family life, for the sake of their children and grandchildren. It is intended to protect the spouses and children abandoned by those who would attempt to abandon that commitment. The way the divorce laws read now, though, that has become a farce. These laws have left families and marriages totally vulnerable to whatever whims either partner might indulge him or herself in for the sake of personal “happiness.”

Let the state defend the responsiblity we should have for the serious promises we encourage our spouses and children to stake their lives and livelihoods on. Once that defense of the vulnerable who would be exploited is seen to, let the state get out of the way and let people see to their own happiness.

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)

Again, marriage was not envisioned primarily as a vehicle for public health. It is a vehicle by which siblings are provided for and educated (yes, educated!) within the framework of the life-long relationship between their parents.

At any rate, our current divorce laws do not discourage promiscuity. There are essentially no legal penalities remaining with regards to extramarital sex. The penalties and legal responsibilities implied by extramarital sex are essentially the same as those for premarital sex: some financial obligations and rights for children concieved. The only thing that that brings on the “benefits of marriage” is the person commitment each partner has to the marriage, because the state is doing nothing in that regard.

Homosexual “marriage” legally binds people into morally reprehensible partnerships. We’re only making it harder for someone who realizes that homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality to withdraw from a homosexual partnership. Why should we support that?

Marriage binds the partners into a single unit for third party dealings

There are legal ways to do this that do not imply nor sanction a sexual relationship. The Catholic Church does not oppose legislation which allows adults to care for each other in non-marital relationships which are not sexual in nature.

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

There are legal avenues by which people can be protected from injustice without perverting marriage from its fundamental reason for existence. The legalisation of same-sex marriage stigmatizes the idea that the relationship between a married man and woman is unique.

If we do nothing to defend the concept of what marriage is, we are going to find the Catholic concept of marriage not only ignored, but itself made culturally reprehensible, if not illegal. Think about that.

 

[Pantheist]

If we do nothing to defend the concept of what marriage is, we are going to find the Catholic concept of marriage not only ignored, but itself made culturally reprehensible, if not illegal. Think about that.

What sort of defense do you propose?

And how do you know that this will follow?

I have no trouble with Catholics getting married in a Catholic way. So long as Catholics won’t try to stop others getting married the way they like.

 

[RyanML]

Rational, non-religious arguments for why gay marriage should be illegal:

**1. **Traditional marriage (man and woman) provides the procreative building block of society – homosexual marriage dose not

**2. **Traditional marriage has existed since the dawn of mankind – homosexual marriage has not

3. Traditional marriage provides families, and the balance of a mother and a father for children – homosexual marriage dose not

**4. **Traditonal marriage usually lasts for a life time – homosexual marriage dose not

5. Homosexuals usually just want the benefits that come with marriage, but a civil union dose not equal marriage

6. Homosexuals usually compare their discrimination to interracial marriage discrimination, even though interracial marriage still includes one man and one woman, who are fundamentally different from one another and who fit the traditional “man and woman” definition of marriage

7. Homosexuals tend to have an increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, especially during long-term relationships

8. Homosexual “marriage” would open up a new can of evil on the world: polygamy, marriage for convenience, and beastiality marriage. By changing the marriage from a man and a woman to party A and party B, it opens up the door for men and women to take multiple parties into marriage, including animals if so desired. Furthermore, as stated above, homosexuals usually just marry for the financial benefits of marriage, not love. (However it is noted that people who take part in government-sanctied marriages do already do this)

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_marriage#Social_arguments

The “traditional” marriage you speak of existing from the dawn of time would be more like the “evil” polygamy. It’s very popular in the Old Testament. And it’s quite the opposite with STDs. They are LESS likely in committed long term relationships. And obviously, according to statistics, traditional marriage only lasts 50% of the time.

 

[rpp]

I would think, in good charity, that there is simply a misunderstanding.

After all, nothing false was stated about what you said. There were simply questions asking you to clarify your position. All you need do is answer the questions, and explain that the questioner misunderstood your meaning (or if you wish “drastically” misunderstood your meaning).

No. Actually is was not an attempt to clarify my post. He introduced ideas that had absolutely nothing to do with either what I posted or the topic of this thread. He intentionally and maliciously distorted what I said into something so absurdly beyond the real of logic that the only reasonable explanation is that he was trying to provoke an angry response. That is not part of a reasoned discussion and such behavior disqualifies a person from contributing ti a debate or conversation. It is a perfect example of malicious intellectual dishonesty.

 

[RobbyS]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

According to this article about the UK experience, despite gay civil unions, unsafe sex “more and more” is the norm, not the exception. Before and after legalized gay marriages: Business as usual.

Let us not forget that in the 18th Century, “gays” was synonmous with" libertine." Gay sex is not primarily about sexual relatoions between male and male or female and females, but about “anything goes.” It is pretty much what used to be called "free love " Doing whatever feels good.

 

[wynnejj]

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, family and friends (as another post said). I do know gay partners who live quiet, respectable life styles. I am friendly with them and they me as neighbors. The reports of self-destructive life styles are generally true, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t many, many couples who have stable relationships. This is true before and after gay marriage legalization everywhere. When I see two people living in the same house, I don’t reflect on whether a sex relationship exists, any more than I would expect anyone to muse about me as a bachelor living alone and how I handle sexual urges. That is a private matter, and should be kept a private matter. As a Christian, sex outside of marriage for me as a bachelor is on the same par as same sex partners - so we’re really brothers in arms from my moral perspective. (If I speak of “devil” as in my earlier post, it refers to the human family’s propensity to sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin.)

That being said, gay couples do not need a legal acknowledgement as a marriage any more than prostitutes need a temporary marriage license. It is scandalous and opens the door to absurd laws.