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

[Pantheist]

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.

From what I saw, he was just asking you a question. I will read over the posts again.

How do you, unless you read his mind, know what his intention really was?

 

[Nickkname]

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.

You mean a marriage between one man and one woman is equal to a marriage between multiple parties? No, I don’ think. It’s very different. It was popular in the OT for cultural reasons - are you saying homosexual marriage is popular for those same reasons? Finally, do show the source of your information on STDs and the statistics. I gave you the source of my information, after all.

 

[fix]

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.

May I ask why this matters? I know, and have known, many people who engage in homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, pornography, theft, wife swapping, and much more. Some of them are very polite. They would rescue an old lady from a speeding train, they do not hurt puppies, they support charities of one form or another.

None of that makes me suddenly think gee these acts they engage in really are not so bad, or because they are such polite citizens I should really not think their bad actions are bad or those bad actions should be codified into law and given respect as if equal to good acts.

See my point?

 

[whatevergirl]

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?

Homosexuality, without marriage, has been going on since the dawn of time…it’s discussed in the Bible. The reason behind two same gendered people wishing to take that type of relationship to ‘the next level,’ at least makes some sense, over beastiality? lol There are some very deranged people who have sex with animals no doubt, but they make up a very small percentage…not even on the radar screen. To compare gay people to animals, is actually a pretty sad argument. I am against homosexuality, as I know it is sinful, but when we start comparing human beings to animals…that’s just an argument that will never hold water to me.

 

[whatevergirl]

Remember fix…the OP is asking for a rational argument. Saying that this will lead to men and women wishing to marry their pets, is not rational. Is it impossible? Sure…maybe there will be a few nutty people in the world who will ask for such a thing. But, this is not a sound argument against homosexual marriage/unions, in my opinion.

 

[fix]

Homosexuality, without marriage, has been going on since the dawn of time…it’s discussed in the Bible. The reason behind two same gendered people wishing to take that type of relationship to ‘the next level,’ at least makes some sense, over beastiality? lol There are some very deranged people who have sex with animals no doubt, but they make up a very small percentage…not even on the radar screen. To compare gay people to animals, is actually a pretty sad argument. I am against homosexuality, as I know it is sinful, but when we start comparing human beings to animals…that’s just an argument that will never hold water to me.

But, no one compared humans to animals. He gave the analogy regarding faux unions.

 

[fix]

Remember fix…the OP is asking for a rational argument. Saying that this will lead to men and women wishing to marry their pets, is not rational. Is it impossible? Sure…maybe there will be a few nutty people in the world who will ask for such a thing. But, this is not a sound argument against homosexual marriage/unions, in my opinion.

I see. So sex between to same sex persons and a pretend marriage is rational?

 

[fix]

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?

Or a father and son? Or two brothers? Or anything else?

The problem is we no longer see the absurdity in some very absurd things.

 

[Pantheist]

Or a father and son? Or two brothers? Or anything else?

The problem is we no longer see the absurdity in some very absurd things.

Maybe that is the problem.

I don’t see why incest should be made illegal, if both parties are properly consenting, though I would be reserved about the future of the children in those relationships.

And in terms of social contracts, in terms of a contracted promise to live together until either one person dies, or until a certain set of criteria is violated, I see no reason why a father can’t enter into a social union with a son, or brother with brother.

 

[whatevergirl]

I see. So sex between to same sex persons and a pretend marriage is rational?

Ok…please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that was rational. The OP is wishing for rational arguments. I’m saying that the slippery slope leading to people wishing to marry animals is an absurd argument. If we hope to win this fight, that is not the ammunition you take for the battle…a silly argument like people marrying pets.

Same sex union is rational to homosexuals who wish to have such a union. Perhaps, they ‘rationalize’ it, but perception is reality. So, for them, it’s rational. To me, to you, it’s immoral, therefore doing anything that goes against God’s laws, would be irrational.

 

[whatevergirl]

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.

This is a rational argument. Very good. You don’t have to convince me though (you seem like you’re trying to convince me of this), I view doing anything immoral, and constructing laws to prop up immorality, as irrational. Your argument is far from the marrying pets argument (which is irrational), and it’s a very good one. It’s actually already happening with health insurance. I won’t name the employer to protect the innocent, but I know of one personally who offers benefits to hetero and homo partners who are not married. Marriage has nothing to do with receiving healthcare, it all depends on the wording of insurance policies. But, other advantages could be had as well…so true.

 

[Donald45]

You ask for “rational, non-religious arguments.” Is this to suggest that religious arguments are somehow inherently irrational? Or that non-religious arguments are necessarily rational? Of course, neither of these assumptions stands up to scrutiny. Thus, why insist on “non-religious arguments” at all?

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[whatevergirl]

I agree there.

Ryan–it’s lacking in the hetero world too. Which is why we see so many failed marriages, in the hetero world…because people have lost their connection to God, to what is important, and we have become a disposable society. I attribute much of our ‘throw away’ culture to when abortion became legal. Talk about irrational? It’s downright infanticide. And when a society sees nothing wrong with creating an entirement movement and laws backing up the murder of babies, but calling it something else…like a right or choice, it will see nothing wrong with disposable marriages, unions, etc…

 

[whatevergirl]

You ask for “rational, non-religious arguments.” Is this to suggest that religious arguments are somehow inherently irrational? Or that non-religious arguments are necessarily rational? Of course, neither of these assumptions stands up to scrutiny. Thus, why insist on “non-religious arguments” at all?

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

72 posts in, and yours might be the most RATIONAL. LOL! That’s so true, Donald…good question!

 

[Pantheist]

You ask for “rational, non-religious arguments.” Is this to suggest that religious arguments are somehow inherently irrational? Or that non-religious arguments are necessarily rational? Of course, neither of these assumptions stands up to scrutiny. Thus, why insist on “non-religious arguments” at all?

I cannot answer for the original poster, but I can answer for myself.

I would like an argument that is rational, for obvious reasons.

I would also like an argument that is not tied to any particular religion, because I am not tied to any particular religion, and so religious arguments (arguments with a certain particular religion as the basis) will not sway me. I will continue to vote supporting gay marriage, and other forms of marriage (even absurd ones) until the government stops declaring who is married and who is not.

But, if I were shown a rational and non-religious argument why I am wrong, I would like to change what I am doing.

 

[Wirraway]

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.

pal, you need to unwind.

try this: just ignore me.

 

[RyanML]

May I ask why this matters? I know, and have known, many people who engage in homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, pornography, theft, wife swapping, and much more. Some of them are very polite. They would rescue an old lady from a speeding train, they do not hurt puppies, they support charities of one form or another.

None of that makes me suddenly think gee these acts they engage in really are not so bad, or because they are such polite citizens I should really not think their bad actions are bad or those bad actions should be codified into law and given respect as if equal to good acts.

See my point?

I do. I just wish people would stop making gay folks out as these horrible monsters bent on the destruction of family life and the moral fabric of society. For myself, i’m afraid that I don’t find friends on either side. I’m either too liberal or too conservative. I prefer to enjoy a rather simple life with my partner and we don’t get involved in politics too much. I couldn’t care less whether you agree with me or not. That’s fine, and as a Catholic, I completely understand . But I wish there could be more charity from both sides instead of all the mud slinging. I believe there should be dialogue but too many on both sides have set opinions and they’re not going to change. Then, in charity, could we agree to disagree? That would be nice. God bless!

 

[Wirraway]

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.

that’s the point, gays can closely duplicate the property rights aspect of civil marriage. there’s a small gap. it can be argued as a civil rights question at this point.

 

[JimG]

I could only repeat what Orson Scott Card says here.

 

[fix]

Ok…please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that was rational. The OP is wishing for rational arguments. I’m saying that the slippery slope leading to people wishing to marry animals is an absurd argument.

But, it is a slippery slope. No one ever talked about homosexual “marriage” until recently. Once the definition of marriage is thrown away anything goes. There is no “rational” argument to claim man/pet marriage is absurd and man/man marriage is rational.

If we hope to win this fight, that is not the ammunition you take for the battle…a silly argument like people marrying pets.

Silly? You mean because a certain subset of the population calls it silly?

Same sex union is rational to homosexuals who wish to have such a union. Perhaps, they ‘rationalize’ it, but perception is reality.

No perception is not reality. Reality is reality. People reject all sorts of arguments but that does not necessarily make the arguments wrong.

So, for them, it’s rational. To me, to you, it’s immoral, therefore doing anything that goes against God’s laws, would be irrational.

No, it is immoral regardless of you, me, or anyone else.