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

[TeenyBopper]

Because we should not enthrone into law a twisting of the clear purpose of human sexuality (reproduction). In addition, the law is about helping people and protecting people. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and we should treat those who suffer from it, not encourage them.

Living 50 years back much?

 

[historybrat]

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

1. They have made their private actions open to the public. From a non-religious standpoint I really don’t care what you do in private, as long as its legal and well… private. You go through my city in chaps and singing the YMCA, or have a make out session in the middle of the public park, then I think its my right to say something. And let me state that I don’t care if its hetrosexual people or homesexual people. You do it ( it being really anything) than you open yourself up to public opinion.
2. By making homosexual marriages legal we as a society are in essence giving our public approval of gay marriage. I do not approve, and I don’t feel that I should be forced to approve it.

If it really is a private act than it should stay private. What I cannot stand is people trying to force me to believe the sames thing they do. I don’t mind honest discussion, but most tactics employed by those who want to see gay marriage legalized, amount to being hit on the head with a club.

Also I know its already been said before, but besides honosexuality in and of itself, the reason I don’t approve of gay marriage is that the US is a secular society, with a separation between church and state. Marriage is a religous term. I don’t care how many crazy denomination give approval to gay marriage, as long as any religion opposes (thank God for the Church’s wisdom) than marriage cannot be secularized, it keeps its religous connotations. While I don’t agree with civil unions, because I think homosexuality is wrong, I would agree that the state has the right to define what constitutes a civil union. If you really want a non-religous discussion/debate than don’t use religious terms.

Historybrat

 

[Cinette]

Just thinking of this subject makes me want to say a typical South African expression - Siss!

The subject is nauseating - it is ugly, repulsive, unthinkable…

And yet…there but for the grace of God? I have read that it is genetic but I have also read that this is just an excuse. I believe that the environment can provoke this condition in most cases. I just know that my instinct makes me want to turn away. It is hard for me to even read the posts. I do not have the patience.

This is just how I feel.

However, I would never discriminate against a homosexual. I have known both male and female homos and have treated them like I would any normal human being. I would employ a homosexual (I have employed two JWs).

There is one thing that makes me mad about some (maybe most) homos - they have to TELL you what they are! Why? I do not go around telling people I am hetero? They want “gay sports” why?

My sexuality is my private affair.

As for marriage. I think this is bad and I am sure that a homo in his/her right mind would not promote this. They tell you they did not choose to be homo. Some say they tried to be otherwise. Surely then, they must see that every child needs a Mother and Father in a normal happy Family environment. If it is something they would not or did not CHOOSE then they really would not choose it for a child of theirs or a sibling.

My natural instincts and commen sense tells me that this is something to avoid at all costs. Marriage is for a Man and a Woman only!.:yup:

 

[Newbie2]

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”.

Marriage is an institution founded by Christ. .

Um…no. Remember Jesus’ first miracle at Cana? It was at a wedding. He could hardly have founded a pre-existing institution. Good point, otherwise.

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.

Does that include incest with underage children?

Incest clearly goes against the norm of almost every society. Biologically speaking; very bad idea. Every see “Deliverance”? Very bad idea. Very bad.

 

[Pantheist]

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.

Except that there are more than one religion.

Another religious definition for a marriage could in principle be “between a white man and a white woman”. Should we expect the law to comply? I don’t think the law should say anything one way or another about marriage itself. See below…

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.

Though I agree there must be practical limits to the civil union contract (probably a division of benefits based on the number of working participants; after all, consent would bar the 500 children from properly participating), in terms of principle, something deeply bothers me about your argument, from my secular perspective.

If the employer has the right to give out benefits completely based on his values, without respect for law or the values of others at all, what is to prevent him from only giving benefits to white heterosexual protestants, or to black homosexual non-Christians? For some businesses this would seem acceptable (certain private schools, churches, or clubs), but for others (airlines, for example) this would seem unacceptable. It risks limiting freedom to seek gainful employment for otherwise capable human beings.

 

[Annn]

Just thinking of this subject makes me want to say a typical South African expression - Siss!

The subject is nauseating - it is ugly, repulsive, unthinkable…

And yet…there but for the grace of God? I have read that it is genetic but I have also read that this is just an excuse. I believe that the environment can provoke this condition in most cases. I just know that my instinct makes me want to turn away. It is hard for me to even read the posts. I do not have the patience.

This is just how I feel.

However, I would never discriminate against a homosexual. I have known both male and female homos and have treated them like I would any normal human being. I would employ a homosexual (I have employed two JWs).

There is one thing that makes me mad about some (maybe most) homos - they have to TELL you what they are! Why? I do not go around telling people I am hetero? They want “gay sports” why?

My sexuality is my private affair.

As for marriage. I think this is bad and I am sure that a homo in his/her right mind would not promote this. They tell you they did not choose to be homo. Some say they tried to be otherwise. Surely then, they must see that every child needs a Mother and Father in a normal happy Family environment. If it is something they would not or did not CHOOSE then they really would not choose it for a child of theirs or a sibling.

My natural instincts and commen sense tells me that this is something to avoid at all costs. Marriage is for a Man and a Woman only!.:yup:

It’s generally not considered polite to refer to homosexuals as “homos,” as that term is often used as a slur.

 

[fix]

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

If they are private why the need for laws changing the definition of marriage?

And private acts do have effects on society in one way or another.

 

[fix]

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

It is an agenda for sure. Many people want to abolish marriage and we see it in this thread. Even folks who claim to be Catholic. Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Christian Church.

 

[Scottgun]

If they are private why the need for laws changing the definition of marriage?

And private acts do have effects on society in one way or another.

Aye! If this was merely a private affair, you’d see a lot less protest. As I’ve said elsewhere, if there ever is a Theives’ Pride Parade, you will see more commentary on the wrongness of stealing. When people steal, they usually try to conceal the evil act, not parade it. And no one is trying to get public approval for stealing. That is at the core of homosex apologetics–gay marriage, unions, or whatever form it takes, amounts to no less than an attempt to get public approval for an evil act.

 

[whatevergirl]

Aye! If this was merely a private affair, you’d see a lot less protest. As I’ve said elsewhere, if there ever is a Theives’ Pride Parade, you will see more commentary on the wrongness of stealing. When people steal, they usually try to conceal the evil act, not parade it. And no one is trying to get public approval for stealing. That is at the core of homosex apologetics–gay marriage, unions, or whatever form it takes, amounts to no less than an attempt to get public approval for an evil act.

I think that largely has to do with thievery being illegal. If homosexuality suddenly became illegal…people would be secretive. I don’t believe that homosexuality should be illegal, however…there was a thread about that not too long ago, and why I feel that way, is that how about heterosexual sexual sin? That’s not any less grave than homosexual sex. So…without getting off on a tangent…I think the reason we wouldn’t see stealing parades, and so forth, is because stealing, murder, etc…is illegal.

But, we do see the limelight around abortion, and organizations
‘celebrating’ a woman’s right to choose…

But, abortion is legal also…again, if it became illegal, you wouldn’t see such promotion of it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cinette]

It’s generally not considered polite to refer to homosexuals as “homos,” as that term is often used as a slur.

I apologise :bowdown2: I used it as an abbreviation. I do not wish to offend.

Cheers

 

[Cinette]

I think that largely has to do with thievery being illegal. If homosexuality suddenly became illegal…people would be secretive. I don’t believe that homosexuality should be illegal, however…there was a thread about that not too long ago, and why I feel that way, is that how about heterosexual sexual sin? That’s not any less grave than homosexual sex. So…without getting off on a tangent…I think the reason we wouldn’t see stealing parades, and so forth, is because stealing, murder, etc…is illegal.

But, we do see the limelight around abortion, and organizations
‘celebrating’ a woman’s right to choose…

But, abortion is legal also…again, if it became illegal, you wouldn’t see such promotion of it.

Just my 2 cents.

I think your reasoning is spot on. Homosexuality should not be made illegal. As long as it is done behind closed doors. Also hetero sex. If you perform these acts in public then you should be locked up!!

 

[JRamosSFO]

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

Marriage is not a private action…We’re talking about Marriage in the context of a public institution that affects the public as a whole due to the rights associated with marriage.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think your reasoning is spot on. Homosexuality should not be made illegal. As long as it is done behind closed doors. Also hetero sex. If you perform these acts in public then you should be locked up!!

While I believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior, it isn’t up to the government to legislate sexual behavior between two consenting, non-family members. (who are adults)

I also don’t believe that kids need to be introduced to this lifestyle as part of a curriculum in schools, let’s say. The day this happens in my kids’ schools–is the day my kids are pulled out of public schools forever. So far so good, though…only std’s and the biology of sex is being taught at the high school level.

 

[whatevergirl]

Marriage is not a private action…We’re talking about Marriage in the context of a public institution that affects the public as a whole due to the rights associated with marriage.

That’s true too. I think we all can agree that this is a very complicated situation…See, this is precisely what happens when God is left out of the equation. I believe in separation of Church and state, but when we start redefining things like this, that’s where we have stretched the meaning of separation of Church and state to mean something it was never meant to mean.

 

[RyanML]

While I believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior, it isn’t up to the government to legislate sexual behavior between two consenting, non-family members. (who are adults)

I also don’t believe that kids need to be introduced to this lifestyle as part of a curriculum in schools, let’s say. The day this happens in my kids’ schools–is the day my kids are pulled out of public schools forever. So far so good, though…only std’s and the biology of sex is being taught at the high school level.

If the public schools stayed away from teaching the morality of sexual behavior, why would it matter? I think public schools should teach kids about all current issues regarding human sexuality, including homosexuality. But teaching morality should be left up to the parents. It’s when public schools start teaching the right or wrongness of sexual behavior that they cross the line, imo

 

[Cinette]

Marriage is not a private action…We’re talking about Marriage in the context of a public institution that affects the public as a whole due to the rights associated with marriage.

The structure and foundation of a healthy society is marriage. Destroy marriage and you destroy the human person, the family and society. You are left with a lot of disfunctional people! And there is also reproduction. How long do same sex unions last?

I have been fortunate to have found a good husband and we have an excellent relationship and everybody is always commenting on it. We have been together for 42 years and things get better and better. I am a little embarrassed sometimes to talk about it because I feel sorry for all those who do not have what I have. :blushing:

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Marriage is not a private action…We’re talking about Marriage in the context of a public institution that affects the public as a whole due to the rights associated with marriage.

Why not just give it a different name? Gayrriage or something. Personally, I’d like to see them have to be accountable to each other, and in the case of divorce, split up property etc. Show some responsibility, instead of breezing in and out of relationships.

 

[Cinette]

Why not just give it a different name? Gayrriage or something. Personally, I’d like to see them have to be accountable to each other, and in the case of divorce, split up property etc. Show some responsibility, instead of breezing in and out of relationships.

that is a civil contract. Marriage is for men and women

 

[Cinette]

While I believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior, it isn’t up to the government to legislate sexual behavior between two consenting, non-family members. (who are adults)

I also don’t believe that kids need to be introduced to this lifestyle as part of a curriculum in schools, let’s say. The day this happens in my kids’ schools–is the day my kids are pulled out of public schools forever. So far so good, though…only std’s and the biology of sex is being taught at the high school level.

I agree that it is not normal - it is ugly as I said on a previous posting.

They are a small minority but seem to be wielding a lot of power and imposing their views on society. If we do something that is normal we can be accused of bias! Look at Canada!