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

[whatevergirl]

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

Hi Ryan–they learn about the ‘mechanics’ for lack of a better word, as to how babies are born, as I said the biology of it. My kids do not need to learn about anal and oral sex…because that is the crux of homosexual sex. There is no ‘intercourse’ in homosexual sex…male or female. That being said, they do not need to learn the ‘mechanics’ of that. Sorry it that came across too graphic, but that’s the gist of what would be taught if they crossed over into homosexuality in a class that is teaching about human sexuality from a biology standpoint. I have taught my kids about homosexual sex…and heterosexual sex. I don’t think tax dollars should be going to teach kids about homosexual sex, as it will be conveyed as a moral equivalent to heterosexual sex. Just like I don’t want my kids being taught to wear condoms, during premarital heterosexual sex. It’s not just homosexual sex I’m concerned with, being taught–it is being taught how to protect one’s self if he/she is having sex as a teen. I’m not for that type of teaching ‘lesson.’

I also don’t believe that the schools should teach their opinions of what is right and wrong in the sexual world either. When I was a kid, I learned how babies were ‘made,’ and the differences between males and females…but only from a biological standpoint. Once they begin teaching it, my kids will be removed. If others want their kids being taught homosexuality, that’s their choice. That’s the beauty of a free country. We can choose a different path for ourselves, if we feel the path presented is immoral.

 

[Pantheist]

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

Agreed.

Though it would be nice to see some class about different moral systems, taught without bias toward any one of them.

 

[Cinette]

Hi Ryan–they learn about the ‘mechanics’ for lack of a better word, as to how babies are born, as I said the biology of it. My kids do not need to learn about anal and oral sex…because that is the crux of homosexual sex. There is no ‘intercourse’ in homosexual sex…male or female. That being said, they do not need to learn the ‘mechanics’ of that. Sorry it that came across too graphic, but that’s the gist of what would be taught if they crossed over into homosexuality in a class that is teaching about human sexuality from a biology standpoint.

I also don’t believe that the schools should teach their opinions of what is right and wrong in the sexual world either. When I was a kid, I learned how babies were ‘made,’ and the differences between males and females…but only from a biological standpoint. Once they begin teaching it, my kids will be removed. If others want their kids being taught homosexuality, that’s their choice. That’s the beauty of a free country. We can choose a different path for ourselves, if we feel the path presented is immoral.

If you want graphics they want to go wrong way on a one-way street!:whacky:

 

[whatevergirl]

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!

Yeah…I can only speak for myself. The day immorality is taught in my kids’ schools, and thankfully, they have never been exposed to condoms being handed out, or courses on homosexuality…is the day they are removed from public schooling. Teaching kids to have sex outside of marriage…is disgusting, to say the very least. How about teaching kids how to read and write so they can put together a resume and so forth when they get out of school? To learn how to communicate better? Leave sexually moral lessons for the parents to teach. The school is not my kids’ surrogate parent. And if parents are looking to the schools to be such, there’s something so wrong with that picture I don’t even know where to begin.

Ok…I think I have gone OT. I’m sorry to the OP!

 

[Tracyms1974]

Hi Ryan–they learn about the ‘mechanics’ for lack of a better word, as to how babies are born, as I said the biology of it. My kids do not need to learn about anal and oral sex…because that is the crux of homosexual sex. There is no ‘intercourse’ in homosexual sex…male or female. That being said, they do not need to learn the ‘mechanics’ of that. Sorry it that came across too graphic, but that’s the gist of what would be taught if they crossed over into homosexuality in a class that is teaching about human sexuality from a biology standpoint.

I agree that this is unnecessary as well.

I also don’t believe that the schools should teach their opinions of what is right and wrong in the sexual world either. When I was a kid, I learned how babies were ‘made,’ and the differences between males and females…but only from a biological standpoint. Once they begin teaching it, my kids will be removed. If others want their kids being taught homosexuality, that’s their choice. That’s the beauty of a free country. We can choose a different path for ourselves, if we feel the path presented is immoral.

If you take your kids out of school, where are they going to go? Not every parent can home-school. Besides, what if the teacher is actually teaching the kids all the right things, such as “It is best to wait until marriage for intercourse,” and “Only abstinence is 100% effective.”? It is possible, ya know. Said teacher would probably hear it from some misinformed liberal parent, but you see what I mean.

Tracy

 

[whatevergirl]

Agreed.

Though it would be nice to see some class about different moral systems, taught without bias toward any one of them.

and so if kids have questions…like what type of sex do homosexuals do, if they can’t have babies? what might be the appropriate reply from a teacher?

That’s where the idea is good in theory, but it will open a pandora’s box that can’t ever be shut again, I’m afraid.

 

[whatevergirl]

Tracyms1974:
That’s true Tracy…I would have to really understand the agenda of the teacher, before allowing the kids to remain in the class. I am not a parent who doesn’t teach about sexuality. I want my kids to know everything they can, the morality of it as well, and the consequences, too. The great thing about the school system my kids are in, is if you wish your kids to not be present during anything about sexual biology, they can be exempt. I have not found a need…but the day condoms are being handed out…or worse, a condom demonstration of how to use one…(ee gads) I will remove them, and homeschool them. Working parents can homeschool. It’s not about sheltering kids. We are very open as a family and our kids come to us with a multitude of questions…it’s not a teacher’s job to be a surrogate parent to my kid. That’s my stance.

But, your point is well taken…if they taught that abstinence was best…then, that would be ok. But, how would homosexual sex be taught then? That if you abstain until marriage, then it’s ok? Most states, marriage is not legal between homosexuals…so, if they can’t get married …then, do you teach that it’s ok, as long as they wear a condom? This is why homosexual sex should be avoided as a topic in the school system. It would place teachers into awkward positions for themselves, and potentially give kids information they aren’t ready to digest.

This is what should be taught…homosexuality from an equal rights standpoint. Homosexuals should not be bullied, discriminated against, and so forth. What I am against, is the biology of it being taught. I think SSA could be taught, but it would take a skilled teacher to delicately discuss it without treading into the biology of homosexual sex.

I hope I’m not this confusing in real life. lol :hypno:

 

[newbetx]

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.

It used to be illegal. The sodomy laws were overturned. “Those religious moralists are bad, self centered action is good.”

The problem with this argument is that it relies on “separation of Church and State” where that means preclusion of church, God, etc. Since the country was FOUNDED upon the belief in God and the freedom TO worship Him and not that people should not be subjected to His will. In an alternative world, this non-religious view may make sense to them. What the real problem becomes is the belief that we live in that alternative world. More and more people believe this and we keep sending them back to congress anyway.

 

[whatevergirl]

Come to think of it…why do kids need to learn about heterosexual sex? I mean, even from a biology standpoint. I can understand the need to discuss how std’s are contracted, etc…but, I remember kids back in my day…some 20 years ago…who would raise their hands (knowing full well) and ask…can you catch that from oral sex? what’s oral sex, mrs johnson?

I mean…is it necessary for a teacher to be put into a position of having to ‘teach’ my kids what oral sex is…

I have taught my kids about it…I don’t think teachers should be discussing it with kids. Frankly, handing out condoms has done more harm for teenage pregnancy and std’s than not handing them out. If teachers are handing out birth control, etc to kids for free–kids perceive that to be ok in the mind of their teachers. I know that if I were a kid, and I was taught abstinence, but handed a condom…I would take that as a green light to have sex as long as I was ‘careful.’

It’s partially the reason why our educational system has become poor. If you go to Japan…do we really think this is happening? Before long, the USA will be a country filled with many C students who know A LOT about sex. While our international counterparts continue to take our jobs away.

Ok…I’m off the deep end…someone, reel me back in. I’m sorry OP.

 

[whatevergirl]

It used to be illegal. The sodomy laws were overturned. “Those religious moralists are bad, self centered action is good.”

The problem with this argument is that it relies on “separation of Church and State” where that means preclusion of church, God, etc. Since the country was FOUNDED upon the belief in God and the freedom TO worship Him and not that people should not be subjected to His will. In an alternative world, this non-religious view may make sense to them. What the real problem becomes is the belief that we live in that alternative world. More and more people believe this and we keep sending them back to congress anyway.

true, but I don’t want to become a country like countries who have Islam as the ruling religion. (for example) (and the laws are intertwined with religion) Then it would be…who’s religion wins out? We are a country also that is a melting pot of religions, and cultures. I understand your point, totally…I’m just sayin.’

 

[RyanML]

and so if kids have questions…like what type of sex do homosexuals do, if they can’t have babies? what might be the appropriate reply from a teacher?

That’s where the idea is good in theory, but it will open a pandora’s box that can’t ever be shut again, I’m afraid.

Many public schools now have comparative religion classes or teach comparative religion as a part of history courses. But they don’t teach one is right and one is wrong. They teach evolution as a basic in science and biology, but they do not, or at least should not, pit the theory agianst intelligent design or religion. Is there anything wrong with that? I can’t see what would be wrong with teaching about any type of sexual behavior as long as it was just for educational purposes and there was no agenda one way or they other. But you are right, some parents will object and some would think it’s good for their kids to learn about those things. Ofcourse you as a parent decide the best way to educate your kids.

 

[Isambard]

Because we should not enthrone into law a twisting of the clear purpose of human sexuality (reproduction).

By that logic, unreproductive couples, and women who have reached menopause shouldnt be married either

In addition, the law is about helping people and protecting people.

No stats have been produced demonstrating that disallowing gays to marry has helped anyone aside from the dogmatic.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder and we should treat those who suffer from it, not encourage them.

A mental disorder according to whom? On the other hand, schizotypical personality disorder is part of the DSM and I’d say you sound like you qualify.

 

[whatevergirl]

Many public schools now have comparative religion classes or teach comparative religion as a part of history courses. But they don’t teach one is right and one is wrong. They teach evolution as a basic in science and biology, but they do not, or at least should not, pit the theory agianst intelligent design or religion. Is there anything wrong with that? I can’t see what would be wrong with teaching about any type of sexual behavior as long as it was just for educational purposes and there was no agenda one way or they other. But you are right, some parents will object and some would think it’s good for their kids to learn about those things. Ofcourse you as a parent decide the best way to educate your kids.

Hi Ryan;

Yes, I agree…that teaching comparitive religions is not a bad idea…and my kids are learning about the three monotheistic religions now as part of history. Not promoting any particular one, the teachers just teach the facts of the religion.

The difference between that and teaching about comparitive lifestyles, is it dives into sexual arenas that are not necessary to be taught at the school level. College level, if students want to do that, but teens don’t need to be taught the ‘facts’ of homosexuality which again lead us back to anal sex, oral sex, and that homosexuals are striving to have marriage approved by the government. I am not sure how this adds to my daughter’s or son’s education. The same way, I’m not sure how their educational experience is enhanced if being taught that wearing condoms minimizes pregnancy, std’s…

I think that sex ed can be taught in a factual sense to encompass homo and heterosexual sex…suffice to say…anal, intercourse, and oral sex can all lead to certain diseases, if someone has multiple bed partners…etc…I’m using but one example, but you know what I mean? I don’t think that sexual ‘lifestyles’ on either front need to be taught. I think it’s important for kids to know the ramifications of their actions…whether they be homosexual or heterosexual…there are consequences to premarital sex.

So, in that way, it could be approached like that. That would be good, actually…no one is left out, but the subject itself is not becoming too graphic, or bordering into moral issues.

I always like food for thought.

 

[newbetx]

Living 50 years back much?

Fond memories… Played outside with the other kids in the neighborhood. Everyone looked out for the each others kids. Lots less to worry about. Sex ed was about how babies were created not how avoid the “nasty things.” Kids weren’t exposed to what they are now. Not there wasn’t divorce, abortion, abuse, rape, etc. There was much less of it because society was outraged by it and managed it before it became a big problem.

Now we have the gays whistling at our boy scouts. But we can’t say anything because that would be a “hate crime.” We worry that some nut will abduct our sons or daughters for his own pleasure. We have to battle to keep our own rights to worship. Affairs are portrayed as funny, not tragedies. Sex is just a diversion from the stress of life. It doesn’t mean much anymore. Divorce is the next step after marriage for a majority. Why bother? Avoid marriage and when you want to walk out, there’s less paperwork to do. It’s all about “me” these days, or the planet. “God who?”

You scoff at 50 years ago. I assure you, while there were problems and injustices, there was a lot more going for the US and it’s people than today.

 

[fix]

By that logic, unreproductive couples, and women who have reached menopause shouldnt be married either

Not by any logic would one reason that.

No stats have been produced demonstrating that disallowing gays to marry has helped anyone aside from the dogmatic.

What “stats” do we need to understand wrong is wrong?

A mental disorder according to whom?

Do you have to be a fancy chef to know a good plate of spaghetti?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

…

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

There are none. Period.

But, since the area under discussion is a “human nature” one, the ONLY thing to consider is the religious aspect, because human nature is a religious matter BY NATURE.

So-called “gay marriage” is in the same category as so-called “sex change surgery”.

Unless one can re-fashion an existing persons DNA such that their X and Y chromosomes are proportionately changed (XY->XX, XX->XY) it’s not a “sex change”, by definition. It’s merely an exercise in “sculpture” and “drugging”.

To give the benefits of marriage to anything that isn’t marriage is simply silly, and will warp society in it’s application.

 

[RyanML]

Not by any logic would one reason that.

What “stats” do we need to understand wrong is wrong?

Do you have to be a fancy chef to know a good plate of spaghetti?

You state as fact that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Since every major psychological and pediatric association that I know of disagrees with you, unless you have a reliable source to base this on, you should present it as an opinion only.

 

[fix]

You state as fact that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Since every major psychological and pediatric association that I know of disagrees with you, unless you have a reliable source to base this on, you should present it as an opinion only.

documents how gay activists pressured the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from is Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

 

[JRamosSFO]

Hi Ryan–they learn about the ‘mechanics’ for lack of a better word, as to how babies are born, as I said the biology of it. My kids do not need to learn about anal and oral sex…because that is the crux of homosexual sex. There is no ‘intercourse’ in homosexual sex…male or female. That being said, they do not need to learn the ‘mechanics’ of that. Sorry it that came across too graphic, but that’s the gist of what would be taught if they crossed over into homosexuality in a class that is teaching about human sexuality from a biology standpoint. I have taught my kids about homosexual sex…and heterosexual sex. I don’t think tax dollars should be going to teach kids about homosexual sex, as it will be conveyed as a moral equivalent to heterosexual sex. Just like I don’t want my kids being taught to wear condoms, during premarital heterosexual sex. It’s not just homosexual sex I’m concerned with, being taught–it is being taught how to protect one’s self if he/she is having sex as a teen. I’m not for that type of teaching ‘lesson.’

I also don’t believe that the schools should teach their opinions of what is right and wrong in the sexual world either. When I was a kid, I learned how babies were ‘made,’ and the differences between males and females…but only from a biological standpoint. Once they begin teaching it, my kids will be removed. If others want their kids being taught homosexuality, that’s their choice. That’s the beauty of a free country. We can choose a different path for ourselves, if we feel the path presented is immoral.

Well said!!! With 6 kids in school and number 7 on the way…I hope it doesn’t come to that.

 

[RyanML]

fix:
The Catholic Education Resource Center is hardly unbiased, but an interesting read nontheless. But this should not be news to anyone. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973 after several years of disputes. There were plenty of phychiatrists who were outraged and charged that the APA has given in to pressures from all the gay liberation groups. Because of all the political controversy, the APA decided to vote on whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental illness. Obviously the majority voted in favor of removal. But it’s a shame that they had to politicize something that should have come about through serious consideration of the scientific data. Instead of giving in to pressure, those on the other side of the fence would say that the APA simply acknowledges new findings and is open to rethinking its approach to human sexuality. I’m sure if judgements about he mental health of straight folks were reached from looking at patients in the practice of psychology, we could say all heterosexual folks are mentally disturbed. But that would just be silly.