Can I have a SECULAR reason why gays shouldnt be allowed to marry??

Question

I dont get this. The current administration is attempting to make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that will ban gay marriage. I THOUGHT the Constitution was supposed to PROTECT freedoms, not LIMIT them. Are there any other amendments that limit freedoms?
I cannot, for the life of me, think of one secular reason why gays shouldnt be allowed to marry. Lets all remember now - our Forefathers designed our government to have a separation of church and state...so, tosssing out any preconvieved notions of what your religion says about gay marriage - can you provide any other reasons to outlaw it?
I love the excuse that the "sanctity of marriage" needs to be protected... The original anti-gay marriage bill was penned by a Christian who was FOUR TIMES divorced.....yup, marriage is DEFINITLY sanctimonious in his case....

So, why not allow them the same freedoms that you and I have?? Please, intelligent responses only - no homophobes please...

You read it here first people....apparently, homosexuality leads to bigamy and beastiality....wow, I didnt know that! Boy, gays sure are perverts huh?? Come on people!!!!!!!! You cant REALLY think that way, can you????

Answer 1

The argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to bestiality is really rather silly. Lets ban education in case somebody learns chemistry and makes a bomb, as well.
Comparing two consenting adults entering into a union to somebody wanting to marry a goat or a twelve-year-old is extremely insulting and very far-fetched.
The argument that its unnatural is silly as well; monogamy is unnatural, after all, but nobody has a problem with that. Perhaps we shouldn't allow sterile people to marry too; there no natural purpose in them getting it on, is there, nor will their kids be taxpayers.
If we're going to argue on the side of history and tradition, we should probably also re-institute slavery and usher women back into the kitchens.
"Every kid needs to be nurtured by their mother and disciplined by their father. Being disciplined by the nurturer can be very traumatic." I'm sorry, but what planet are you on? I, as a woman, am doomed to be a nurturer? My husband is doomed to dole out discipline? So much for equality, nice going. I wasn't raised this way, and I'm respected and praised by everybody for the kind of person I've become, even by my parents, although they sometimes disagree with me.
Heterosexual abuse of the system is already in its advanced stages, in case you haven't noticed.
That argument is moot.
The idea that homosexuals are basically psychologically unhealthy has been invalidated by science, and the sweeping generalizations applied to gay men and women are misguided; its not an attempt to look more feminine or more masculine, its an attempt to counteract the effect of gender on appearance. Gay men and women often-times want to be viewed as individual people, instead of some perfectly fitting half of a golden locket.
The whole "founding fathers" argument is flawed too; they may have been fundamental Christians (and they were), but why does this sentence the rest of us, so many years later, to follow warped Christian ideology? It's beyond me.
The chief achievement of civilization is that we've eliminated the need for discrimination against people to maintain peace and stability; anyone arguing against gay marriage is invalidating racial equality and suffrage. The same arguments you're using against gay people are the ones used against blacks and women. The fact that we have transcended gender as a limitation for love is amazing and honorable.
The only half-decent secular argument against gay marriage is that marriage is a religious concept to begin with, and crossed over into secular territory much later. But this still doesn't explain why gay couples cannot have the same government benefits that heterosexual couples get. Ideally, marriage would be that thing people do in churches, and the government-related benefits and unions would be different subject entirely and equal for all. The government has no place endorsing heterosexual unions above homosexual unions. "We must protect families" my ***. More like "we must protect our secret christian values disguised in cloaks of secularism for those who aren't brainwashed by blind faith yet".

Answer 2

Immorality isn't just a religious notion. Nor is the idea of a man and woman marrying. It technically does defy nature to have man and man copulate (doesn't biologically work see). None of those are "religious" ideas. So, then you get to the whole slippery-slope thing about bigamy and polygamy and bestiality etc. Again, not a religious issue. Simple fact is, society has to draw the line somewhere and our current "everything goes" society must come to a point where we say "enough is enough". Again, not religious.

And I would like to say that I agree with you and your rant about the "sanctity" of marriage. I for one, am appalled at how easy it is to divorce and how many people go into a marriage "for now" rather than "for life" which is the idea. THAT actually offends me much more than gays marrying.

For your comment: Dumbass. I never said that homosexuality leads to such things. The point was in allowing one marriage, why not allow them all. If you want to marry a goat, why can I stop you? Oh right, tradition, morality, and the law.

Answer 3

Even secular opinions would include that marriage is between a man and a woman. There have been amendments that limit freedoms -- Prohibition (repealled of course).

I defintely don't think there should be an amendment banning it.

I personally have mixed feeling on the subject. I'm ok with a civil union but do think that marriage should be man/woman. Basically provide all the benefits of marriage to a gay couple but not specifically endorse as a marriage.

Answer 4

Secular reason #1. A homosexual union will not produce more children, thus more adults who will become taxpayers.

Secular reason #2. The dynamic of a mother and a father is very important to the development of a child. While there are many children who are products of single parents who do very well and even children raised by homosexual couples that do even better in some cases, the dynamic of the mother and father is necessary. Every kid needs to be nurtured by their mother and disciplined by their father. Being disciplined by the nurturer can be very traumatic.

Secular reason #3. Fraud- If homosexual people can get married for all of the benefits that go along with being married, there is nothing to stop heterosexual people from taking advantage of the system.

Secular reason #4. Denial. Homosexual men are always attempting to look more feminine while homosexual women are always attempting to look more masculine. If a homosexual man is trying to look more feminine and more attractive to the other male counterpart, then that is a direct indication that homosexual men are really attracted to femininity.

Answer 5

Other than the fact it contributes to the moral decay of a society?
Other than most nations in the world share the same view?
Other than being trendy, you want to change 2000 years of prescident and law?
Other than the fact once you do so, ALL rules are off. Plural marriage, Marry your Pets, Marry your sister, Marry 12yr olds. The market becomes open.

And your view of the Constitution is incorrect. There are many limits in the document.

Being Gay is not worthy of special rights. Other than having a better campaign, it would be seen as a fetish. I don't see People into Scat sex or dressing as Furries geting any special rights?
But homsexuals have over time tried make what they do, Mainstream.

Answer 6

Marraige was created by religious instituitions...and then governments started to license them. In government's eyes..it is still a borrowed right for them to license them. Marriage as an instituition is intellectual prorety of the relgious instituitions -so to speak. So governments are reluctant to dispense it to gays without consent of the instituitions that created it.
Why can't gays have the same rights as man and woman and call thier union a 'gayrraige'? Why is it that always everyone else has to look at the things their way? Would it hurt fot gays to look at thing the other people's way for once for a change?

Answer 7

Marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of religion.

And if you actually read the Constitution you will find there is NO MENTION of the separation of church and state but rather that we are endowed BY GOD with certain unalienable rights. Sounds like the founding fathers WERE Christians. Even from a secular point of view the privileges and advantages of marriage were created for the benefit of people who are creating and raising children. Not for two flamers who want insurance benefits for their AIDS spreading parties.

Answer 8

Gays can't marry because that's not what marriage is. The dictionary defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and this definition has been in place since before there was a written dictionary. Now, before you bash me over language, read my compromise solution. It's in my answer to this question:

Answer 9

In the 60s they proposed an amendment to ban interracial marriages. I think this bill will go down a similar path, so I'm not too worried. That's not to say we shouldn't voice our opinions though, to speed up the process of making gay marriage legal.

Answer 10

Marrage is not for the benefit of the two people getting married. Marrage is to protect the welfare of the off-spring of the Marrage.