Has anyone ever heard a good argument against gay marraige that didn't involve God, Sin or Religion in general? I'm curious. Personally, I never have.
2006-09-09 05:19:30 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Praise George Bush and Jesus...That is a religious reason, which I stated don't count.
2006-09-09 05:29:00 · update #1
Nope I never have. You know it's not like it's going to hurt anyone and it's only a contract and by saying this group and this group can't have a legal contract is illegal I would think. And when a straight couple get a contract and decide to break it God doesn't strike them and I never see any of the people who hate us so much attack people who have gotten a divorce, and with Catholics I know your never suppose to divorce and a married couple is never to use birth control, Lets just think about that for a moment, if the world didn't use protection hmmmm... OK I'm done LOL...............
2006-09-09 05:28:48 · answer #1 · answered by Super 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Just two, but they aren't really good arguments.
There's the continuation of our species argument; essentially that the reason for marriage is so that a man and woman will have children and continue the species. I find this one ridiculous because we already have overpopulation issues, and people are having children without marriage, so it doesn't actually influence much in that regard. A side argument against gay marriage here is that children need both a father and a mother in their homes. This doesn't make much sense because then what about all the single parents raising kids? Or grandparents? Should they not be allowed to raise children?
The second argument isn't about religion exactly; Its the Tradition schpeil. That Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and that that's proof enough. Here's the biggest issue with that; It hasn't. Christian marriage and other religions of the bible (Islam(Qu'ran) and Judaism (Torah)), have marriage only between a man and a woman, but they are fairly young religions in the scheme of things, especially Christianity and Islam. Hunter and gatherer peoples and other ancient cultures did not practice this marriage. They had much more advanced and complicated marriage rights, in which if your husband dies, you could be wedded to his ghost, or take his next blood relative as your husband or wife (If all he had was a sister). There was a large variety of different marital configurations, which the man-woman relationship was only one of many. Marriage hasn't always been in its current form and its naive of people to think so.
So there you are, two arguments that don't involve god or sin (though relgion does play into one of them whether people know it or not). Personally I think the religion arguments against gay marriage are pretty bad, so in that sense these are just as good.
2006-09-09 05:37:15 · answer #2 · answered by shadow_boy42 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There isn't one.
Regardless of what the twit rattling on about disease says, (you have to CATCH the disease to get it, two gay guys can "knock boots" from now til doomsday and never generate the virus if they haven't been exposed to it.
Social "moires" change, if that were a consideration interracial marriage would probably have remained illegal.
The "Vote" on the subject is the very same issue as the social moires, the Constitution(which is NOT set up on biblical principles, Eric) was set up to PROTECT the minority from the Tyrrany of the majority, not to force them to have to live under oppression simply because of public opinion.
The Main reason that this is an Issue now and trying to put their DISCRIMINATION into the constitution is that the 'phobes and bigots are dying off, the younger generation SUPPORTS the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry. If they don't force it into law now, it won't ever happen. What you are looking at is the death of the old regime and rebirth of freedom for the entire country.
2006-09-09 07:52:10 · answer #3 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not really. I have seen attempts by some to do so, but they always fall short. They usually address it from the angle of children in a gay household or they say there is no civil right attached to the term "marriage," both of which are wrong. Every legitimate child protection agency has long ago concluded that children in gay households develop normally in all areas and some even exceed average standards. The civil right of marriage was established in the Loving vs. Virginia USSC decision in the 60's. The USSC ruled marriage was a civil right for all Americans, and they didn't say "for heterosexuals only."
Other than those two arguments, easily disputed, I can't think of another one right now that doesn't include some reference to a religious belief.
2006-09-09 05:44:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope. I wrote to my Congressman, Speaker Denny Hastert, and he wrote back about how marriage is the foundation of society and if we diminish that, society will crumble. In my letter to him, I expressed a view that every reason I've been given against gay marriage is really a decent argument FOR gay marriage. So lets look at the foundation of society argument for a minute? It can hurt to have a bunch of other couples holding up that foundation? The Straight Homophobe that he is, thinks that we are a bunch of promiscuous heathens running around without self-respect, having sex with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Well if some of us ARE promiscuous, it sure wouldn't be the ones who want to get married, would it? Dang!
2006-09-09 08:49:04 · answer #5 · answered by michael941260 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never. Here's the real reason: most people never question what they're taught because it's become such a part of who they are and their worldview that it's either incredibly scary (at an unconscious level) or it's so interwoven that there's little room for self-inquiry. We've had millenia of a Judeo-Christian proscription against homosexuality, something that was added to Leviticus solely because the jewish tribes wanted to divinely mandate procreative sex to increase their numbers (Leviticus also has mandates against cutting sideburns, wearing clothes of 2 different weaves, etc.). It made it into the New Testament in Saul of Tarsus' (Paul) letters to early christian communities (e.g. Romans); Saul of Tarsus was raised in the anti-gay culture of his times. Appeals to natural law don't work because of the vast numbers of species that exhibit homosexuality. And one would do well to do the simple research and read the legal and laymen arguments against interracial marriage - they are startlingly the SAME as the ones against homosexual marriage.
2006-09-09 05:24:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The only one I have ever heard is the "tradition" arguement, which goes something like "Since gay people have not been able to marry in the recent past in America/Western Europe, this should dictate what we do now". I think it is a poor argement, and full of historical problems (what about native american tribes that accepted same sex marriages? There is some evidence that pre-1300, Western Europe did accept same-sex marriage) but it is something you hear.
2006-09-09 08:14:56 · answer #7 · answered by dani_kin 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, there are NO logical reasons to deny people the right to marry. You will hear about "family values." As I see it, those who marry, by and large, have littel respect for the family, are too eager to throw it away for personal reasons, leave children hobbled by lack of care and support. IF these are FAMILY VALUES, then I want nothing to do with them. And as for religious reasons, they are nothing but hog wash. The only thing in the Bible that pretends to be God's word is the Ten Commandments...and there is NOTHING in these that says anyting about sexuality. I personally find it more than convenient that Moses, before allowing ANYONE to see God's written word, smashed the stones in to rubble. IF YOU HAD the only evidence of God, Would you smash it or sell it on EBAY? Yes, I thought so. Good luck
2006-09-09 05:47:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The only one that I've heard that did not involve religion was the idea that same-sex couples aren't able to procreate. It's a stupid point because there are probably as many infertile straight couples that want to get married than same-sex couples that want to get married. On top of that there are other options for same-sex couples than just intercourse.
2006-09-09 06:58:50 · answer #9 · answered by carora13 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Human beings are social animals.
Though I am a Christian, I have also studied psychology, and anthropology.
societal mores come to mind.
Keeping up with the Joneses.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
People behave the way of the majority.
Sometimes it is ingrained, sometimes it is not even a matter of law.
It is just following unwritten laws in society.
Sometimes legality is only a way to get to underlying accepted rules in society.
2006-09-09 05:28:52 · answer #10 · answered by theodore r 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋