Are there any non-religious arguments against the legalization of gay marriage?

Question

If you leave God, the church, and religiously based morals out of the equation, is there anything left on that side?

Answer 1

If you legalize gay marriage, you also need to legalize bigamy and polygamy. If marriage can be defined as a union between two people, why can't it be defined as a union between a number of people? Furthermore, if you define it as a union between two people, you're denying bisexuals of the same rights that gay people would have. Is that going to be your next battle? I'm sure you cannot extend the right to marry to homosexuals but deny bisexuals of the same right. After all, it would bet between several consenting adults, wouldn't it? And what about wife-swapping? Would two sets of heterosexual couples be allowed to marry each other? Where exactly do you draw the line?

Answer 2

The only two I can think of are that some people claim it's relevant because a gay couple can't naturally produce. That argument fails since marriage has long ago ceased to exist purely for reproduction. That argument fails miserably. The other one is that some are concerned about the children of these unions and their social standing among their peers. Gay people often have children from a previous attempt at traditional marriage to please their families and society, and some have children through the avenues science now provides. Every relevant unbiased children protection agency has unequivocally stated that children raised in a gay household do just as well as those children from straight marriages. That some of these children are harassed by their peers is not the fault of that child or its parents. When children learn bigotry at home, they take it into the world. Rather than denying gay couples marriage rights to protect their children from harassment, the effort should lie in educating the average American family to the dangers of teaching their children its okay to practice discrimination against others. You don't pacify bigots by denying others rights. We, as a nation, should have learned that already.

Answer 3

I disagree with those who say "the purpose of marriage is reproduction". It is not. It is the union of two people who love each other. The point of the union is for these two people to be bound together officially - they already are emotionally. Children aer a blessing but not necessary to the union.

Otherwise, you would have to ban heterosexual marriages between infertile couples (including post-menopausal women who marry) and couples who do not want to have children for whatever reason, but just want to be together.

Another poster says that marriage is a consequence of Darwinian "natural selection". Procreation does not require marriage. Far from it. If nobody was married do you honestly think the human race would peter out?

Answer 4

Well, you can look at from a Darwinian prospective. Homosexuality would be against the law of natural selection. Man and woman are made to breed and it is this reproduction that would further the human race. If you buy into the survival of the fittest theory, then homosexuals would be seen as the weak link because they are taking up valuable resources without being productive to the overall survival of the race.

I personally do not belive this ****, but it is an argument that is out there. =(

Answer 5

The only other arguement that I've heard is the concern about children of gay couples and how they are treated by their peers. The contoversy of communicating the relationship to a young child and how it will affect them.

Answer 6

Legalization do not matter and unnecessarily it has been made into a political issue by the political parties to grind their own axe because gay relationship does not serve any biological purpose in Nature.As a matter of fact religion should not have any thing to do with Sex.In India and Pakistan we have Hoards of hermaphrodite or castrated People Called "KHUSRAS" They are neither Males or Females and Mainstream religions never accepted them so they had to find their own guru and gods.I think religions should keep their noses out of this .

Answer 7

No.

Once you remove the religious aspect of the argument, you realize that heterosexuals are actually receiving special rights for being heterosexuals. Marriages should either apply to both or neither.

Answer 8

yep, I don't hate gays, but I do about puke when I see a photo in the paper of two gays kissing. Clearly it is part of the overall gay agenda to be able to teach every school child how normal is is to be gay, all films in schools we have to include the gay point of view, photos of gays kissing, and probably sex education classes showing how gay couples make tender love to each other. How nice, but ya don't get my vote.

Answer 9

Normally, a male cannot marry another male because the purpose of marriage is reproduction. A male impregnate another male.

Answer 10

I believe perverts should be allowed to do whatever they want in their bedroom.. It's a free country. It's a perversion, but heck why not? This is America, home of the free.