What arguments, other than religion, can be offered against gay marriage?

Question

Okay, so we've heard what the Bible has to say. Without that, without the religious backing of someone else's words, please explain to me why homosexual unions are anyone's business but those that are conducting them. Who are you, are we, is anyone to tell someone they can't have the same rights as a heterosexual couple simply because they are of the same sex? When it comes to children and the rearing of them by a homosexual couple, so long as the children are loved and safe, what's the problem? Being with loving parents would undoubtedly be in the best interest of an orphaned or abandoned child, undoubtedly better than some of the heterosexual parents that currently have children, regardless of whether they have two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each. Goodness knows that they would be raised in a more tolerant home with less chance at turning out as a closeminded fool who doesn't think for her/himself but rather lets religion do the talking without even trying to understand

I understand that there are some who apparently have seen the phrasing of my question and the details with it ignorant and apparently uninformed. I posted the question not because I didn't expect there to be a ready answer, but because I wanted to know what, other than religion, were the deciding factors in their agreement or disagreement with legalizing the union of same sex couples. Perhaps the way I phrased the details could've been better, my apologies that it wasn't. So instead of stating my beliefs I will leave the question as it stands.

Answer 1

My argument against gay marriage is this:

Gay "marriage" in the traditional sense and definition, is detrimental to the social fabric that holds society together. Part of what keeps socity in check is family and ownership. If we begin to throw the term around randomly, it undermines what marriage as an institution stands for. Mariage provides stability (or at least it is supposed to) for the growth of families and goals of those families

HOWEVER, I do agree, that US Citizens are guaranteed the same rights regardless of the fact that they are gay. These rights include rights of survivorship, common ownership, willing and passing property, ability to make health care decisions for the significant other. How do do that is the question that I have no answer for. I do not support the method being marriage. Legal unions, partnerships something will do, but not marriage.

As far as raising children...yeah, I am out. You are a homosexual, you can not bear children. I am sorry for you, but you can't have any. I am sure that there are gay couples who would be better parents than some straight couples, I just think it is a poor position to put a child in.

Anyway, you asked, and thatt is my argument and opinion.

Answer 2

Ok, lets separate an institution based on religion from religion.
Gays are for the most part promiscuous and predatory, not to say they are all for there are exceptions in every lifestyle. When gays wish to have general respect then their behavior should warrant it. If any heterosexual couple conducted themselves in public as I have seen gays do they would be considered trash.
Granted, a lot of heterosexual couples are pretty good advertisement for mandatory vasectomies or should have their children removed at birth. Pretty basically their conduct is judged on a Judeo-Christian ethic so I find it strange to condemnn on that basis and then condem the ethics to defend another wrong situation.
I'm sure there are gay couples who have formed a stable home life and are devoted to each other and could offer a child a good environment but they are far and few between.
The majority of gays who have made an issue of marriage and have been able to pull it off have lasted about a week. So I don't believe the demand for legalization of gay marriage is sincere but more an affront and mockery of a heterosexual institution.

Answer 3

You're so lost there's no way to begin.

First of all, marriage isn't a right of anyone. It's a creation of the government, or the church, or mankind in general. It's a privilege. Just living with someone else isn't even a right, it's a privilege that the other person offers you. Rights are things you can do on your own without any assistance from anyone else, abilities you have which society is obligated to refrain from interfering. You do not have the ability to cohabitate by yourself, it is a privilege of the other party. Since it isn't a right, the benefits you want by official recognition aren't rights either. The benefits of marriage conferred by the government were given as privileges for a reason. You don't want to think about those reasons.

Your discussion of adoption is ignorant. First of all, adoption is not barred to homosexual couples. Single men and women are permitted to adopt, and so are homosexual couples. All they have to do is show that they are fit to be parents. If you think that can be proven by a vague allegation that some heterosexual parents aren't fit, you don't have the capacity to understand much at all, let alone how to raise another human being.

The bottom line of the gay marriage debate is pretty simple. Marriage is a status that gets preferences. That's how it is. The gay marriage proponents disingenuously demand "equality", but the fact is that they don't want equality at all. They want to be included in the preference, without the obligation of showing they actually deserve it.

Your tantrum shows that you are the closeminded fool, one who has started with his conclusion, and finds logical proofs tedious.

I'm one of the few people that could be persuaded to agree with gay marriage, but you aren't doing a very good job of it, because you basically don't even understand the reasons behind that which you are railing against.

No, it has nothing to do with religion at all.

To answer your question, which you presume incorrectly has no answer, the reason why your homosexual union is my business is because you want the benefits conferred on marriage by governments which I pay for.

You make it my business by demanding my money as your right.

Answer 4

I cannot find a single argument with same sex marriage that doesn't have to do with religion.
"Marriage is to promote stability.....Marriage is to produce and raise children..."

Well, many heterosexual couples that marry decide not to have children or are unable to have children. No one is claiming those marriages are any less valid, so that strikes down that argument. Besides, many gay couples have and rear children successfully, either through adoption, from a previous relationship or insemination.

As far as social stability, I can't see how two people of the same sex getting married, buying a home and contributing to their communtiy threatens social stability. I'd say same sex marriage would actually promote social stabilty simply because we as a society would no longer be divided over the issue and the gay folks who want to marry would be contributing to each other and society in a way that they are prohibited from now.

And to the person who objected based on the fact that homosexuals would be eligible for government funding currently available to heterosexual couples, did you forget that homosexual couples pay their taxes,too?

Answer 5

I agree. Some religious people simply parrot what they've been told, rather than investigate for themselves. They assume simple things like "666" is the mark of the Antichrist who is coming soon to destroy the world, without stopping and considering that John of Patmos, who wrote Revelation, was addressing small local churches in about the 1st century AD--isn't it more likely that he was addressing problems the churches were facing at the time?

There is no reason on Earth why a state should not recognize a civil union of some sort between two committed individuals, no matter what their sexes. I would be in favor of seeing states doing away with the term "marriage" completely, and treating all unions as civil unions in the eyes of the law. If the couple then wants to go ahead and have it sanctified as a wedding in a religious service, that should be between them and their faith. It would go a long way toward recognizing the boundary between church and state, as required by the Constitution.

Answer 6

looks like you're pretty closed-minded to begin with. But, as my idea of ethics says that an ethical decision is one that advances the human race or at the very least improves its chances for survival, I can say that as a race/society, gay marriage does not fulfill this requirement. Gay couples can not naturally procreate. Also, adoption of children could result in their being less likely to be heterosexual, resulting in a lowering of human racial survival. I personally don't believe in taking rights away from people, but I also think that the government should not be involved with any type of marriage, only requiring a certificate of co-habitation for hetero and homo couples. This would end all problems.
Please try to be open-minded. And this is coming from a conservative and a very strong christian.

I will say that Christ never addressed the issue and I try not to focus on things he didn't address. Therefore, because society has decided to turn this into an important issue, I used my ethical concept, derived from christianity as well as secular sources to take a stance. But I really don't care what people do in their own bedrooms.

Answer 7

Better question, still, "Why is the government in the business of marriages, anyway?" The income the government garners from marriage licenses is a pittance, and married couples have lower taxes, leaving single people to feel the bite. It seems like a sham to me, fiscally.

Marriage is supposed to be about a compact, between two people to bind their lives and their souls to one another. (Which, yes. That is a religious thing; and, I won't back down from it. Nobody can make me. They don't have that right.)

Answer 8

It's primarily a religious argument.

The funny thing is that the average 'religious' person that rails against the immorality and sinfullness of homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular is in no place to judge anyone. Most of them have either cheated on their spouse, or committed some other 'sin' by the definition of the belief system that they choose to follow. Even if they haven't done that - their own bible says 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Answer 9

There are a lot of homeless children from the "straight" failed marriages that would love a home with a happy gay couple.

Answer 10

What if it really is one man created for each female and gay marriage would cause anger and illness in the sig. other of the opposite sex