Without mentioning religion (since religion does not govern this country), can someone defend the position?

Question

that gays don't deserve to be treated as people, with the right to marry whomever they wish, or adopt children, or obtain spousal medical benefits?

And don't respond with any nonsense about how gays have equal rights because they can marry someone they have no interest in marrying. If you, as a straight person, were told that you could ONLY marry someone of the same sex, how would that make you feel?

theswamii: You're preaching to the converted, pal. I'm all for gay marriage. I'm just trying to get other people to defend their beliefs with something pertinent, like the U.S. Constitution.

And for those who think the people have the right to vote on who should be allowed to marry whom... great. Let's put your marriage up to a national vote too. Okay? If the majority of people in the country don't want you to be married to the person you love, you're not allowed to be. Agreed?

Leogirl: Where can I find this Law of Nature of which you speak? Could you send me a link to a copy of it? Also, you're right. YOU will never change my mind.

stacey: No, I have nothing against religion. Calm the hell down. Religion does not govern this country, and religion is an intensely personal thing, between you and the God you choose to worship. It has no place making laws in our country. That is why I asked you not to mention it, which I notice you were incapable of doing.

Answer 1

there is no reason- I had a challange about this before. no one gave an arugment I couldn't shoot down. the closest thing to a good argument is that people dislike gay people- but people have and still do dislike people for centeries. many were outraged when in 1978 we legalized interracial marriage.
but its not about who or what you like- its about equality.

Answer 2

Gays do deserve to be treated as people. The laws on marriage have been in place, largely, due to the centuries-old definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. The U.S. has its marriage laws in place because they wanted to encourage the family unit (man-woman-children) because that is considered by most to be the most stable situation. People in traditional families have, in the past at least, been more responsible with their finances, paying of taxes, abiding by laws and home-ownership. All of these qualities are things the government wants to encourage.
There is no reason there cannot be a contractual agreement between two consenting adults, but to allow actual marriage would, in the mind of heterosexuals, lessen the special bond created between themselves and their spouses and would create a public outcry. This is also something the government would like to avoid.

Well, that's the non-religious argument but, to paraphrase LeoGirl "eeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwww". (joke)
To paraphrase God, "Stop it!".

Answer 3

As a single straight person it is impossible to add a girlfriend or boyfriend to your health insurance at work till you are married. Now you have certain companies over look these rules and allow homosexuals to add their partners to their insurance. I know they claim they are their partner. A couple cannot do this normally. Now gays can do things that normally if you are not married you cannot. That is not fair to someone working for Disney and they are not gay and they have a girlfriend. How does gays Expect to be treated as a family when they cannot have kids to have a family. The basic family is 2 parents and kids. The parents are the kids natural parents. People that are not gay don't get special treatment when they are not married. They are still single man and woman. A normal family and married has been set for thousands of years. World wide marriage is normally a man and a wife. Sometimes more than one wife but still between a man and a woman. Not 2 men or women.

Answer 4

You won't accept it, but here it goes. The future of our country is dependent on the future generations of Americans. They will be the ones who do the work, pay the taxes, and keep America strong. Since 2 gays cannot produce the offspring necessary for the continuation of the species, there is really no scientific or fiscal basis for allowing this type of behavior. If you want to leave religion out of it, fine. Scientifically, it's not in the best interest of the future of our country. If 10% of the population were gay and did not produce offspring to contribute to society, then the 90% that were produced would have to come up with the additional 10% of labor and taxes to offset the shortfall which was the result of the non-contributing gay couples. If you have a business, and 10% of your workers are not doing their jobs, you either get rid of them or demand that they change their behavior and start contributing. So, do you want us to get rid of you, or do you want to change your behavior?

Answer 5

-that gays don't deserve to be treated as people,

You don't want to go along with what the majority of society considers normal behaviour but you want to be treated just like everyone else? IF society accepts your behaviour as normal, who else will want rights equal to yours? How about the person who REALLY loves his dog? Where do we draw the line? Homosexuality is not like race or color where you do not have a choice in the matter.

Why should the rest of society redefine the word marriage to suit you? Call it what ever you like, the word marriage when it come to the union of two people of opposite genders is already taken.

-adopt children,

And that is the only way a gay couple can get children is adoption. That should tell you something. Can you say, it's not natural boys and girls? Mother nature allows for asexual reproduction in some cases with lower life forms, but to my knowledge there is no unisexual reproduction.

-or obtain spousal medical benefits?

Go to California --they have that there with the big firms.

-If you, as a straight person, were told that you could ONLY marry someone of the same sex, how would that make you feel?

It would make me feel like the homosexual race is doomed to extinction within about 50 years. As for what I would do? I'd carry on just like I have been knowing my children wouldn't have to put up with homosexuals much longer.

I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I don't want to go pound on them or kill them. And should I see that happening I would probably come to their aid. But I probably wouldn't invite him to my house for dinner.

Why do you even ask the question? Your mind is already made up as to what the answer is.

Answer 6

As long as marriage is considered a religious act, I guess the churches get to call the shots.

Perhaps its time that separation of church and state was implemented?

If you get married, it should have no effect whatever on your civil rights. There should be 2 completely separate contracts - one where you are religiously married and another one where you have a civil contract to form a partnership with another person.

Separation of church and state, for marriage, hasn't arrived.

Answer 7

Gays are people, therefore, they should have the right to do what they want. It does not hurt you, it just may not be your cup of tea. So stop being so righteous and egotistical, stop thinking that your beliefs are the only way life should be.

No, I am not gay. But I could care less what they do. But they should be allowed to pursue happiness, just as others can.

Answer 8

Simple. If the majority does not support the position of gay marriage, then it doesn't get voted into law. That's how democratic governments work.

Edit: We're talking about group rights here, nimrod, not personal relationships.

Answer 9

Kensey found 50% of males surveyed had performed a sexual act with another male at one point in their lives. It is evident the disdain we have as a culture for same sex sexual activity is somewhat hypocritical as a fabric driving policy making.

Answer 10

The answer is simple, our government demands to dictate our private life, which is wrong. It should NOT be a benefit for citizens to marry, period.