Arguments against SSM not in any way based on faith or tradition?

[BrainGlutton]

Are there any? I have yet to encounter one here or anywhere.

[BrainGlutton]

Actually I meant this for GD. Mods, please move, thanx.

[MaxTheVool]

There are plenty. Most SDMBers (including me) would tell you that there are no logically sound and compelling arguments, but here are a few, presented somewhat sarcastically and with absolutely no endorsement from me:

(1) it changes the meaning of the word marriage, and that’s bad
(2) gay couples can’t have children, and therefore something
(3) if gays can get married then that will destroy straight marriage in a fashion that Fermat wrote on the margin of a mathematical treatise once
(4) the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, therefore I don’t support the government allowing gay marriage as that’s part of the government allowing marriage
(5) it gives government legitimacy to gayness, so all the children will succumb to the pulsing biological desire to become gay that we all feel (don’t we? guys?), and the species will die out

[sylmar]

Surely you’ve heard the hardcore opposition say ( Okay, so they shriek it) that the gay life style is “unhealthy”? Followed up with a bunch of anecdotes collected from the lunatic fringe…

[Ethilrist]

They’re just trying to take advantage of a loophole in the spousal benefits rules.

[eclectic_wench]

I recently read an interview with Jeremy Irons where he argued that legalising gay marriage would mean fathers would start marrying their sons to avoid inheritance tax.

So many levels of batshit, so little time.

[Morgyn]

@eclectic_wench

I recently read an interview with Jeremy Irons where he argued that legalising gay marriage would mean fathers would start marrying their sons to avoid inheritance tax.

So many levels of batshit, so little time.

This has to be a whoosh. He couldn’t possibly have said that seriously. NO ONE CAN BE THAT STUPID.
Please?

[Little_Nemo]

@MaxTheVool

all the children will succumb to the pulsing biological desire to become gay that we all feel (don’t we? guys?), and the species will die out

I think lesbians are hot. Does that count as being attracted to homosexuality?

[Little_Nemo]

@Morgyn

This has to be a whoosh. He couldn’t possibly have said that seriously. NO ONE CAN BE THAT STUPID.
Please?

He’s said he was sort of joking.

I was taking part in a short discussion around the practical meaning of marriage, and how that institution might be altered by it becoming available to same-sex partners. Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non reproductive relationships). Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.

I am clearly aware that many gay relationships are more long term, responsible and even healthier in their role of raising children, than their hetero equivalents, and that love often creates the desire to mark itself in a formal way, as marriage would do. Clearly society should find a way of doing this.

[Thudlow_Boink]

Haven’t we done this before?

Arguments against gay marriage?
Secular arguments against same-sex marriage

[BrainGlutton]

@Little_Nemo

I think lesbians are hot. Does that count as being attracted to homosexuality?

Not exactly, but it does mean you are uncomfortably trapped in a man’s body.

[eclectic_wench]

It’s batshit even if he was being ‘mischievous’ (and the interview quotes didn’t read like that). It would be trivially easy to make father-son marriages illegal, just like we’ve somehow managed to make father-daughter marriages illegal.

[Miller]

[Moderating]
Moved to GD.
[/Moderating]

[ITR_champion]

@Thudlow_Boink

Haven’t we done this before?

Many times. Lists of arguments not based on religion are presented, after which certain parties reiterate their belief that there are no arguments on the topic not based on religion.

[Saint_Cad]

To repeat from one of the previous threads, one I heard (but don’t agree with) is that the government has no business creating marriage laws however the right of a man and woman to marry is an unenumerated right so the governments need to respect that under the 9th Amendment.

[BrainGlutton]

@Saint_Cad

To repeat from one of the previous threads, one I heard (but don’t agree with) is that the government has no business creating marriage laws however the right of a man and woman to marry is an unenumerated right so the governments need to respect that under the 9th Amendment.

But that offers no grounds to distinguish that from the right of a man and a man, etc.

[sisu]

After going through two divorces I think it’s crazy that anyone would want to get married in the first place, although my wives may disagree…

[puddleglum]

The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to raise children. The purpose of gay marriage is to express love to the partner. Children always need a stable environment. Partners fall in and out of love all the time. Thus marriage based on children’s needs is inherently more stable than marriage built on emotions. If we change the definition of marriage to focus on emotions rather than family creation, we make marriage less stable. Over the past 50 years laws have made marriages more unstable, and as a result divorces went up, out of wedlock births went up, single parenthood went up. I am sure everyone is familiar with the dysfunctins this has caused in our society, crime, drop outs, feminization of poverty, etc. Therefore it is best for society that we not further change the definition of marriage.

I am sure everyone has heard that argument and am equally sure that those who disagree with it will go on claiming every argument against gay “marriage” relies completely on religion.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, the problem with your argument is it assumes “the” purpose of something, as if it was the entire purpose of it.

You could just as soundly argue that gay marriage causes leprosy and ignore anyone who points out that it, y’know… doesn’t.

[puddleglum]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, the problem with your argument is it assumes “the” purpose of something, as if it was the entire purpose of it.

You could just as soundly argue that gay marriage causes leprosy and ignore anyone who points out that it, y’know… doesn’t.

Then what is the purpose of marriage?