Seems to me that there can be no argument against gay marriage not based on faith and tradition for the simple reason that, while marriage has a legal definition, it is an institution based on faith and/or tradition.
I myself am all in favour of gay marriage. Traditions can and should change to reflect evolving (to my mind, improving) notions of morality.
What century are you living in? Believe it or not, pregnancy is no longer considered a reason to rush into marriage.
Clearly to undo the massive damage done to marriage over the last few decades, we should reverse all the destabilizing economic elements and return to the gold standard.
Right?
Cite?
And yet many people do, or it wouldn’t be known as a sign that the marriage is more likely to break up.
Non-religious or tradition based argument against SSM? Piece of cake.
SSM is icky! And the gumment should pass laws to reduce the net level of icky in the US of A.
Does that mean we get to marry gold? 
Or gold-diggers.
A married couple also have some legal obligations to each other that are of benefit to society at large, such as the duty to take care of each other.
Wait, wait, now, that unfairly assumes that society at large does not want them both dead.
Oh, and gay weddings will be a huge boost to the economy of states that allow them.
Easy. By making the “stability” you’re insisting upon available to children in families with same-sex parental units.
Why do you think so? I’ve always figured that the purpose of marriage, on a societal level, is to notify society that this relationship is (we hope, anyway) permanent. When it comes to stuff like who gets to make medical decisions for another person, who gets to inherit, who gets to file taxes jointly, it’s important for society to have a concrete way of distinguishing between your life partner and the chick you picked up at a bar last week. I figure that’s the function marriage is supposed to fulfil.
One purpose of long-term relationships is to provide a stable environment for children, but they can do that equally well with or without marriage - and a happy fifty-year relationship will do a better job there than a miserable three-year marriage.
And on a personal level, the purpose of marriage varies from couple to couple. Often it doesn’t include children at all.
Most of the magazines at your supermarket checkstand.
Could you please explain what this means?
Also . . .
Are you, or have you been married?
If so, what made you want to get married?
(But really, it’s this “feminization of poverty” thing I’d like to hear about.)
He means women are more likely to be poor. I thought he was going somewhere weird with it, but if you Google “feminization of poverty” you can get the general idea.
In the past I would have said marriage can be defined as a formal oath of life partnership between a man and a woman.
So, of course, the emergence of gay marriage means I need to change how I define marriage.
But marriages have always been contracted for a variety of reasons: love, convenience, social pressure, financial security, political gain, obligation, and yes, raising of children.
So, I don’t think the definition of marriage need be tied to its purpose.
Now, I do think you raise some valid points about how changes in perception of marriage and family could impact society.
Naturally as attitudes change society changes with them. And when laws are passed to reflect those changes, the impact may be amplified .
But the same thing could be said of the abolition of slavery or the granting of women′s voting rights.
Alleged concern for how the issue could, maybe, possibly somehow affect society does not justify denying the rights and freedom of so many people.
[shrug] Well, allowing SSM won’t make women any poorer, and will make some lesbian couples slightly more materially comfortable.
Thanks.
But what an odd term to use.
I mean, no one would use a phrase like "masculinization of poverty ", right?
Ha ha ha! …
(Googles “masculinization of poverty”: 1,380 hits )
. . . . . . . .
What’s that, poverty that won’t ask for directions?