Can anyone offer a cogent non-religious objection to same-sex marriages?
One rather silly problem was encountered by the first guys that got married in Toronto. They were flying down to the States for a big gay conference and tried to fill out their declaration form as if they were married. But the border guards didn’t recognize gay marriage and refuesed to allow them to submit one form (but allowed them to submit two which they refused to grasp another 15sec of fame).
So I guess you could say that it will generate a small number of problems internationally. At the extreme you could make the same arguments against interacial marriage since I believe a Muslim woman can be put to death if she travels to Saudi Arabia with her non-Muslim husband.
There are still a handful of countries that have extreme anti-homosexuality laws that could cause problems for a same-sex couple that travels there.
Which isn’t so much an argument against gay marriage as it is a warning for married gays that are thinking of traveling to such places. OTOH, unmarried gays could easily have the same problems, it’s just not quite as obvious that they’re gay.
Heres some that I’ve heard. I fully support gay marriage personally though, don’t expect me to step up and defend these. 
- Homosexuality breeds disease (i.e. AIDS levels in homosexuals)
- People will take advantage of the tax benefits etc. by just getting a “gay marriage” with business partners, etc.
- You can’t trust your male kids with male homosexuals (for example, scout leaders) since they have sexual desires for males (and the same for females)
- Proper paternal/maternal values won’t be instilled into kids who have two same sex parents.
All I can think of off the top of my head.
[ol]
[li]Heterosexuality breeds disease as well, if it isn’t gone about safely. Most of the major syphilis outbreaks are straight epidemics.[/li][li]This is quite easy to do even now, given that the business partners are of opposite sexes. There is no “Are you really in love?” test for straight marriage.[/li][li]I don’t see how this has anything to do with same-sex marriage. It’s just one of the old slanders against homosexuality in general.[/li][li]And all of those single-parent families that straight people manage to produce are so balanced and everything.[/li][/ol]
sibyl:
Those reasons are so easily debunked that I believe they can be dismissed as “justification after the fact”-- ie, psuedo-nonreligious justifications cooked up by people who disagree on religious grounds but want to sound like they don’t.
[QUOTE=sibyl]
Heres some that I’ve heard. I fully support gay marriage personally though, don’t expect me to step up and defend these.
- Homosexuality breeds disease (i.e. AIDS levels in homosexuals)
…QUOTE]
Isn’t this an argument FOR gay marriage. Spread of AIDS and STIs are the result primarily of promiscuity, which was rampant in the homosexual community because they didn’t get married. Perhaps by allowing homosexuals to marry, promiscuity would decline and as such transmission of STIs would drop too. Just a thought.
Civilization is based on one principle alone.
Family.
Without family there is no civilization.
Gay Marriages, will destroy the family structure that OUR Civilization is based upon.
Humanity has never existed as other species, which communally raise children.
And certainly has never existed where the concept of a mother or father does not exist.
It’s not the same to adopt a child to a family of two unmarried guys, because the child will still relate to his/her mother.
But to adopt to two gay guys, how will the child relate to the mother then? And where will the motherly influence be?
Mothers and Fathers raise children differently, without both, you have an imbalanced child.
There’s no point in refuting my facts…because they are all that.
If it worked, then we’d all have just mothers, or just fathers. But it doesn’t work, humans need both a mother and a father.
They need the bonds that come from both.
I can’t wait until some child grows up, and sues his gay parents, or the government for allowing his gay parents to adopt him, on the pretense that they denied him the right to grow up in a normal family.
and we have the right to legislate that why?
It is the power of the States to “uphold moral and spiritual beliefs” whatever they be, I don’t think the Feds should make this nation all gay marriage, or all no gay marriage rather, leave it up to the States individually.
"Mothers and Fathers raise children differently, without both, you have an imbalanced child.
There’s no point in refuting my facts…because they are all that."
Many people with straight parents grow up without one or the other, because of death or divorce.
Are you arguing all these people are imbalanced?
Otara
Yes, though with the knowledge that you at least had a father or mother usually helps negate it some.
However when a teen girl comes into a counciling or such about sexual relations, the first question asked is usually “Do you live with your father?”
Most girls who are having a hard time in relationships are usually abused by their step-fathers, or do not live with their natural father.
That’s just old stuff off the top of my head, anyone wants to challenge it please do, if I get around to it maybe I’ll find a more proper source.
But by imbalanced that does not necessarily mean the person is “crazy”, but they certainly have a harder life than if they had a solid family of a mother and father and 2 siblings while growing up in close proximity to their Grandparents.
Strong family ties give people a network to work in the competitive world.
Hey, The_Broken_Column… are they facts just because you say they are?
If you think they are… They’re refuted… just 'cause I say they are.
Now, if you’d post some proof of your assertion…
How about you just prove I’m wrong…my “facts” are the way it’s worked in every major civilzation in the past 5,000 years.
Why should I have to defend what has worked for so long? You just think, that you in your infinite wisdom of some 20 odd years, or 40 odd years, can rewrite civil functionality on some principle of “Equality”.
If you allow Gays to marry, why not allow some dude to marry a dog? What’s the difference?
Or cows?
Or a chicken and a woman?
Or a hamster and a man?
A line was drawn where it created the most strong social cohesion.
If you can disprove that, I am sure that some reward is in order, such as a pulitzer.
Excuse me. The way it works here is that if you claim a fact, you must support that it is actually a fact.
If I claim that inhabitants of the planet Szertiba are blue, it would be up to me to support it rather than someone trying to Google Szertba and attempt to disprove something that I made up out of thin air.
Ball in your court…
No.
And especially not this one.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Yes we have.
Wrong. The Moso in south-western China doesn’t even have a word for “father”.
Cite?
Same place as a child of a single father.
Possible.
Nope.
Illogical and unproven, in that order.
Some people shouldn’t be allowed outside the Pit, so they could be responded to in a proper manner. This includes you.
Why not? Do you mean that everything that’s existed for a long time is automatically the perfect solution?
The dog isn’t a consensual partner. Any more questions, Einstein?
"However when a teen girl comes into a counciling or such about sexual relations, the first question asked is usually “Do you live with your father?”
Not by me it isnt, not everyone is a fan of psychodynamics. Too many factoids to argue against here sadly, hopefully someone else has the energy.
Topics in dispute:
kids ‘need’ fathers or mothers to grow up healthy
Children cant grow up healthy with gay parents
marriage is only about having children
risk means something shouldnt happen
the default position should be proving gay marriage is safe, rather than having to prove its unsafe in regards to having children.
The funnniest thing of all this of course is that theres tons of kids growing up with gay parents either way, all that changes is whether they’re parents relationship is recognised by the government or not.
Otara
[quote]
How about you just prove I’m wrong…my “facts” are the way it’s worked in every major civilzation in the past 5,000 years.**
Sparta apparently doesn’t fit your criteria.
How embarrassing…
First off, my fact is the 5000 years of cyclical rise and fall of civilizations.
Civilizations at their peak (with the ONLY exception of Greek civilization which was never a cohesive society to begin with), were moral societies.
Israel, Rome, Soviet Union, Babylon, France (Monarchy), Catholic Church in fact.
The moral collapse results in the eventual collapse of the structure itself.
This has always included promiscuity, prostitution, homosexuality, beastiality.
If you can somehow magically explain, why Gay Marriages will not do to our civilizations today, what rampant do whatever you want society did to Rome, and all the other above nations, then by all means explain.
However, until then, take your socialist propoganda elsewhere, because a guy sitting there saying…“look at this isolated group, they function fine” is subjective.
Civilizations don’t take well to a collapse of morality on all levels.
And the arguement that Animals can’t consent is stupid. A Dog is not going to divorce his/her wife/husband if they get married…what more consent do you need?
Morals are lines drawn by choice, you want to move the line down court a little bit, to us who don’t want to move it at all, we see it for what it really is.
An excuse for more immoral freaks to move the line even further.
History is the proof.
Decadence, is the killer of all great and weak.