The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Sorry, but this quote from your article is the gist of the argument, and is alarmingly false. I have pursued this line of questioning previously and reached the same answer. This is the ONLY REAL REASON fear filled conservatards are against gay unions and it is false reasoning. Your article is just that much more bunk, and deserves NO CREDIBILITY.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

Polygamous marriage is illegal in all 50 states. Allowing two people of any sex to marry DOES NOT threaten anti-polygamy laws in any way.

I disagree......the biggest threat gay marriage poses is the precedent of a special interest group being able to impose upon the whole of society something which the majority of society does not deem acceptable......
 
I disagree......the biggest threat gay marriage poses is the precedent of a special interest group being able to impose upon the whole of society something which the majority of society does not deem acceptable......

What is imposed upon the whole of society? And is it the majority that rules totally? Or is the minority protected by the gov't?
 
Except that does not even begin to close the case.

Straight couples are granted up to 1,400 benefits (admittedly some are minor) when they get married. How about we give those same benefits to gays and then call it "case closed"?

should we also give those benefits to straight couples who have chosen not to marry?......how about roommates, who have no intimate relationship whatsoever......why not to a couple of close friends who just want benefits?......if there are government granted benefits to married couples, they should serve a legitimate government purpose or they should be discontinued........if they do serve a legitimate government purpose they should only be extended to unmarried couples if they also serve that purpose........quite frankly, it would seem to me that if a gay couple could show their relationship served the same purpose it likely isn't a purpose the government should be granting a marital benefit for......
 
What is imposed upon the whole of society? And is it the majority that rules totally? Or is the minority protected by the gov't?

treating the union between two men or two women as the equivalent of marriage.....which has been defined as the relationship between one man and one woman since before this country existed......and, are there times when the majority need to be protected from the whims of the minority?........I believe there are......there is no "right" to marry someone of the same sex......neither heterosexuals or homosexuals are able to do so, so there is no discrimination.......homosexuals would LIKE to be "married", but that doesn't mean we have to alter the definition of "marriage" to fulfill their whims.....
 
should we also give those benefits to straight couples who have chosen not to marry?......how about roommates, who have no intimate relationship whatsoever......why not to a couple of close friends who just want benefits?......if there are government granted benefits to married couples, they should serve a legitimate government purpose or they should be discontinued........if they do serve a legitimate government purpose they should only be extended to unmarried couples if they also serve that purpose........quite frankly, it would seem to me that if a gay couple could show their relationship served the same purpose it likely isn't a purpose the government should be granting a marital benefit for......

If the gov't were promoting population growth, then straight couples would provide a benefit to the state that gay couples could not. But our gov't is not promoting population growth.

Any other benefits that straight couples provide would also be provided by gay couples who were allowed to marry.

As for the couples choosing not to get married, they have made that choice. Gays were never allowed the choice.

The other arguments don't apply because there is no committed partnership, as in a loving couple.
 
treating the union between two men or two women as the equivalent of marriage.....which has been defined as the relationship between one man and one woman since before this country existed......and, are there times when the majority need to be protected from the whims of the minority?........I believe there are......there is no "right" to marry someone of the same sex......neither heterosexuals or homosexuals are able to do so, so there is no discrimination.......homosexuals would LIKE to be "married", but that doesn't mean we have to alter the definition of "marriage" to fulfill their whims.....

Yes, religious institutions have defined marriage since before this country existed.

But the gov't definition is not required to be the same.



As for what is imposed upon society, that is a trivial matter at best. Granting gay couples the right to marry (or form a union) will not increase the number of gay couples. It will not harm straight marriages. It will have no effect on either.
 
I disagree......the biggest threat gay marriage poses is the precedent of a special interest group being able to impose upon the whole of society something which the majority of society does not deem acceptable......



Got any evidence that 'the majority of society does not deem (gay marriage) acceptable', Refudiator?


Or is your un-American resistance to the will of the majority rooted in your personal sexual confusion?


A majority of Americans say in a new poll that same-sex marriage should be legalized...




http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/gay-marriage-gallup-poll-/1
 
You cannot have marriage without law. Again, the real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Marriage is a right defined by state law. Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." 28 U.S.C. § 1738c. Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997). Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g. ; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004). The Administration, however, has recently issued a policy statement that the government will not defend challenges to DOMA based upon constitutional standards.
 
A couple of problems with this article jump out at me.

First of all, the state serves the public, not the other way around.

Second of all, the idea that marriage is based on producing children might have had some merit 100 years ago, but it is no longer a valid reason. Does anyone actually think we are in danger of having too FEW people? The growth in our population has been growing at a tremendous rate. We also have had a tremedous rate of children born out of wedlock. The entire sterility excuse is nonsense.

Third of all, this author still insists that it is about sex, hence the continued use of the phrase "sexual love". Married heterosexual people have sex, but their relationship is not defined as "sexual love". We accept that they love each other in ways that go beyond sex. Gay couples have the same emotional bond straight couples do. To try and relegate it to merely sexual is either done out of ignorance or to intentionally marginalize the relationship.

Good arguments. To be honest, I had a difficult time forming my own objections to the article. You've illustrated some solid points.
 
Yes, religious institutions have defined marriage since before this country existed.

But the gov't definition is not required to be the same.



As for what is imposed upon society, that is a trivial matter at best. Granting gay couples the right to marry (or form a union) will not increase the number of gay couples. It will not harm straight marriages. It will have no effect on either.

the definitions of marriage exist apart from religious institutions......everyone, secular, religious, defined marriage the same way......

as for triviality, I would say that NO instance of the government imposing something on it's citizens against it's will is trivial......
 
029.gif
The PiMP seems to have fled the thread....I wonder why?
102.gif


????....perhaps because I wasn't home?.....
 
I seem to recall the voters of California, the most liberal state in the country, voting to reject it several times.....am I wrong?....



According to a recent nationwide poll, yes. But don't let that stop your hate.




http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
 
There's a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

There is a clear link between victems of child molesters becoming child molesters themselves. There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Do you have a legimate reason why gay union is evil, or are you just a lying troll?
 
Also, since there are plenty of straight pedophiles who can still get married, your bogus claim is still not a reason for not allowing gays to marry.
 

Apparently you realize the extreme bias of the organization that funded the "research".

But the biggest error in the paper is the assumption that pedophiles preying on younger children are gay. They are not. This has been stated by the APA and the FBI. They do not see the boys as men, but as children. The reason why they take boys instead of girls is the availability of boys versus girls.

But, as I stated previously, since sexual deviancy is not grounds for disallowing straights from marrying it cannot be used as a reason for disallowing gays from marrying. If anything, married gays, since they cannot reproduce, would be safer since they must rely on adoption (with all its vetting processes) in order to have a child.

Sorry, this is no better reason than the others you gave, and were debunked.
 
Back
Top