APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

darced · 27-05-2013 11:30PM

This post has been deleted.

endacl · 27-05-2013 11:30PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Didnt bother reading entire thread but are people seriously comparing gay people with incest relationships?!
Meh let them get married, live and let live at the end of the day, what someone decides to do with their own life has nothing got to do with anybody else. Besides gay people should have the right to be as miserable at straight people

This is what happens when the OP's question is asked.... It causes confusion and the crazy comes out to play.

StinkyMunkey · 27-05-2013 11:33PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How many gay people do you know or know of? Now how many family members do you know of that are in a sexual relationship or know of? People being gay will have zero impact on the course our species takes, now imagine there we're as many family members in sexual relationships as there is gay relationships....!

Our brain is hard wired to reject incest for a reason, it's both damaging to a species and the individual. If gay people reproduce, their child stands as good a chance as any as being physically normal. Now take the numbers and apply it to people who reproduce with family members, see where I'm going with this.

The topic at hand is giving gay people the choice to be recognised as a couple in the eyes of the state, not an act that is genetically, socially, immorally built into us to be repulsed by!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 27-05-2013 11:33PM

endacl wrote: »

This is what happens when the OP's question is asked.... It causes confusion and the crazy comes out to play.

Come again?

Lyaiera · 27-05-2013 11:33PM

Vicxas wrote: »

Is it because they'll corner the wedding planner market?

I linked an article earlier in the thread and that's exactly what's happening. In places where gay marriage is legal the marriage business is booming: for both straight and same sex marriage. Wedding fairs are busier, the top wedding venues are more heavily booked and they're being booked earlier, wedding planners are working non-stop. In the vast majority of places that legalised same sex marriage weddings are becoming popular again. The romance of the whole thing has been returned with straight couples who were once not bothered about marriage now thinking, "if this is so important to these people, and they're so happy because of it maybe we should review our own thoughts on it."

Marriage became very turgid to some, a case of "I suppose we'd better" and "If we have kids we probably should be married." And now they're realising that committing to someone legally as well as socially, and in front of all your friends and family is something that's good for them as a couple.

It's all really sweet.

darced · 27-05-2013 11:34PM

This post has been deleted.

endacl · 27-05-2013 11:38PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Come again?

Well, the OP asked if there were any 'non-religious' arguments against gay marriage. There really aren't, so as the thread progressed heads started poppin' off in frustration all over the place as arguments and rationales were hunted high and low, to no avail. Its been fun. A bit of a car crash at times, but fun. Oh, and Actor's back. Have you met?

endacl · 27-05-2013 11:40PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah. I think I am too. If you were to reconsider and actually read the posts, we might have a decent chance at conversation? Cherrypicking selective interpretations leads nowhere but loggerheads.

darced · 27-05-2013 11:41PM

This post has been deleted.

Lyaiera · 28-05-2013 12:02AM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good for you. You've done good work in promoting gay marriage. It's good to see someone argue so fervently for it. I'm sure you get tired of all these bigots opposing the right for gay people to marry their loved ones.

StinkyMunkey · 28-05-2013 12:04AM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Adios, but for those the wish to engage further in a discussion about someones right to live their life as they see fit without harming anyone.

When a person is gay, thats how their brain is hardwired, to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It may come as a suprise to aslo learn that gay people also have their brain hard wired to reject incest. Being gay is about preference, just like my preference it small petite brunettes.

Is being gay only a problem when they want recognition by the government as a legitimate couple?

With everything that is wrong with the world today, it beggers belief that some people think being gay is so unnatural, when their time and efforts could be spent providing something better for society as a whole.

B.A._Baracus · 28-05-2013 12:09AM

endacl wrote: »

Well, the OP asked if there were any 'non-religious' arguments against gay marriage. There really aren't, so as the thread progressed heads started poppin' off in frustration all over the place as arguments and rationales were hunted high and low, to no avail. Its been fun. A bit of a car crash at times, but fun. Oh, and Actor's back. Have you met?

Oh would you ever ... :rolleyes:
Endacl, you still playing that tune? .. are you seriously living in your own little bubble/world?

Because what you are saying is that the only people, against homosexual people, in this world are people of faith. Wake the F up dude.

There are homophobes, racists, etc of all walks. Do you not grasp this? .. Are you trolling or 15 years old or no life experience.... or do you hate the idea of believing in a god so much that you are blinded? what is it dude.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 12:25AM

joseph brand wrote: »

A lot less. The percentage is minuscule. Also, what is a modern atheist?

An atheist in the post-war era.

I'm merely proposing the possibility that nowadays, most individuals adapt the atheist outlook as a consequence of a wider desire for personal liberty. This desire has originated from many stimuli, from the civil rights movement to satirical comedy shows. In that sense, modern atheism doesn't very often have any intellectual gravitas, as it is merely a by-product of people wanting to identify with certain popular slogans, characters in popular culture, and affiliations (you do love science, don't you?).

That sort of phenomenon... some might call it bandwagon jumping... doesn't make atheism any less legitimate, but it does make it a little less high brow than some would like to believe.

In the same sense, lack of homophobia is possibly just part of some wider pop culture identity pursuit where everyone wants to be a liberal and a lover of science, but they probably haven't put any thought into it in a philosophical sense.

Solair · 28-05-2013 12:26AM

I know I'll probably get shot down for this, but from a purely economic / 'team ireland' / 'green jersey' perspective, Ireland having gay marriage is actually a very positive thing.

If you consider that we have inward investment coming from places like California and IT professionals, students and others who may wish to move to or do business in somewhere that is relatively open-minded.

Homophobic countries will scare off investors who might be gay themselves, have very strong views on gay rights, have gay staff in their companies or have very gay-friendly policies in their companies and to be fair, most major IT companies and a lot of other big multinationals are very much in that category.

They also scare off people who may wish to come and study there and spend very large amounts of money while doing so and also create deep international links that end up forming part of the global Irish business network that we completely rely on!

Ireland's actually potentially going to take a very ground-breaking step in international gay rights. It would become the first country in the world (as far as I'm aware) to actually create an written constitutional right for a gay couple to really have their relationship formally recognised as a civil marriage.

Not only that, it would have actually have been endorsed by a majority of the people in a referendum. So, there would be no question of it being some kind of a political whim of parliament / government.

It would send out a message that Ireland's no longer somewhere that's under the thumb of right-wing religious conservatives and that people are actually very openminded on this issue.

....

I know that's a bit of a marketing / PR / money / economics related argument but I feel that it's as valid as a reason for voting in favour of gay marriage as any of the even more spurious reasons being dreamt up for voting against it.

StinkyMunkey · 28-05-2013 12:32AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Oh would you ever ... :rolleyes:
Endacl, you still playing that tune? .. are you seriously living in your own little bubble/world?

Because what you are saying is that the only people, against homosexual people, in this world are people of faith. Wake the F up dude.

There are homophobes, racists, etc of all walks. Do you not grasp this? .. Are you trolling or 15 years old or no life experience.... or do you hate the idea of believing in a god so much that you are blinded? what is it dude.

Fact is, people will always hate that which they cant understand or just because its different from their accepted norm.

To say religious people only hate (or disapprove if you prefer) gays is insane, but it does tend to be a pet hate of the religious types (alot of religions actually). All this from a group of people who pretend to practice tolerence and spread to word of love....!

yore · 28-05-2013 12:33AM

Solair wrote: »

I know I'll probably get shot down for this, but from a purely economic / 'team ireland' / 'green jersey' perspective, Ireland having gay marriage is actually a very positive thing.

If you consider that we have inward investment coming from places like California and IT professionals, students and others who may wish to move to or do business in somewhere that is relatively open-minded.

Homophobic countries will scare off investors who might be gay themselves, have very strong views on gay rights, have gay staff in their companies or have very gay-friendly policies in their companies and to be fair, most major IT companies and a lot of other big multinationals are very much in that category.

They also scare off people who may wish to come and study there and spend very large amounts of money while doing so and also create deep international links that end up forming part of the global Irish business network that we completely rely on!

Ireland's actually potentially going to take a very ground-breaking step in international gay rights. It would become the first country in the world (as far as I'm aware) to actually create an written constitutional right for a gay couple to really have their relationship formally recognised as a civil marriage.

Not only that, it would have actually have been endorsed by a majority of the people in a referendum. So, there would be no question of it being some kind of a political whim of parliament / government.

It would send out a message that Ireland's no longer somewhere that's under the thumb of right-wing religious conservatives and that people are actually very openminded on this issue.

....

I know that's a bit of a marketing / PR / money / economics related argument but I feel that it's as valid as a reason for voting in favour of gay marriage as any of the even more spurious reasons being dreamt up for voting against it.

Vote for the gays to keep jobs

They tried that already didn't they......... the Lesbian treaty wasn't it?

Gbear · 28-05-2013 12:35AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Adios, but for those the wish to engage further in a discussion about someones right to live their life as they see fit without harming anyone.

When a person is gay, thats how their brain is hardwired, to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It may come as a suprise to aslo learn that gay people also have their brain hard wired to reject incest. Being gay is about preference, just like my preference it small petite brunettes.

Is that even relevant though?

Why would it matter who people wanted to get with even if gay people did choose to be gay?

You shouldn't have to justify homosexuality by saying that it's natural or hardwired. It's none of anyone elses business who you want to ****.

The argument that gay people are unnatural isn't stupid because it's wrong but because it's totally irrelevant.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 12:37AM

yore wrote: »

Vote for the gays to keep jobs

They tried that already didn't they......... the Lesbian treaty wasn't it?

http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/labourlgbt1.jpg?w=414&h=826

Lyaiera · 28-05-2013 12:42AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Fact is, people will always hate that which they cant understand or just because its different from their accepted norm.

To say religious people only hate (or disapprove if you prefer) gays is insane, but it does tend to be a pet hate of the religious types (alot of religions actually). All this from a group of people who pretend to practice tolerence and spread to word of love....!

Yeah, there are a few religions that are all for gay marriage. Catholics saying their religion is being infringed when people want gay marriage are actually infringing the rights of other religions, including Christians.

endacl · 28-05-2013 12:42AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Oh would you ever ... :rolleyes:
Endacl, you still playing that tune? .. are you seriously living in your own little bubble/world?

Because what you are saying is that the only people, against homosexual people, in this world are people of faith. Wake the F up dude.

There are homophobes, racists, etc of all walks. Do you not grasp this? .. Are you trolling or 15 years old or no life experience.... or do you hate the idea of believing in a god so much that you are blinded? what is it dude.

You're back.

OK. I'll do this slowly and carefully, one easy point at a time. I'll type slowly. Do try to keep up. Good man.

I never said the only homophobic people in the world are people of faith. Point out where you think you read this, and I'll explain it to you. In fact, with the exception of one, none of the religious people I interact with regularly are homophobic. The one exception is a twat by the way, and not representative of the group at all.

I do of course grasp that there are homophobes of all walks of life. I never suggested otherwise. Again, if you care to point out where you imagine I said this, I'd be happy to simplify the language for you.

The Op put the question "APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?". There of course are none. There are non-religious people who are homophobic. They just can't justify it. It's an irrational stance to take and of course can't be rationalized.

You seem to have a real bug up your ass with my posts. I really don't have a problem with this either, but the to-ing and fro-ing will get boring. I'd appreciate it though if you'd respond to what I said, rather than what you think I said. Otherwise this could get very boring very quickly.

Lyaiera · 28-05-2013 12:44AM

Gbear wrote: »

Is that even relevant though?

Why would it matter who people wanted to get with even if gay people did choose to be gay?

You shouldn't have to justify homosexuality by saying that it's natural or hardwired. It's none of anyone elses business who you want to ****.

The argument that gay people are unnatural isn't stupid because it's wrong but because it's totally irrelevant.

Yeah, and what about bisexual people. I doubt they choose who they fall in love with but they do choose who they go out on a date with. They may be hardwired to like both sexes but there's absolutely feck all wrong with them deciding to go out with anyone of whatever gender they choose.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 12:51AM

endacl wrote: »

The Op put the question "APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?". There of course are none.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

endacl · 28-05-2013 01:01AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

An economist? Interesting.

From his conclusion:

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.

Well found, but really, you accept this? His paper reads as a little .... agenda-ey

His premise 'enshrining into law....sole criterion for marriage' is flawed. Civil marriage recognizes that two people wish to be officially and legally recognized as a couple, as a committed relationship. His focus on the sexual, rather than the sexuality, is suspect.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 01:03AM

endacl wrote: »

Well found, but really, you accept this? His paper reads as a little .... agenda-ey

I didn't say I accept it. Being in favour of gay marriage, I'm not that easily swayed. It's a secular argument against gay marriage. There are plenty of them out there. The idea that there aren't is slightly naive.

Gbear · 28-05-2013 01:09AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I didn't say I accept it. Being in favour of gay marriage, I'm not that easily swayed. It's a secular argument against gay marriage. There are plenty of them out there. The idea that there aren't is slightly naive.

To be pedantic the OP phrases it like:

I'm just wondering, are there any rational, articulate arguments against gay marriage that would make you think "Hmm, that's worth thinking about"?

So it's still a no on that front.
I suspect he meant it as a challenge of sorts for people to present arguments.

Of course, if there were actually any rational and reasonable arguments against gay marriage, secular or otherwise, having it legalised wouldn't be as popular.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 01:13AM

Gbear wrote: »

To be pedantic the OP phrases it like:

But I wasn't responding to the OP's post when I provided that link.

endacl · 28-05-2013 01:13AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I didn't say I accept it. Being in favour of gay marriage, I'm not that easily swayed. It's a secular argument against gay marriage. There are plenty of them out there. The idea that there aren't is slightly naive.

In fairness, I have to say you found one!

From the intro:
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve.

A utilitarian view of marriage. Only an economist could think this way!

The author doesn't answer the question of why shouldn't the state recognize gay marriages. 'What's in it for the state in terms of fiscal reward?' reads to me like avoiding a bigger question.

_Myg · 28-05-2013 01:15AM

Because it is not inherently productive to the state.

You happy now?

The sad part of the reasoning going on here is that people somehow think that everything the *state* stands for wasn't assimilated from the Catholic Church to begin with, like ALL OTHER STATES DO (assimilate from their local, prevailing spiritual followings).

What, did you think society just sprung out of a hole in a ground?

It evolved over a very very long time, sitting convienently on top of the most effective means of communication and control, to use for its own purposes when it see's fit. That is why you will find that religious people are very rarely nationalistic, because they know what the guys "above" them are doing.

PS: Oh, hey endacl; seems you said it first.

kisaragi · 28-05-2013 01:15AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

There are plenty of studies which now recognize that children of gay couples do just as well as peers raised by straight parents - that article was from 2004 so I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt since there was less empirical evidence available then. In addition to this, given that many gay people are already parents to children - it is in the children's best interests for their parents to be allowed to marry.

His other argument seems to be - well, if gay people can marry then we would have to legalize polygamy. Obviously this is not the case because no country that has legalized gay marriage has legalized polygamy (and many countries which allow polygamy do not accept gay marriage).

His final argument is that gay marriage doesn't benefit the state so why should we allow it? Well... luckily we don't live in a state which only recognizes things which tangibly benefit the economy. Should we cut all aid because it doesn't benefit the state? If someone needs medical treatment should we not provide it unless they can prove that upon recovery they will earn enough to pay back in tax what it cost to save their life? Maybe I'm taking his argument too far - but I don't think equality should be provided solely upon what it can provide the state.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 01:16AM

endacl wrote: »

A utilitarian view of marriage. Only an economist could think this way!

The author doesn't answer the question of why shouldn't the state recognize gay marriages. 'What's in it for the state in terms of fiscal reward?' reads to me like avoiding a bigger question.

Again you seem to have trouble with the point being offered contrary to your earlier post (above) - that there clearly are non religious arguments against gay marriage, that these exist.

kisaragi wrote: »

There are plenty of studies which now recognize that children of gay couples do just as well as peers raised by straight parents - that article was from 2004 so I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt since there was less empirical evidence available then. In addition to this, given that many gay people are already parents to children - it is in the children's best interests for their parents to be allowed to marry.

His other argument seems to be - well, if gay people can marry then we would have to legalize polygamy. Obviously this is not the case because no country that has legalized gay marriage has legalized polygamy (and many countries which allow polygamy do not accept gay marriage).

His final argument is that gay marriage doesn't benefit the state so why should we allow it? Well... luckily we don't live in a state which only recognizes things which tangibly benefit the economy. Should we cut all aid because it doesn't benefit the state? If someone needs medical treatment should we not provide it unless they can prove that upon recovery they will earn enough to pay back in tax what it cost to save their life? Maybe I'm taking his argument too far - but I don't think equality should be provided solely upon what it can provide the state.

If it wasn't clear from my earlier posts on this thread - I'm gay, I'm pro gay marriage, and i don't subscribe to anti-gay marriage arguments, be they secularly or religiously based.

But the poster in question, endacl, is committing a significant error if he doesn't believe secular arguments against gay marriage to exist.

It is important that people who believe in gay marriage are fully aware of the range of arguments which are offered against it. If someone hasn't heard of the well known arguments, which I think you may be referencing, then I think they should make themselves aware.

APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

Comments