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

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Except the article in question didn't raise either argument. As unsatisfactory as I find his argument, clearly he has applied an adequate level of logic to be considered an argument, even if not one which ultimately can succeed.

OK. Its late. I'm holding my hands up. Metaphorically, of course. I still have to type this...

Yes he made an argument. Not a valid one. Nor a persuasive one. He made an extremely limited one, based solely on economics, but it was a secular one.

I'm off to bed...

Cody has quite clearly shown why secular reasoning and logic is pointless and doesn't actually exist on its own beyond personal delusion; because it can be as easily destroyed by the same idiocy as the ideas it sprouts, thus it is inherently self-defeating and destructive.

That convienently also proves the validity of the arguement that such ideas have nothing to offer the state.

done.

Lyaiera wrote: »

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.

The irony of all that is that marriage for gay couples reinforces the institution and certainly doesn't "attack" it.

The children argument comes from the archaic view that a child needs a mother and a father to flourish. Let's not forget that this was the same view which caused the state to seize children from single mothers and fathers and place them in foster care, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Usually this view is exclusive to two men raising the child, the belief that boys will be "turned" gay and/or abused if two gays are allowed to raise them. Oddly enough the anti-gay crowd never bat an eyelid about two women raising a child, even though the stats say that domestic abuse rates among lesbian couples are the same as any others.

There is currently no support for the position that a child has the best outcome with both a mother and father at the helm.

Those who refuse to let go of this argument usually resort to the economic argument (given above) that the purpose of marriage is to economically facilitate child-rearing. Therefore without children there's no reason to permit marriage equality. But this falls down on a number of points, mainly on the point that a marriage does not require children in order to be legal.

Terry1985 wrote: »

The concept of marriage is implicitly related to heterosexual monogamous pair bonding for life, which helps maintain a stable environment to raise children.

In your opinion....:rolleyes:

Terry1985 wrote: »

In your opinion... :rolleyes:

The concept of marriage is implicitly related to heterosexual monogamous pair bonding for life, which helps maintain a stable environment to raise children.

In YOUR opinion. For most people, marraige is not just about having kids.

I'm all for increasing the rights of biological parents no matter what orientation, but fail to see why we should pander to liberals and pretend that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples in the grand scheme of things. For a nature point of view, 'they're not doing it right'... why pretend it's a correct long term behavior and give it the facade of public acceptance?

Why not? We've pandering to the religious conservatives for far too long.

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Please be joking

Just a wee heads up there Kev - the cool kids you're trying to immitate are saying "homie" not "homo"... :cool:

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Nope. Many cultures throughout the millennia have allowed polygamous marriage. You're speaking from a West-normative view.

And polygamy was mainly allowed because certain relatively wealthy males could support more than one wife.
In cultures where this was allowed it tended to upset the available male /female ratio.
I'm not saying that's a problem with lbgts, just that polygamy was typically reserved for men who could support multiple families.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

haha, just a note, we'd say it if a friend would rather spend the night watching DVDs with a girlfriend instead of watching a match or something, so it's obviously not a literal usage. God help me if people start getting bad about saying retard or spastic because it's the same with those!

Doplh: "Oh, man you kissed a girl"
Kearney: "That is so gay!"

(Names might be the wrong way around...)

Terry1985 wrote: »

And polygamy was mainly allowed because certain relatively wealthy males could support more than one wife.
In cultures where this was allowed it tended to upset the available male /female ratio.
I'm not saying that's a problem with lbgts, just that polygamy was typically reserved for men who could support multiple families.

This portection idea needs a bit of clarification.

Are you sayign that any couple, regardless of orientation, should not be allowed to marry unless they agree to have kids and are not infertile?