Non-emotional argument against Gay Marriage...

***DISCLAIMER:
I am a faithful Christian and lean towards the conservative politically - but I do not base my ideas of civil laws upon my views of faith. I see the two as separate entities.
***DISCLAIMER

Ok, with that out of the way. I'd like to look into the Gay Marriage (here in referred to as "GM) thing a bit. I've never really been "against" it per say - but as I was watching Anderson Cooper talk about the upcoming vote in NY, some things occurred to me.

Moving all aspects of personal belief and religious bias aside, I started to analyze the actual construct of marriage in our society and what it means.

Essentially the legal idea of marriage (in a nutshell) is two people becoming legally bonded together. This pertains to financial matters, medical matters, legal matters, as well as certain other inherited rights and privileges. It's really the only construct we have to equate two people into "family" after the age of 18.

So - with that being said, the argument against GM pretty much rests on the idea that it breaks the traditional concept of marriage. Defense of GM rests on the idea that two adults who are committed to each other should be able to share and enjoy the benefits of marriage - regardless of sex.

Usually this is broken down upon morality issues of those against it versus the lack of morality issues of those for it.

But here's where I started going - if we legalize GM - we are in essence redefining the construct of marriage. We are establishing that marriage is the union of people - regardless of sex - that are vowing commitment to each other - and therefore have certain rights under the laws of the state.

But if we open the door to redesign the prerequisites for marriage - why do we stop at GM? Why is the marriage between a brother and a sister any different than the marriage between a man and a man? Or a mother and a son different than a woman and a woman?

Why do we stop even at the actual sex or relationship of the people involved? Why is marriage limited to only two people? Polygamy becomes in play as well if we're reconstructing what defines a legal "marriage".

If our criteria are only that we have consenting adults - wait... why stop there? Why can't a 12 year old girl marry a 40 year old man? If a woman can adopt a boy as her "son" - why can't she marry him as her "husband"?

------------------------------------

This is the crux of the argument. Not that somehow homosexuality is equivalent to insest or child sexual abuse - but that we're essentially arguing over the constructs that define a marriage and how it's based upon our long held conventions that a marriage is between a man and woman, at, or over, the age of majority, who are not related, and not otherwise married.

If we begin breaking down any of those walls - exactly what would be our defense against breaking down the others? How could we tell the man who wants to marry his sister that he can't because it's "not right" and therefore illegal? What about someone who wants to marry a consenting minor? What about someone who wants to marry (i.e. legally bind themselves) to more than one person?

This isn't a "where will it end doomsday" style argument - this is a very rational and logical thought process of the potential unintended consequences pertaining to this one issue.


******************* IMPORTANT ********************************
Please do not argue this point from an illogical and/or non-rational point. I do not care what your spiritual beliefs are, nor do I care "what your heart" is telling you. Please do not comment non-falsafiable statements like "I just can't see letting two loving people not share marriage..." or "Our laws are based on Christian beliefs..."
*******************IMPORTANT*********************************

The above statement is to keep this an open thread with healthy discussion that won't essentially become Mod bait and get closed down because a bunch of rubes show up to spout ridiculousness.

I have a different outlook but you may agree with it ops.

What needs to happen is not for the fed to "allow" same sex marriage, but rather to simply stop marriage being observed...let the churches, mosques, temples, etc decide who they will marry and it be just little more than a religious ceremony meaning absolutely nothing to the state or fed.

Allow for civil unions, and allow this to be between two adults, be it their spouse, best friend, brother/sister, etc...it can be as simple as a legal piece of paper signed with a witness and it only means the financial and other types of "breaks"...partnership of sorts that has no romantic relevance...

And if a church wants to marry two brothers together, that is their choice...it can be recognised by the people, or not...but it will be recognised by the state only if union papers are signed at the same time..(and again, union papers is not to be romantic...like rings do not mean marriage, however, marriage does have a ring).

The government should not, nor ever enforce religious institutions, nor morality between consenting adults...it needs to focus on its job...which is commerce, defense, and physical infrustructure...thats it. Since when do we need a POTUS or Congress to protect a religious institution...doesn't say much about the merits of the religious institution anyhow if you need federal government to secure and protect it.

I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.

Well to me, who cares about the definition of marriage? Why is it even an issue? This "slippery slope" argument is pretty pointless. To me, what you're saying is "If we let two gay people marry, whats to stop someone from marrying a horse?"

Is hetero sexual marriage some levee that will stop the floodwaters and there will be NO rules if we allow gay marriage? Do you think we'll be screwing in the streets like some animalistic orgy?

You may spend too much time in one paradigm, one viewpoint of the world, that is the Christian conservative viewpoint. If you step outside yourself (and your community) you'll see that people are perfectly happy living alongside gay married couples and it has NOTHING to do with YOUR marriage. If you're not gay, why does it even matter if gay people get married? Whats in it for YOU to stop gay marriage? Superiority?

Originally posted by gncnew
Why do we stop even at the actual sex or relationship of the people involved? Why is marriage limited to only two people? Polygamy becomes in play as well if we're reconstructing what defines a legal "marriage".

Why is marriage limited to only two people? I see nothing wrong with "unforced/consent" Polygamy (or any group marriage for that matter).

However - LEGAL government marriage benefits and tax structures - etc - are set up for two people. What gender they are changes nothing in any structure already existing.

Therefore - denying same gender marriage is an Equal Rights issue.


----------------------------------------------------

Escalating beyond that with personal fears is a separate discussion.

oh, and one complaint about your thread

the whole underage thing is nonsense...a child cannot enter into a contract, they are not responsible for themselves until 18 (or 16 in some states, depending)...

question though, do you think a 16 year old girl (with legal consent) should be able to marry a 70 year old man? thats perfectly legal in regards to marriage and morality from a religious standpoint...

I see the point that you make here.

Trying to redefine marriage as a legal bond between any consenting adults opens up a lot of issues.

One problem is that the homosexual activist community has taken upon itself to destroy the institution of marriage, so it's not just a matter of dealing from a logical perspective.

From your argument, as long as all parties involved are legally able to consent, then any such union would be potentially allowable. Fortunately, for now, such a picture precludes such a union between jumans and non-humans -- until animal rights activists and Earth-rights activists get their way.

Unfortunatley, I don't think they'd be willing to accept a different name for the unions so recognized by the government.

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.

Lots of things are unnatural...hell, I would bet what you ate for breakfast is unnatural
and unless your sitting on a rock wearing leaves and somehow using voice only to connect to the net, thats pretty unnatural also.

However, unlike your breakfast and computer, homosexuality is far more natural

A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species

(from the wiki)

So ya...its pretty natural, unless of course, nature isn't natural...
Who says procreation is the overall point of life anyhow

Originally posted by Annee
Therefore - denying same gender marriage is an Equal Rights issue.

Denying the right of a biological brother and sister to marry or denying the right for a many to marry three women is an Equal Rights issue by that logic.

Originally posted by gncnew
Usually this is broken down upon morality issues of those against it versus the lack of morality issues of those for it.

So - are you implying gays are immoral?

Who are you or anyone else to define what is moral for anyone besides yourself?

Here's an immoral for you: children who need a loving home - - being denied that by the "moral" religious - - because the adopting parents might be same gender.

Originally posted by davidchin
One problem is that the homosexual activist community has taken upon itself to destroy the institution of marriage, so it's not just a matter of dealing from a logical perspective.

Destroy the institution of marriage?
naa
They are attempting to destroy governments pushing of religious institutions...gov should have never been in this to begin with

From your argument, as long as all parties involved are legally able to consent, then any such union would be potentially allowable. Fortunately, for now, such a picture precludes such a union between jumans and non-humans -- until animal rights activists and Earth-rights activists get their way.

I fully encourage inter-species unions...the second a horse can clearly show they can enter into a union willingly and of adult mind, and then clearly accept the full impact, then yep...so be it.

aka, they can't...they are animals...however, there may be a day when aliens arrive and want to hook up...and they should be allowed also

Originally posted by Annee
So - are you implying gays are immoral?

They are in my book.

Anyone whom does stuff I like or will do is fun and kinky, anyone whom does anything else is clearly immoral.

Perspectives are great.

Like the definition of a nymphomaniac...is anyone whom wants it one time more than you do.

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.

Annnnnnnd your misinformed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Logic (and science) also say that sexuality is a spectrum, not a simple, black and white division between homo and hetero

reply to post by SadButTrue


And yet some natural animals demonstrate homosexual behavior in nature.

Those poor demon possessed animals.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Annee
Therefore - denying same gender marriage is an Equal Rights issue.

Denying the right of a biological brother and sister to marry or denying the right for a many to marry three women is an Equal Rights issue by that logic.

I personally don't care if a brother and sister marry if they are consenting adults. Used to be standard practice in bloodlines.

But then science entered the picture - - about issues with genes. Toulouse-Lautrec's problems were related to his parents being first cousins.

There could also be some legal issues of inheritance - - that I am unaware of if siblings marry. Not sure. Just looking at that from a "protect the wealth" perspective.

I don't think you should put GM and polygamy with underage marriage and brother/sister or brother/brother marriage. They just are not the same. Underage marriage should stay illegal because a young boy/girl can be influence more easily then an adult. And brother/sister marriage is just wrong, who in their right mind would want to mary his sister or brother after living with them for a big part of your life.

And I say if someone is against gay marriage don't mary a another man or an another woman.

Originally posted by Turq1
reply to post by SadButTrue

 

And yet some natural animals demonstrate homosexual behavior in nature.

Those poor demon possessed animals.

You are serious!

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Annee
Therefore - denying same gender marriage is an Equal Rights issue.

Denying the right of a biological brother and sister to marry or denying the right for a many to marry three women is an Equal Rights issue by that logic.

Actually...it is.

And it should be challenged...marriage is the loving commitment between adults...for tax breaks...who is govermnent to tell me I cannot love two or three women equally and they cannot love myself and each other...

Government has no right in telling me who I can and cannot love...

See...the government needs to simply get out of the marriage business...the more you fight for it to be observed and preserved by the govermnent, the much better chance it will be fully corrupted.

Every religious and non religious person alive should be demanding the government stop observing all marriages and other institutions...this should be a united voice across america and the world to stop this nonsense before it morphs into something that is little more than a parody of what churches initially tried to institute.

Let me ask this question.

How does GM affect you directly?

If government allowed GM I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be affected.
It wouldn't change my mortgage payment.
I wouldn't see the price of gas go up.
My light, water, sewer, phone, etc bill wouldn't change.
Cost of food wouldn't change either.

So what's my personal impact if the government allowed 2 people of the same sex to get married?

0

Originally posted by davidchin
I see the point that you make here.

Trying to redefine marriage as a legal bond between any consenting adults opens up a lot of issues.

One problem is that the homosexual activist community has taken upon itself to destroy the institution of marriage, so it's not just a matter of dealing from a logical perspective.

Ummm. Wow.
Can you please elaborate on how the Homosexual Activist Community has destroyed the institution of marriage. I felt nothing but bias and hate emaninating from your comment.