Export thread

So, this spun off from another thread, but I wanted to pose the question here rather than detract from the main purpose of that thread.

So the question is, what are reasons beyond religion that would lead someone to not only be against same-sex marriage, but to want it prohibited from existence? The reason I ask is because with most issues I can in some logical way see the viewpoint of the other side, even if I don't hold it. I'm pro-choice, for example, but I can certainly see why someone would be pro-life (this is another discussion).

For same sex marriage though, I find myself unable to put myself in a viewpoint that would be against it outside of religious reasons. So I turn to you, halforums, let's discuss this.

Obviously, we should keep this discussion civil. If you're going to call anyone names, at least make them funny ones.

I think many opponents of same-sex marriage do so out of a dislike of the social change. It's not just a religious text telling them to oppose it; it's the feeling that it is too different, too radical to allow in society.

But that's 100% speculation.

I don't have time to keep searching, but in this article, where he explains why he changed his mind, David Frum recounts some of the reasons he argued against same-sex marriage for a long time:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...republican-brief-supporting-gay-marriage.html

short answer: No

long answer: http://www.gop.com/

I would probably be better off if I didn't participate, but I suppose I'm one of the few that will openly discuss it from this perspective.

The reasoning is underpinned largely by the concept that in our cultural history marriage was defined as "starting a family". Children deserved to be raise by their biological parents. If that wasn't possible, they deserved to be raised in the best situation possible.

Prior to widespread birth control and abortion, people were strongly discouraged from having sex prior to marriage primarily due to the risk of pregnancy and creating a child which would have no strong family unit which would care for it until adulthood. However, society has changed drastically since then. With birth control and abortion we've dropped to the lowest birth rate on record:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-ii-u-s-birthrate-falls-to-lowest-on-record/

In fact it turns out that if we didn't have so much immigration, both legal and illegal, we'd be in the same position today as many Asian and some European countries are - too many old people, not enough young people. I'm only pointing this out to indicate that the birthrate would be far lower without immigration, and the graph isn't telling the whole story.

We have evidence that shows children raised in a heterosexual parented house do well, and generally end up contributing members of society.

Right now we don't have much in the way of studies, especially long term studies, regarding children raised in homosexual parented houses. These studies are ongoing, many states allow domestic partners to adopt children, and eventually those studies will show whether this is as good as a heterosexual parented family or not.

Further, those children need to have a reasonable safety net and path of inheritance in case something happens to one or both parents. Thus marriage defines what happens to property upon death. When one parent dies, the property goes to the other parent, and/or to the children - in full consideration of the children. These laws were not designed with the idea that the widow or widower would get the full control of the property for his benefit, but for the benefit of his children.

Marriage was not about finding your life partner, sharing your property with each other, and making decisions for each other when the other is incapacitated. Marriage was about marrying your life partner for the purpose of bringing children into the world and providing a safe stable learning environment where they can then contribute to society as adults.

This started to change with birth control, abortion, and free love, where people were instead encouraged to turn inward to their own needs and desires, and choose families and children as a possible choice out of hundreds, rather than a societal expectation.

Now we have come to another turning point in how our society defines marriage.

Society has a direct interest in making sure children are raised to become productive adults in society, and in growing our society. Right now we know, through long term studies, that children of a single father or a single mother are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised in a home with both a mother and a father. This is not to imply they are better or worse, or that they didn't turn out as good as they could have. Simply that studies show they have fewer opportunities in life to grow and learn comparatively.

The key question is:

Does this difference hinge on the number of parents, or on the dual representation of the sexes as parents?

In other words, are children of a two male parenting or two female parenting at any disadvantage compared to a male/female parenting situation. We don't have the studies that prove either way, and short term studies are going in both directions, seemingly based on who funded them.

So, do we jump in with both feet and allow this redefinition of marriage without enough information on how it will alter society in the long run, or do we wait for a few more decades to find out how the experiments going on in a dozen states and with tens of thousands of children turn out?

I say we wait.

Others say we shouldn't (or, alternately, they point to one or two short term studies that back them up and say "that's enough information, let's go")

That is, insofar as I can tell, the only logical basis for discriminating against LGBT individuals. Every other form of discrimination (job, health, housing, etc) has no excuse, those forms of LGBT discrimination should be done away with.

But marriage is a special case that may directly depend on the constitution of the marriage, and may directly impact society, and this impact may be negative. We should carefully consider and balance the discrimination against society's need for encouraging the best family situation for bringing children into society.

I'm really glad that it's illegal for people to get divorced then, and illegal for people to not have children once married


























WAIT

I could go a long time with this.

Ravenpoe said:

Are there non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage?

Click to expand...

Because gay sex is yucky!

Ravenpoe said:

Are there non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage?

Click to expand...

Because gay people like to have sex and marriage isn't about sex, it's about babies.


And best of all...

Ravenpoe said:

Are there non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage?

Click to expand...

No.[DOUBLEPOST=1364330442][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:

*snip*

Click to expand...

If it's all about the children, how is outlawing same-sex marriage accomplishing anything? Same-sex couples cannot breed without assistance (artificial insemination, adoption, etc.) and don't need marriage to get children with that assistance.

To save gay couples from ruining their perfectly good relationships.

Quotemander Prime said:

If it's all about the children, how is outlawing same-sex marriage accomplishing anything? Same-sex couples cannot breed without assistance (artificial insemination, adoption, etc.) and don't need marriage to get children with that assistance.

Click to expand...

That's actually at the core of the case right now. California already allows domestic partnerships with full services, including the same fertility treatment for homosexual couples as provided to heterosexual couples. It's just not called a "marriage."

So they actually can. Thus, if society accepts these relationships as the core family unit that defines our society, and that our society spends significant resources to support and protect, then these relationships become normal, and even if children raised in such a situation are at a disadvantage, nothing can be done because it's become the new norm.

Society has to be careful how they define marriage primarily to protect the offspring.

stienman said:

That's actually at the core of the case right now. California already allows domestic partnerships with full services, including the same fertility treatment for homosexual couples as provided to heterosexual couples. It's just not called a "marriage."

So they actually can. Thus, if society accepts these relationships as the core family unit that defines our society, and that our society spends significant resources to support and protect, then these relationships become normal, and even if children raised in such a situation are at a disadvantage, nothing can be done because it's become the new norm.

Society has to be careful how they define marriage primarily to protect the offspring.

Click to expand...

That's a bit of a... I really hate the phrase slippery slope, but I feel like it applies here.

Children born to low income families are also at a disadvantage. Does the government have the right to say that people of low income can't marry?

Depending on the area, children of interracial couples could face bullying and prejudice. Should the government have the right to say interracial couples can't marry?

We can take this one step further, and speak on pregnancy itself rather than marriage, since marriage is only the method of controlling offspring, and we all know that happens whether married or not. Should any mother that finds herself pregnant that can't produce the best possible outcome for her children be forced to give it up for adoption or have an abortion?

These aren't attacks, I do respect stienman's viewpoints and I'm happy he chose to participate, I'm just digging into the discussion.

stienman said:

Society has to be careful how they define marriage primarily to protect the offspring.

Click to expand...

so wait, if it's been proven by science that single parents hurt children, why don't we define marriage as lasting until every child is 18 / out of the house and ban divorce? or why don't we take every child away from every single parent until they marry another nice straight person?

stienman said:

That's actually at the core of the case right now. California already allows domestic partnerships with full services, including the same fertility treatment for homosexual couples as provided to heterosexual couples. It's just not called a "marriage."

So they actually can. Thus, if society accepts these relationships as the core family unit that defines our society, and that our society spends significant resources to support and protect, then these relationships become normal, and even if children raised in such a situation are at a disadvantage, nothing can be done because it's become the new norm.

Society has to be careful how they define marriage primarily to protect the offspring.

Click to expand...

Okay ... same question. If marriage is about children and that's the reason same-sex couples shouldn't marry, but same-sex couples can raise children anyway, how is preventing their marriage accomplishing anything? If they're already bypassing it, what difference does it make?

I say, instead of legalizing gay marriage, we ban all marriage.

GasBandit said:

I say, instead of legalizing gay marriage, we ban all marriage.

Click to expand...

This has long been my stance. No marriage for anyone. Civil unions only.

Ravenpoe said:

This has long been my stance. No marriage for anyone. Civil unions only.

Click to expand...

Not even that. Nothing for nobody nowhere nohow.

I understand the point Stienman is trying to make, but I think it is largely undermined by the argument Charlie has so succinctly exposed.
A much stronger point against the 'traditional marriage' as argumented here is this:
I can understand that you may want to provide the best possible environment to children for their own benefit and the benefit of society, but as long as single parents are allowed to adopt (a quick google search tells me they are), not allowing marriage in same sex couples may actually be detrimental to some kids!
Imagine a situation where a homosexual person adopts a child. That person may have a stable partner and, as a household environment, the child will have two dads or two moms. But wait! Legally they are not. Although they are already bringing up the kid together, one of them doesn't have a say on medical decisions (what happens if the 'official' parent is unavailable) and such and, even worse, what would happen to the kid if the 'official' parent were to die? I think it's quite obvious that, even admitting the possibility of a same sex couple not being able to provide the best environment or upbringing*, separating the kid from their other parent is probably worse. Therefore, in this case they should be allowed to marry, for the protection of the kid, being able to use each other's posessions while taking care of the kid, etc.

*This is also a point to be discussed. I took it for granted here because it didn't matter for my point but I'd like to argue the following:
Even if it is shown it's not 'ideal' for kids to be brought up in such an environment, it would need to be something pretty extreme for it to be enough to decide the whole thing. I mean, there are a few parameters that need to be taken into account to decide wether a household environment is bad, good, or ideal for a kid, and since most of them, such as income, education, etc. are not binary but on a continuum, we establish thresholds were they are 'good enough', independently or taking all of them into account. Homosexuality should, if anything, be one more of these things, weighted in relation to whatever future studies show, not a separate one that trumps all of them!
Furthermore, one could argue wether the problems kids with two moms and two dads face are intrinsic to this fact or are due to discrimination in society. Is it possible to distinguish this? If it is not, studies that are disfavorable to adoption by same sex couples, and following them to the extreme, may very well be a self-perpetuating discrimination. I actually think they are. It's late and I'm tired, and I feel the last couple of paragraphs are much less understandable than they could be, so I'll leave it here for today.

EDIT: I meant both Charlie's and Stienman's first posts[DOUBLEPOST=1364332858][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:

so wait, if it's been proven by science that single parents hurt children, why don't we define marriage as lasting until every child is 18 / out of the house and ban divorce? or why don't we take every child away from every single parent until they marry another nice straight person?

Click to expand...

This.

It's pretty hard to find a non-religious reason to deny same sex anything and it's honestly pretty hard to find a religious reason (for Christians) that isn't Jesus overridden in the new testament.

GasBandit said:

Nothing for nobody nowhere nohow.

Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, libertarianism.

Frank said:

It's pretty hard to find a non-religious reason to deny same sex anything and it's honestly pretty hard to find a religious reason (for Christians) that isn't Jesus overridden in the new testament.

Click to expand...

Well, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is New Testament and often put forth. Also, many Christians I know personally equate is as bad as any other sexuality immorality (adultery, fornication, etc) and not meriting it's own extraordinary societal emphasis. Their view is that they don't endorse gay marriage but won't oppose it as a legal/rights issue. I do know others who feel more strongly (on both sides), however.


For the interested:

1 Timothy 1:9-10 said:

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine...

Click to expand...

Charlie Don't Surf said:

so wait, if it's been proven by science that single parents hurt children, why don't we define marriage as lasting until every child is 18 / out of the house and ban divorce? or why don't we take every child away from every single parent until they marry another nice straight person?

Click to expand...

Because too many law makers have had experience with crazy spouses.

stienman - If you're saying the only reason they shouldn't be allowed to be married/adopt children is because they may be bad parents and the children may not come out of the household unscathed how is that any different than being raised by hetero parents? I think there's been plenty of examples of children coming out quite messed up from same-sex marriages no? Still, if your feelings on the subject are requiring studies to show that the kids will be ok how about one from a reliable source that has a 25 year history?

In 2006, after 25 years of research the AAP concluded it had found no link between parents' sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being.

Click to expand...

“The statement by the AAP also reaffirms more than 30 years of social science research that concludes that children grow up with the same positive developmental outcomes whether their parents are of the same gender or different genders,” wrote a Family Equality Council spokesperson on its website. “More importantly, it matches the lived experiences of many of our parents who have raised a generation of children into young adulthood who are successful by every measure.”

Click to expand...

(Here is a link to the study)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full
It's pretty long, has over 60 different references from psychological and medical reports. I don't know how much more time or studies would be needed to make it clearer.

Here's a few more anyway:
(A book written with 20 years of social sciences taken into account)
http://www.amazon.com/Too-High-Price-Restricting-Parenting/dp/0977758907

(A research summary from the American Psychological Association)
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

Chad Sexington said:

Well, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is New Testament and often put forth. Also, many Christians I know personally equate is as bad as any other sexuality immorality (adultery, fornication, etc) and not meriting it's own extraordinary societal emphasis. Their view is that they don't endorse gay marriage but won't oppose it as a legal/rights issue. I do know others who feel more strongly (on both sides), however.


For the interested:

Click to expand...

That one I've heard quite compelling arguments made by scholars that disagree on that being what the verse actually says and that it's more akin to shady business dealings than homosexuality.

I hate the Gays cause they get to be more fabulous than I.



...Please don't take me seriously.

Frank said:

That one I've heard quite compelling arguments made by scholars that disagree on that being what the verse actually says and that it's more akin to shady business dealings than homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Especially considering that it was written by Paul, a human being. Then we get Jesus himself saying:

Matthew 7:3 said:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Click to expand...

In otherwords: "Mind your own business and take care of your own damn problems first!"

Sorry, but as a Christian myself, I'm going to listen to the son of God before a human who has his own issues.

The gay agenda has been revealed by a careless protester.

That's terrible... I always miss the Rachel Maddow show

GasBandit said:

The gay agenda has been revealed by a careless protester.

Click to expand...

Am I horrible if I read touch kids in bed?

Huh... that basically describes my day. I always break up at least one man-woman heterosexual marriage every evening.

Dammit, I've been gay all this time and I haven't realized!

Gilgamesh said:

stienman - If you're saying the only reason they shouldn't be allowed to be married/adopt children

Click to expand...

Is he saying that?

Quotemander Prime said:

Is he saying that?

Click to expand...

That's the reasoning he used. He felt there aren't enough studies to prove that the children won't be damaged somehow by being raised by same-gender parents. I responded by posting the studies that said otherwise.

There really isn't a reason not to have it. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly is on board.

Reasons I can think of that a non religious person would have issue with gay marriage.

1) It makes a mockery of traditional marriage: Brittney Spears and Kim Kardashian already do it more than we can allow.

2) It's a slippery slope that will lead to ridiculous unions such as men marrying their dogs: Apparently there are dogs out there who are capable of giving their consent to marriage. I was unaware.

3) We will have to completely redefine marriage in school and it will corrupt the children into becoming gay: Because that's how "gay" happens. You hear about it, and then you become it. I'm not sure why it had no effect on me. I guess I'm just immune or something. Kinda like Gary Sinise in The Stand.

When The Gays have taken over, and our population begins to dwindle, it will be up to those with immunity to do our best to repopulate the world. It will be a harsh world. But quite likely a very fabulous one. The Straights will need to hide in plain sight by wearing color coordinated clothing. Those who cannot perfect the lisp will be hunted down and forced to watch the entire current season of Project Runway

I just imagined a future where I'm the last remaining straight male, and it's up to me to have sex with women to ensure the survival of the human race.

I can't tell if it's a dystopian or utopian vision of the future.

Going back on my points, and answering to Steinman's last post:
Apparently society has more or less accepted single parent families as valid families (for instance, here in Spain they have benefits comparable to the ones of large families). Isn't it comparatively unfair to accept these and not accept same-sex couples? Can you still justify your argument taking this into account? (They are sincere questions, even if a bit loaded)

Shawnacy said:

When The Gays have taken over, and our population begins to dwindle, it will be up to those with immunity to do our best to repopulate the world. It will be a harsh world. But quite likely a very fabulous one. The Straights will need to hide in plain sight by wearing color coordinated clothing. Those who cannot perfect the lisp will be hunted down and forced to watch the entire current season of Project Runway

Click to expand...

This... kind of offends me more than someone being overtly homophobic...

Bowielee said:

This... kind of offends me more than someone being overtly homophobic...

Click to expand...

My apologies.
The purpose of my post was for humorous reasons only. I used what I thought were clearly ridiculous stereotypes of gay lifestyle and mentality, creating an over-exaggerated viewpoint of a completely ignorant individual.

Reminder that "good" stereotypes are still incredibly hurtful and stupid, i.e. black people are athletic, asian people are great at math, etc etc etc

It's true. People keep asking me to derive equations for them.

bhamv3 said:

I just imagined a future where I'm the last remaining straight male, and it's up to me to have sex with women to ensure the survival of the human race.

I can't tell if it's a dystopian or utopian vision of the future.

Click to expand...

Until you find out you still get rejected.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Reminder that "good" stereotypes are still incredibly hurtful and stupid, i.e. black people are athletic, asian people are great at math, etc etc etc

Click to expand...

Except both of those are scientifically researched, proven differences between ethnicities. People from Ethiopean descent have a higher hematocrit value even without any excercise or whatever than most others. People from, for example, the Zulus, are taller and have a higher muscular growth rate than most others. IIRC, specific Chinese ethnicities have a higher number of neural pathways connecting the two halves of the brain, making some number-related tasks easier (and discalculy is far more rare). People from Nordic descent tend to be blonde; Saxon or German ancestry has more hair growth on the body than most Asians, if your ancestry has Western African tribes in it, you're more likely to get sickle cell, etc etc.

Saying "all" black people are more athletic or "all" asians are good at math is ridiculous. Trying to deny genetic variations between ethnicities is also nonsense.


Anyway, as for LGBT marriage from a non-religious background....Can't reall add much to what steinman's already said, I think One other reason I've seen thrown around is basically yet another variation on the slippery slope argument: by taking procreation out of the equation, you're opening up marriage to marriages of convenience - people can marry their best friend, just for the legal and financial benefits. Where that argument fails, in my opinion, is that "procreation" isn't really part of many marriages anyway, and I could marry my best friend just for the benefits all the same, if it happened to be a woman (which it is, now that I think about it.).

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Reminder that "good" stereotypes are still incredibly hurtful and stupid, i.e. black people are athletic, asian people are great at math, etc etc etc

Click to expand...

I think his point was that he doesn't believe the stereotypes are true, and that he was mocking someone who believed them with an extremely ridiculous and hyperbolic statement. (If you were talking about Shawnacy)

I wasn't calling Shawnacy out or anything, just making a point/saying that

Gotcha. I wasn't sure.

Shawnacy said:

2) It's a slippery slope that will lead to ridiculous unions such as men marrying their dogs: Apparently there are dogs out there who are capable of giving their consent to marriage. I was unaware.

Click to expand...

Actually, the raised arguments in the Supreme Court were that if the only threshold of "should be allowed to marry" is the presence of love, without defined limits between which people can get married, that there would be no legal justification for preventing an adult from marrying a minor, or multiple people. It's still picking nits and technicalities that really could be easily sorted out if they wanted to, but at least in actual courts, they're not making the bestiality connection (this time).

3) We will have to completely redefine marriage in school and it will corrupt the children into becoming gay: Because that's how "gay" happens. You hear about it, and then you become it. I'm not sure why it had no effect on me. I guess I'm just immune or something. Kinda like Gary Sinise in The Stand.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's silly. That's not how gay happens. Everybody knows THIS is how gay happens:

Rape isn't funny...

Ravenpoe You didn't mention it in the OP, but I wanted to check. Is this thread specific to the United States and its system, or are same-sex marriage issues from other parts of the world relevant to the discussion as well?

TommiR said:

Ravenpoe You didn't mention it in the OP, but I wanted to check. Is this thread specific to the United States and its system, or are same-sex marriage issues from other parts of the world relevant to the discussion as well?

Click to expand...

Since I live in the US, and the current debate going on in this country, it is what I'm most familiar with. But sure, go ahead and talk about any country you want.

I think the slippery slope argument may extend to polyamory, and to be perfectly honest I don't see why it shouldn't/I don't have a problem with it. When it comes to kids and animals there are already a lot of legal precedents saying that they are not legally capable of making decisions about their own well being, so that's a nonstarter.

The only issue I have has to do with adoption, but that's really a seperate issue since even straight people have to go through a process to qualify. (my concern is whether there have been enough studies to show that 2 mothers/2 fathers doesn't cause issues, I doubt it will but it's worth asking.)

Necronic said:

(my concern is whether there have been enough studies to show that 2 mothers/2 fathers doesn't cause issues, I doubt it will but it's worth asking.)

Click to expand...

There has, see my link above.

Gilgamesh said:

There has, see my link above.

Click to expand...

It must really suck when you post scientific articles to back up your claims and people ignore them, huh.

Bowielee said:

It must really suck when you post scientific articles to back up your claims and people ignore them, huh.

Click to expand...

Pfft, what do scientists know?

[DOUBLEPOST=1364406783][/DOUBLEPOST] [DOUBLEPOST=1364406814][/DOUBLEPOST]I hate double posts merged.

sixpackshaker said:

Spoiler

[DOUBLEPOST=1364406783][/DOUBLEPOST]

[DOUBLEPOST=1364406814][/DOUBLEPOST]I hate double posts merged.

Click to expand...

... Hawt

Bowielee said:

It must really suck when you post scientific articles to back up your claims and people ignore them, huh.

Click to expand...

Bowie I didn't ignore your articles in the other thread. I said that it pertained to minization of the issue, but minimization doesn't not always = increase. I actually DID refer to your article in my response because I read them completely and felt that to ignore them in a response would have been a bit dismissive. Sorry if it still came off that way.

Ravenpoe said:

... Hawt

Click to expand...

Here's a higher resolution version:



I've been reading all the posts here, but to do the argument justice I'd have to spend a bunch of time getting links, studies, etc and I don't want to go into it half-hearted. Maybe I'll set time aside to touch on the major rebuttals, maybe not.

Only the shadow knows...

Also, please note that my objections are primarily religious based, and even if this thread allowed such arguments I probably wouldn't be interested in defending my position because it would take quite a bit of work to teach the doctrinal foundations required to understand the religious position, since no one would be satisfied with, "Because God told me so." (nor should they. They should ask God themselves, rather than relying on a third party.)

stienman said:

Here's a higher resolution version:

I've been reading all the posts here, but to do the argument justice I'd have to spend a bunch of time getting links, studies, etc and I don't want to go into it half-hearted. Maybe I'll set time aside to touch on the major rebuttals, maybe not.

Only the shadow knows...

Also, please note that my objections are primarily religious based, and even if this thread allowed such arguments I probably wouldn't be interested in defending my position because it would take quite a bit of work to teach the doctrinal foundations required to understand the religious position, since no one would be satisfied with, "Because God told me so." (nor should they. They should ask God themselves, rather than relying on a third party.)

Click to expand...

Knowing your religion (or knowing of, I'm certainly not a scholar) I already assumed that was the case.

The reason I wanted to focus purely on the secular is that I can understand religious reasons. I don't agree with them, but I can put myself in a viewpoint where that decision makes sense, or at least adheres to its own internal logic structure.

The beauty of religious objections is that it's totally acceptable to keep people from getting a religious marriage based on them.

Steinman here in the UK we are in the process of getting same sex marriage legalized however the laws due to be enacted expressly state that any church which opposes gay marriage cannot be forced to marry same sex couples.

Would something like this make you less opposed to gay marriage, if you knew your church wouldn't be dragged through the courts under anti-discrimination laws for only performing "traditional" marriages, or is this not an issue for you?

mroosc1979 said:

Steinman here in the UK we are in the process of getting same sex marriage legalized however the laws due to be enacted expressly state that any church which opposes gay marriage cannot be forced to marry same sex couples.

Would something like this make you less opposed to gay marriage, if you knew your church wouldn't be dragged through the courts under anti-discrimination laws for only performing "traditional" marriages, or is this not an issue for you?

Click to expand...

That would be the same case in the US, so that is very probably not stienman's concern (though I don't presume to speak for him).

Ah, wasn't sure if that was the case & could easily see a member of a religion wanting to protect that religion from outside interference before looking at any problems said interference was trying to fix.

mroosc1979 said:

Steinman here in the UK we are in the process of getting same sex marriage legalized however the laws due to be enacted expressly state that any church which opposes gay marriage cannot be forced to marry same sex couples.

Would something like this make you less opposed to gay marriage...?

Click to expand...

We use the political and legal process to encourage society to adopt our standards, so no, we would continue to oppose gay marriage even if such loopholes were correctly identified and included in such legislation. We don't back specific candidates, nor support policies that aren't related to what we view as moral issues, but we do legislate and lobby for our moral principles.

Ravenpoe said:

Since I live in the US, and the current debate going on in this country, it is what I'm most familiar with. But sure, go ahead and talk about any country you want.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. The legal issues, social norms and historic background are all quite dependent upon location, so there might be differences between a generalised treatment of same-sex marriage as a concept, and it's application in a specific area.

Shawnacy said:

Reasons I can think of that a non religious person would have issue with gay marriage.
1) It makes a mockery of traditional marriage:

Click to expand...

In western cultures, marriage has been a one man-one woman affair for a VERY long time. Sort of what I think was previously suggested in this thread, a lot of people may find it sad to see a deeply ingrained social convention being tossed aside and replaced with something new with the same name.

2) It's a slippery slope that will lead to ridiculous unions such as men marrying their dogs:

Click to expand...

The slippery slope is often held to be a fallacious way to argue. But I will mention how the same-sex marriage issue went over here in Finland. At first, they were asking for nothing more except registered partnerships. They got it. Then they began asking for nothing more except in-family adoption. They got that, too. Then they asked for nothing more except out-of-family adoption. Yup, they are getting it too. Now they are asking for nothing more except gender-neutral marriage.

With this kind of history, one might be rather hasty to believe that this will be the end of it. The end of what, you ask, what more is there after same-sex marriage has been legalised? Well, why stop with gender? According to my interpretation, many of the same reasons given in favor of same-sex marriage are equally applicable to several other persuasions as well, and it might be just a matter of time until they begin clamouring for equal rights and recognition.

Legally speaking, is marriage a natural right of all humans, or is it a legal right and a contractual matter? Both definitions may present some problems. Contractual issues can and are being regulated by the government for the public good by due legal process. This would place the question of same-sex marriage within the jurisdiction of the legislature, and the will of the majority which is subject to change. If marriage is a natural right in which the state has the authority to intervene only in cases of overriding public interest, then would it be possible to marry close family members, or all of them for that matter. Inbreeding is possible only in cases involving reproductively viable individuals of the opposite sexes. If mutual consent and no harm to others are the only guiding principles, which I believe is the position advocated by most same-sex marriage proponents, then how could such a union as that be prevented while maintaining consistency and fair and equal treatment? Or is it something seen as permissible under the new system?

stienman said:

We use the political and legal process to encourage society to adopt our standards, so no, we would continue to oppose gay marriage even if such loopholes were correctly identified and included in such legislation. We don't back specific candidates, nor support policies that aren't related to what we view as moral issues, but we do legislate and lobby for our moral principles.

Click to expand...

There is something really "a storm is coming " about the tone of this post, not sure why.

Has anyone mentioned the soil? Because I'm pretty sure there's an issue there to consider.

Fun Size said:

Has anyone mentioned the soil? Because I'm pretty sure there's an issue there to consider.

Click to expand...

...what?

Chad Sexington said:

...what?

Click to expand...

Gay people make crops fail.

I mean, cmon, this is basic stuff.

I learn so much here.

Ravenpoe said:

Gay people make crops fail.

I mean, cmon, this is basic stuff.

Click to expand...

I bet no one has even considered the extra ozone depletion that we're responsible for. I mean come on people, take a science class.

Bowielee said:

I bet no one has even considered the extra ozone depletion that we're responsible for. I mean come on people, take a science class.

Click to expand...

Every time Florida gets a hurricane, I curse Bowie's penis.

Ravenpoe said:

Every time Florida gets a hurricane, I curse Bowie's penis.

Click to expand...

And my butt, don't forget my butt.

Wait, I forgot. The penis causes natural disasters, the butt causes terrorist attacks.

Anal sex then causes terrorists to attack during an earthquake.

Bowielee said:

And my butt, don't forget my butt.

Wait, I forgot. The penis causes natural disasters, the butt causes terrorist attacks.

Anal sex then causes terrorists to attack during an earthquake.

Click to expand...

You monster.

We need to sneak platoons of gays into enemy nations to cause those disasters there...

So, we're officially too young to get Dead Milkmen references? Dammit, I need a virtual lawn to kick you all off of.

Fun Size said:

Has anyone mentioned the soil? Because I'm pretty sure there's an issue there to consider.

Click to expand...

You guys fail so bad. Fun Size was referencing Stuart by the Dead Milkmen.

Don't you guys know what the QUEERS are doing to the SOIL?!

Edit - ninja'd by a 3rd page I didn't see.

GasBandit said:

Edit - ninja'd by a 3rd page I didn't see.

Click to expand...

The worst kind of ninja.

They did a song besides Bitchin' Camaro?

sixpackshaker said:

They did a song besides Bitchin' Camaro?

Click to expand...

Oh hell yes. I really liked most of the Beelzebubba album, and a good amount of Metaphysical Graffiti, and a few others as well. My personal favorites are Howard Beware, and If You Love Somebody Set Them On Fire. Also Punk Rock Girl gets honorable mention for referencing another obscure artist I like, Mojo Nixon.

I think their lead singer died not too long ago.

I keep singing Ween's version of Gin and Juice.

edit: Crap it was the Gourds. Why did I think it was Ween?

Necronic said:

I keep singing Ween's version of Gin and Juice.

edit: Crap it was the Gourds. Why did I think it was Ween?

Click to expand...

Thank napster. Back when that came out, Napster was just hitting its stride, and a popular version of that song got shared mislabled.

Radio stations picked it up, also from Napster, and introduced it as such.

Ravenpoe said:

Thank napster. Back when that came out, Napster was just hitting its stride, and a popular version of that song got shared mislabled.

Click to expand...

Kind of like how EVERY SINGLE humorous song got attributed to Wierd Al Yankovic on napster, even though it was plainly obvious the singer was not Wierd Al.

GasBandit said:

Kind of like how EVERY SINGLE humorous song got attributed to Wierd Al Yankovic on napster, even though it was plainly obvious the singer was not Wierd Al.

Click to expand...

I still have a mislabeled "Godfather Theme by John Williams" from that era...
And the "Monster Mash - Rocky Horror Picture Show"...

This is the one that will always spring to my mind whenever mislabeled Napster songs comes up.

Fun Size said:

So, we're officially too young to get Dead Milkmen references? Dammit, I need a virtual lawn to kick you all off of.

Click to expand...

Beelzebubba is a great cd.

GasBandit said:

You guys fail so bad. Fun Size was referencing Stuart by the Dead Milkmen.

Don't you guys know what the QUEERS are doing to the SOIL?!

Edit - ninja'd by a 3rd page I didn't see.

Click to expand...

See the random playlist thread.

Now be good and I'll take you to the zoo.

Bowielee said:

And my butt, don't forget my butt.

Wait, I forgot. The penis causes natural disasters, the butt causes terrorist attacks.

Anal sex then causes terrorists to attack during an earthquake.

Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bowie's penis is a literal lightning rod.

Shocking.