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.
Are there non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage?
- Thread starter Ravenpoe
- Start date
- Status
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
Until you find out you still get rejected.
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.).
I wasn't calling Shawnacy out or anything, just making a point/saying that
GasBandit
Staff member
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).
Yeah, that's silly. That's not how gay happens. Everybody knows THIS is how gay happens:
Rape isn't funny...
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.
Necronic
Staff member
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.)
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.)
There has, see my link above.
It must really suck when you post scientific articles to back up your claims and people ignore them, huh.
Pfft, what do scientists know?It must really suck when you post scientific articles to back up your claims and people ignore them, huh.
... Hawt[DOUBLEPOST=1364406783][/DOUBLEPOST][DOUBLEPOST=1364406814][/DOUBLEPOST]I hate double posts merged.
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.It must really suck when you post scientific articles to back up your claims and people ignore them, huh.
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.)
Knowing your religion (or knowing of, I'm certainly not a scholar) I already assumed that was the case.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.)
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.
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
There is something really "a storm is coming " about the tone of this post, not sure why.
...what?
I learn so much here.
They also cause plagues of locusts! Don't ask how... they just do!
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.
Every time Florida gets a hurricane, I curse Bowie's penis.
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.
You monster.
- Status