NonReligious Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[debrand]

provopulse.com/?q=node/1557

I was trying to find some non religious argument against gay marriage and came across this site. It looks like something that would be torn to shreds on this site.

I was going to put this on the chatter section but the writer does include a religious reference. It appears that he or she is a member fo the LDS Church.

I know that this may be called a religious argument, and I almost do not include it, but the family truly is the foundation of society.

In an article dealing with nonreligious reasons to forbid homosexual marriage, the author still has to touch on religion.

Here are his/her other reasons.

The most prevalent argument that I hear is that homosexual couples wish to have the rights of being considered family, especially where hospital emergencies and inheritance issues are concerned. I would argue that if they really love each other that much, then they would take the steps necessary to secure those rights, even if they cannot be officially married.

Let me get this straight. Heterosexual couples can simply walk in front of a judge and they can have the rights of inheritance and other legal issues. Homosexual couples must pay a lawyer much more money and take steps to get several documents to cover a wide variety of what ifs.

How is that fair?

I have also heard that gay couples wish to have an official ceremony that friends and family may attend. There is no law against arranging such a gathering. People invite friends and family to second weddings all of the time. In the LDS culture many couples perform ring ceremonies. I do not see why they cannot participate in these activities already.

The entire point is that homosexuals want their marriage to have ths same legal backing as heterosexual couples. The LDS church would be up in arms if the government decided that LDS couples could not legally marry one another.

There is also the argument that scientifically we find that homosexuality is a natural response to overpopulation, and so we should not fight so hard against policies having to do with it. I will quickly agree that the studies are accurate, but also point out that we find that disease and cannibalism are at least equally common responses to the same problem. I am not trying to compare homosexuality to disease or cannibalism in any way. However, I would say that until we stop fighting disease and legalize cannibalism, I see this as an invalid argument to support the gay community.

What? This person is reaching. And yes, he or she did compare homosexuality to disease and cannibalism. I would not use this argument myself because gay people are humans and deserve the rights of others. Period. It shouldn't matter how many people are on the earth.

I see gay marriage as a socially bad move. For instance there is the problem of employers being required to provide health insurance for both partners. In some cases this would seem like a good thing, but in reality it would be too large a stress on the institution of family coverage. I believe that suddenly non-traditional couples would pop up everywhere to reap the benefits of such a situation. Under this plan, though I am heterosexual, I could become bound to another female simply to supply or gain those benefits.

I've heard this argument before and it boils down to, Let's protect the poor insurance companies. First, marriage is a legal ceremony. There is nothing preventing a man and woman from getting married just to get benefits. That probably doesn't usually happen because of all the legal headaches associated with leaving the marriage. Same sex couples would be under the same rules as heterosexual couples in this situation. Unless the writer believes that gays are somehow more likely to cheat the system than heteroexual couples, I don't get the point of this argument. However, i don't get any of this person's reasons.

[debrand]

Even though this person is attempting to make a nonreligious argument against same sex marriage, it is obvious that their problem with same sex marriage is based on religion.

[breadprincess]

This is all bullshit, seriously. I promise you that no one is fighting for marriage equality just to engage in insurance fraud. I am queer and LDS, people like this make me frustrated with my religion (by queer I mean technically bisexual, but with little interest in men. I have been living essentially as a lesbian for the past 8 years, the last 3 of which I have been with the same woman).

[ElphabaGalinda]

This person's reasons aren't real reasons at all, because as far as I know there is no non-religious argument against gay marriage. The last one is particularly dumb, because heterosexual couples were always able to cheat the system like that. And same sex couples should have to go through a bunch of extra more complicated steps to get the same rights a marriage would provide...why? That one also seems a little pointless.

The one that pisses me off the most is the whole family is the foundation of society thing. Because who defines what a family is? If family was really the foundation of society, shouldn't they be all for letting gay people have legal recognition for their families?

Anyone who compares homosexuality with disease and canibalism has no argument.

[1004srs]

If someone wants to get married, why don't we let them. FOr heavens sake..... SOrry, to me any arguement against gay marriage is just silly.

[mirele]

My father's argument against gay marriage is that we haven't considered the tax implications of allowing gay couples to marry (i.e., will it lead to a greater deficit if more people can claim marriage for higher tax exemptions).

What I should have said at the time (knowing how Dad feels about this) is that when the Supreme Court invalidated all those anti-interracial marriage laws, they didn't take into consideration the tax implications. Since my father is a descendant of several generations of interracial marriage and "passing," I imagine he might have gotten it. On the other hand, also knowing my father, he might have said it to get a rise out of me. (Yes, it's a family pastime, see what you can say to Mir to see what my reaction would be--and it doesn't even have to involve politics. Once it involved a chandelier.)

But I just let it pass. At least with Dad I can discuss it, with my mom, it's a flat-out no-go.

[Sola]

Below are the valid non religious reasons against gay marriage;

Yep, that about covers it.

[debrand]

I think that only the state should be able to marry a couple. Churches can have ceremonies but those ceremonies shouldn't have any legal standing. That would solve some of these problems because it would take religion out of the argument.

That means that someone who wants a church wedding would need two ceremonies, a legal one and a religious one.

[Sola]

^This.

(damn character limit)

[CanadianHippie]

Aaaaaand this is where I start twitching and stop reading. The guy's an idiot if he thinks stopping same-sex marriage is good for families... What about the families headed by same-sex parents hmmm? Do they don't count as real families that are part of the foundation of society?

[RR88]

provopulse.com/?q=node/1557

I was trying to find some non religious argument against gay marriage and came across this site. It looks like something that would be torn to shreds on this site.

I was going to put this on the chatter section but the writer does include a religious reference. It appears that he or she is a member fo the LDS Church.

In an article dealing with nonreligious reasons to forbid homosexual marriage, the author still has to touch on religion.

Here are his/her other reasons.

Let me get this straight. Heterosexual couples can simply walk in front of a judge and they can have the rights of inheritance and other legal issues. Homosexual couples must pay a lawyer much more money and take steps to get several documents to cover a wide variety of what ifs.

How is that fair?

The entire point is that homosexuals want their marriage to have ths same legal backing as heterosexual couples. The LDS church would be up in arms if the government decided that LDS couples could not legally marry one another.

What? This person is reaching. And yes, he or she did compare homosexuality to disease and cannibalism. I would not use this argument myself because gay people are humans and deserve the rights of others. Period. It shouldn't matter how many people are on the earth.

I've heard this argument before and it boils down to, Let's protect the poor insurance companies. First, marriage is a legal ceremony. There is nothing preventing a man and woman from getting married just to get benefits. That probably doesn't usually happen because of all the legal headaches associated with leaving the marriage. Same sex couples would be under the same rules as heterosexual couples in this situation. Unless the writer believes that gays are somehow more likely to cheat the system than heteroexual couples, I don't get the point of this argument. However, i don't get any of this person's reasons.

I know from years of reading FJ that my political views aren't too popular, but I'm going to be honest and say that I think things like property rights, individualism, and certain laws/structures are stronger foundations of society than the vague term "family" is.

[RR88]

What about the families headed by same-sex parents hmmm? Do they don't count as real families that are part of the foundation of society?

No, CanadianHippie. A "family" must include an adult male, an adult female, two (or more) children, and a dog all living together in a suburban house with a white picket fence. ;)

[1004srs]

So, me raising my 2 kiddos is not a family.

[debrand]

Q: What is Provo Pulse?

A: A hub of discussion for the BYU / Provo student community.

When I did my google search for nonreligious arguments against gay marriage, I chose one of the first sites that was on the search list. I looked under the FAQ and realized that there is a reason there was LDS ads on this site. :doh:

Despite being a site for the BYU community, there are many commentors who disagree with the author.

[formergothardite]

If someone wants to get married, why don't we let them. FOr heavens sake..... SOrry, to me any arguement against gay marriage is just silly.

Isn't you saying this being intolerant of opinions other than your own, something you acted like was a bad thing? Bacon bra and her crazy buddies, right? Them being intolerant of other people's opinion. Well, here you are doing the exact same thing.

[formergothardite]

My favorite argument against gay marriage was that one poster (his name has slipped my mind, but his wife was here too) who said it would lead to toaster marriage. LOL

[debrand]

My favorite argument against gay marriage was that one poster (his name has slipped my mind, but his wife was here too) who said it would lead to toaster marriage. LOL

Handcuff? He was Mormon just like the author of the article.

By the way, the site that I linked to has all kinds of interesting articles on it.

[formergothardite]

Handcuff? He was Mormon just like the author of the article.

By the way, the site that I linked to has all kinds of interesting articles on it.

That is who it was!

[lawfulevil]

Listen, if I want to marry my household appliances, that's between me and all of them. Except my dishwasher, because that'd just be wrong.

I know that I will never want to live without my central heating/cooling system. We'll be together every day except parts of april/may and sept/oct, through high electric bills and low, breakdowns and repairs, dead squirrels in the heater and the dog hogging the vent breeze, for the rest of our lives, until my tripping over the cat in the middle of the night do us part.

[Hane]

I once heard a guy bloviating about how gay marriage would "open a whole new can of worms," in terms of having to deal with the inevitable divorces that would occur. I wasn't able to ask him how divorce among a small portion of the estimated 10%-gay population who chose marriage would overburden the court system.

"Non-religious" bias against same-sex marriage smacks of the old saw, "I may not know much about anything, but I know what I like, and I don't like this."

[Hane]

Listen, if I want to marry my household appliances, that's between me and all of them. Except my dishwasher, because that'd just be wrong.

I've had a more satisfying and longer-standing relationship with my Kitchen-Aid stand mixer than with either of my two husbands.

[lawfulevil]

I've had a more satisfying and longer-standing relationship with my Kitchen-Aid stand mixer than with either of my two husbands.

That's because when you ask the KitchenAid to do something, it does it without whining for an hour first.

[JesusFightClub]

I was worried by the name Provo Pulse too. Provos are something a bit different where I'm from...*scared face*

[debrand]

I was worried by the name Provo Pulse too. Provos are something a bit different where I'm from...*scared face*

Oh good, what is it?

[Conuly]

I once heard a guy bloviating about how gay marriage would "open a whole new can of worms," in terms of having to deal with the inevitable divorces that would occur. I wasn't able to ask him how divorce among a small portion of the estimated 10%-gay population who chose marriage would overburden the court system.

"Non-religious" bias against same-sex marriage smacks of the old saw, "I may not know much about anything, but I know what I like, and I don't like this."

Not to mention, same-sex couples ALREADY break up and ALREADY have to deal with disagreements about property and custody and all. Having them get married like everybody else could only serve to streamline the process, not make it more difficult!

My favorite argument against gay marriage was that one poster (his name has slipped my mind, but his wife was here too) who said it would lead to toaster marriage. LOL

Yeah, and? What's so wrong about marrying a toaster?

http:// annajarzab.com /2010/06/02/so-say-we-all/

(I googled for a good Athena/Helo pic, so I have no idea if this person cares or not at being linked to.)