NonReligious Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[valsa]

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.

It's funny how the same homophobic people will grasp at the same straws. When there were first rumors of Obama striking down Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I saw someone argue "What's going to stop two guys or two girls from claiming they're together to get family housing?" (which I guess is nicer and more private than the barracks single people have to live in) Apparently it never occurred to them that a man and a woman could be lying about the same thing to get the same perks.

[JesusFightClub]

Debrand, they're the guys with balaclavas on! And large amounts of weaponry. Provo = member of the IRA.

While they are technically and politically stood down, "being a Provo" is, well, it has meaning. I did a double take when I saw the site name :D

[fakepigtails73]

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.

I think that's how it's done in France (Sophie, correct me if I'm wrong): one gets married first at City Hall, by a mayor or city councillor, then if they want a Catholic weddig they get one afterwards. But were same couple get married at church without a civil ceremony first their marriage would have no legal standing.

I like that.

[valsa]

I think that's how it's done in France (Sophie, correct me if I'm wrong): one gets married first at City Hall, by a mayor or city councillor, then if they want a Catholic weddig they get one afterwards. But were same couple get married at church without a civil ceremony first their marriage would have no legal standing.

I like that.

Me too.

[alaeangelorum]

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.

They have pretty much that system in France I believe - before you have a ceremony in a religious building you have to have a legal ceremony first. I'm also quite keen on that idea. There is some controversy in the UK at the moment because it has been suggested that the marriage act be changed so that gay couples can marry. We already have civil partnerships which afford same-sex couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples, the only difference being that civil partnerships have to be a civil ceremony. However they are not proposing changing the religious part so basically all it will achieve is a name change and that you will be able to change your gender on your birth certificate without having to end your marriage as is currently the case... anyway it is causing lots of fuss, and a large amount of it seems to be over semantics. I think if marriage wasn't so tied into the religious in the UK (what with the Church of England) it wouldn't be that much of an issue/churches wouldn't be (probably irrationally) frightened that they will be forced to marry same-sex couples.

[fakepigtails73]

Debrand, they're the guys with balaclavas on! And large amounts of weaponry. Provo = member of the IRA.

While they are technically and politically stood down, "being a Provo" is, well, it has meaning. I did a double take when I saw the site name :D

Totally, really OT, but what is the Scottish opinion of "the Troubles" and the IRA?

I saw the movie "Hunger" a few weeks back, holy sh!t what a moving film...

Right after that we saw "In The Name of The Father", which I'd seen when it came out.

Was the whole UK under some kind of "martial law" during those times?

ETA: JFC, I started a thread on "Hunger" in the movies and TV forum if you wanna talk about it there.

[debrand]

It's funny how the same homophobic people will grasp at the same straws. When there were first rumors of Obama striking down Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I saw someone argue "What's going to stop two guys or two girls from claiming they're together to get family housing?" (which I guess is nicer and more private than the barracks single people have to live in) Apparently it never occurred to them that a man and a woman could be lying about the same thing to get the same perks.

In the military, you have to either be married or have a child to get family housing so two males would have to get married before they got the housing.

The quality of family housing depends on the base where you are stationed. Usually, the houses are very close together, in duplex style with small yards. There are rules about the upkeep of those yards and the interior of the house has to be scrubbed down when you leave. It isn't perfect but there are lots of families who can offer support when a spouse is deployed. I think that someone who was faking marriage would be caught very quickly.

[valsa]

In the military, you have to either be married or have a child to get family housing so two males would have to get married before they got the housing.

The quality of family housing depends on the base where you are stationed. Usually, the houses are very close together, in duplex style with small yards. There are rules about the upkeep of those yards and the interior of the house has to be scrubbed down when you leave. It isn't perfect but there are lots of families who can offer support when a spouse is deployed. I think that someone who was faking marriage would be caught very quickly.

Yeah, I know nothing about the military (and I'm not sure this guy did either) so it could very well be impossible to fake a marriage (not the legal part, but the "we're a married couple that's so in love!" part) Then again, a lot of gay people have been faking straight in the military, which I would think is even harder.

[MrsYoungie]

Actual meaning of all arguments against same sex marriage:

"It gives me an ooky feeling to think about it."

Everything else is just a bunch of noise.

[JesusFightClub]

Fakepigtails...I put a message in the other thread. :)

MrsYoungie, totally agree. Didn't someone say "I don't want to imagine what they will do on their wedding night"? DON'T IMAGINE IT THEN! Who does that anyway?

[Witsec7]

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

Pricked up my ears too. I was living on and off in the UK when everyone was looking for abandoned packages in the underground. One year my tube station was bombed while I was about a block away.

(ok back on topic)

[asinglevoice]

I'm totally down for the system that exists in France, too.

Essentially, what people seem to fail to realize is that in the United States, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. The amount of religion present in a ceremony or in a marriage itself is dependent on the couple involved. As a gay woman, I can enter into any other legal contract with any other consenting adult of my choosing - why not this one, too? And if they're aiming to "protect the sanctity of marriage" as a religious institution (I know that's not 'technically' this person's argument, even though it pretty much is), why is no one up in arms over atheists getting married?

[chiccy]

What really confuses me is when people say gay marriage, or gayness or whatever, is "immoral." I get it when people say they're personally repulsed by it, or that they think God doesn't allow it or whatever. But immoral? In what sense could gay possibly be immoral? Morality is a secular and, ideally, objective value. Killing is immoral; rape is immoral; violating people's rights is immoral. Homosexuality? Gross, vile, sacrilegious, OK...immoral no.

(this really should be clear to everyone, but I don't think homosexuality is gross, vile, sacrilegious, repulsive, or forbidden by God. Nor do I think it's OK to say or think so. It just makes marginally more sense to do so than to say it's "immoral.")

[chiccy]

I think that's how it's done in France (Sophie, correct me if I'm wrong): one gets married first at City Hall, by a mayor or city councillor, then if they want a Catholic weddig they get one afterwards. But were same couple get married at church without a civil ceremony first their marriage would have no legal standing.

Yup. It's a good system.

[JesusFightClub]

Pricked up my ears too. I was living on and off in the UK when everyone was looking for abandoned packages in the underground. One year my tube station was bombed while I was about a block away.

(ok back on topic)

So glad it wasn't just me...

[Renting with Raggles]

why is no one up in arms over atheists getting married?

Yeah, this is my problem, and I've never met a fundie honest enough to address it. Actually, the manner in which they approach every discussion of gay marriage is dishonest.

Usually they begin by declaring that they won't use a religious argument because their logic is so secular and flawless. Then they throw out the argument from nature. When their opposition inevitably points them to the myriad of evidence of homosexuality in nature, they immediately backtrack and reverse the naturalistic fallacy ('just because it's in nature doesn't mean we should murder/ be cannibals etc') ! By this time I'm face-palming because that breaks every rule of logic and rational debate. You can't just switch arguments mid-stream, intellectually honest debate means developing a watertight argument and taking it to the conclusion. Point this out and they just end with an appeal to their faith, coming full circle in terms of lies. It's like a boring, predictable dance.

There are some secular homophobes, but I find that they're all like 102 and their position boils down to 'icky' anyway.

Edited for riffles.

[debrand]

So glad it wasn't just me...

Thank you for telling me what that meant.

[JesusFightClub]

Thank you for telling me what that meant.

No , I am sorry for not explaining! Between UK and US English it can be tough sometimes. Because I am a daft bastard my first response was "They (website owners) don't know what Provos are?" But I hadn't realised well, nope. Not in the US.

I apologise and hope I was not rude. I did not mean to be.

[debrand]

No , I am sorry for not explaining! Between UK and US English it can be tough sometimes. Because I am a daft bastard my first response was "They (website owners) don't know what Provos are?" But I hadn't realised well, nope. Not in the US.

I apologise and hope I was not rude. I did not mean to be.

No, you weren't rude at all. I expect a few UK words to be different than here in America. The first time that I heard snog=kissing was from Harry Potter and it sounded like something that would happen when you have a bad cold. "I have a lot of snog in my nose." Now I know what Provo means

[QAF_Rocks]

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. ;)

Yes, they don't count families like the one I grew up in. In their eyes, we're inferior, not the "ideal" or "optimal" choice for children, so therefore we shouldn't be allowed legal recognition. It's never clear how this refusal makes life better for heterosexual families. It certainly doesn't make life better for same-sex couples, who have to pay thousands of dollars and jump through a bunch of legal hoops to try to protect each other and their children. But, hey, at least those same-sex couples are being punished for their inferior choice. That's what matters! :roll:

Bottom line is that the people screaming "children need a mother and a father!" don't seem to realize that banning same-sex marriage does not stop gay men and lesbians from having children. If they do realize this basic fact, they don't care. They want those couples to be punished for making the "wrong" choice, no matter how it affects the children they supposedly care so much about.

[figuring it out]

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.

[Kate]

How does that have anything to do with gay marriage? All I can see it being is a PIA for people (gay and straight) who want a religious wedding. How does it make it better for anyone?

[Witsec7]

How does that have anything to do with gay marriage? All I can see it being is a PIA for people (gay and straight) who want a religious wedding. How does it make it better for anyone?

It will return marriage to the civil contract it once was, and the issue will no longer be clouded by religious fervor. Right now we permit religious institutions to validate a single type of civil contract, marriage. I don't need a church to validate any other civil contract I enter into. Lets just leave religious celebrations of a civil contract in the churches hands and return the civil contract of marriage back to the state.

[valsa]

How does that have anything to do with gay marriage? All I can see it being is a PIA for people (gay and straight) who want a religious wedding. How does it make it better for anyone?

When people try to use "X is a religious institution" to deny other people basic human rights, I think making sure there is a very clear distinction between when X is a legal contract and when it's a religious contract is relevant.

[Bella99]

Well, it kind of levels the PITA factor. Want to be legally married? A brief session with a court officer and you'll be married in the eyes of the state. Want to be (I know this makes me think FLDS, sorry), spiritually married? Find a church willing to perform the ceremony and you'll be married in the eyes of the church. So couples who want a church ceremony will be the ones who have to jump through an extra hoop, but it could be done at the same time people apply for their wedding licenses.

Compared to what same sex couples go through now, I don't consider it a big deal. I'd do it in the name of equality and the separation of church and state gladly.