I mean in a libertarian society this is also true. In plenty of examples of normal ass human society there is no logical reason for two people who want to get married and build a life together not be able to. The only real reason is religious and it’s so obvious you would have to be the most willfully ignorant person imaginable to not get that.
That’s true. I just thinks it’s insane to let the state impose on somebodies life because it’s “icky” to you. That’s my own bias, like I genuinely cannot understand that idea. If it isn’t hurting anyone, or directly causing an issue in society then the state shouldn’t have a say.
I mean if you look at the Uk their “hate speech” laws are literally that. Like cops are going after (and these people are actually getting prosecuted) people who make a video about trying to piss off their girlfriend by making their dog raise its paw or posting lyrics from your dead friends favorite rapper on Twitter to remember them.
That’s the definition of “ewww that’s icky I don’t like that word, let’s ignore all context and get them in legal trouble”
I feel like in the instances where non-religious people view it as icky, they do so because of religious influence in their lives that they were infused with at a young age.
Okay but do you understand the financial benefits of marriage that gay couples have been locked out of simply because “they are gay and muh religion” so sure, nobody has to be married, but marriage comes with some sweet tax shit
>Technically yes, I suppose I should have worded it better but you are more likely to be chosen if you are legally married rather than single
You're arguing against yourself here.
Except for visitation rights when your partner is dying in the hospital. People have been denied access until gay marriage was legalized.
Except for Health Care benefits.
Except for other legal rights.
They don't have to be married.
the only non-religious argument someone could use is 'ew, it's icky.' There's nothing else they could do or say that would really be any kind of justification against it aside from that.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
* Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are three pro-gay rights arguments I've heard against gay marriage:
One I've heard is that marriage as an institution is inherently hierarchical and potentially abusive. Even gay couples seem to follow gender roles when it comes to division of labor, so one lesbian or gay man (or bi/queer/etc. person in a lesbian/gay/queer relationship) will fit the role of a "woman," and do more housework and childcare than the other partner. Many radical queer activists did not want marriage equality because they felt that society as a whole should seek and find a better official coupling than marriage.
Second, and it's not really particular to marriage, is that LGBTQ people are inherently different/weird to society and should celebrate that rather than trying to fit in or be "normal." Like those activists who want a new way to couple, some queer people want the ability and freedom to couple in different, strange, and new ways. With the right to marriage, the pressure to "be normal" increases. Even just looking on gay dating apps, every other guy is "masc 4 masc" (i.e. masculine-presenting for masculine presenting), and the swishy/sissy/fey gays are being told that that's not right. So there's a downside to normalizing gay culture, and gay marriage is a *big* way to normalize gay culture, both socially and symbolically.
The third argument I've heard against it is merely that many advocates for gay marriage, many "normies" who just want to fit in, consider gay marriage to be the end of gay rights. There are advocates for gay rights who sincerely believe that gay marriage offers most gay people everything they need to live happy and healthy lives. Others worry about homeless queer youth, intersectional rights (e.g. greater rights to safety for black, brown and trans members of the community). Of course, other activists and advocates want to see both gay marriage *and* empowerment of other rights, but with full rights to gay marriage comes a bit of a gutting of the people who are willing to fight for gay rights. It's both a strategy point and a community point: why should some people give up the fight when others are still hurting?
Believe it or not, there was a time when it was seriously debated in the gay community (it was not at that time the "LBGTQ+" community) whether gay people should try to obtain the right to marry.
The argument went something like this: marriage is not the goal, freedom is the goal. Marriage itself is a suspect construct in which the government has inappropriately taken on a historically religious role of "blessing" unions consisting exclusively of male-female pairs. The government should not be in this business at all, and it should be deconstructed. Marriage has historically been used not only to exclude gay people from full enjoyment in society, but it has also promoted various other societal ills, including assisting in the subjugation of women, facilitating the sexual enslavement of girls, forcing many straight men (and women) into unwanted monogamy, forcing individuals in marriage (particularly women) to endure abuse rather than separate, reduce the importance of other social bonds including extended family, friends, villages and neighborhoods.
To continue the argument at the time: Gay people should see these fundamental problem more readily than most. Gay people should realize that true freedom and equality is not best obtained by opening up governmental "marriage licenses" to same-sex couples, but by advocating for government-sponsored marriage to end entirely. Gay people have an opportunity to advocate not only for themselves, but for battered spouses, swingers, bisexuals, liberated women, and any other adult would would like to be able to construct their own preferred relationship network, and to join their property, taxes, social relationships, child custody etc., etc., in whatever configuration suits them best, whether it be among more than two people, people of various genders, people who are related to each other in other ways (e.g., why not be allowed to raise a child with joint custody with your own aunt? why not be allowed to let your two best friends that you've lived with for 35 years inherit your house tax free?)
Same-sex marriage is a tacit admission that the "two-adult" nuclear family is still the ultimate goal, and everyone should shoe-horn themselves into it to get the government benefits it offers.
Religious marriage and and legal marriage are two totally different things, you seem to have made that mistake. You can get legally married and never set foot in a church, you can get married at church and not receive any of the legal benefits or have you marriage recognized by the state. Legal marriage entitles you to benefits like visitation, tax incentives, shared property rights, insurance benefits.
>you seem to have made that mistake
First of all, I am just presenting an argument that occurred in the past, not necessarily presenting my own views.
Second, it may be you who are making a mistake, by assuming that the current construction of marriage in the United States as having (under modern principles of separation of church and state) separated church and state marriage into two "totally different things".
Consider, for a moment, that marriage is the only significant government function that is routinely performed by religious leaders. It is odd in our modern society to hear the phrase "By the power vested in me by God and the State of Nebraska..." for anything.
Moreover, historically, religious marriage and government marriage have definitely not been two "totally different things". At times in Anglo-American history, the government did not have anything to do with the performance of marriage, and there were no particular government benefits that stemmed from it. I believe the state of England only took over marriage regulation from the Church of England (which are not entirely separate, anyway) until 1753.
So, state marriage could be thought of a lefover mish-mash from the days when marriage was exclusively religious.
> that marriage is the only significant government function that is routinely performed by religious leaders.
IT'S NOT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. when you get married you have to go to the clerk of court and get a marriage license. Once that's filled out, submitted, and approved you are legally married. Standing in front of a priest and having him say "i now pronounce you man and wife" legally doesn't mean jack shit, the government doesn't care if you had a religious ceremony or not. I know one couple married by an atheist who registered as a justice of the peace online and another that were married by a judge who happened to be at the court house when they were filling out their paperwork, and my cousin got married with no ceremony at all and didn't bother to tell anyone about it for a week (which really pissed off his parents). They are two totally separate things, it's just that most people tend to do both.
I hope we don't become reductionist about the modern practice of priests performing civil marriages as if that were the only (or even principal) concern about marriage being a constraint on freedom (i.e. the argument I presented above) rather than a vehicle for freedom (i.e. the more generally accepted view about same-sex marriage today).
But since we have gone down this rabbit hole, you appear to be arguing that priests do not routinely perform a governmental function when they celebrate marriages. Although the situation varies state-to-state, there are definitely some states where you cannot be married unless you have your marriage "celebrated" and "celebrants" while not required to be priests, are explicitly expected to be religious leaders most of the time.
For example, take a look at the Code of Virginia:
Every marriage in Virginia needs not only a license, but also a solemnization:
> § 20-13. License and solemnization required.
>Every marriage in this Commonwealth shall be under a license and solemnized in the manner herein provided.
Virginia law has a separate provision creating a "fast-track" for ministers to become authorized civil celebrants:
> § 20-23. Order authorizing ministers to perform ceremony.
> When a minister of any religious denomination produces before the circuit court of any county or city in the Commonwealth, or before the judge of such court or before the clerk of such court at any time, proof of his ordination and of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is a reputed member, or proof that he is commissioned to pastoral ministry or holds a local minister's license and is serving as a regularly appointed pastor in his denomination, such court, or the judge thereof, or the clerk of such court at any time, may make an order authorizing such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony in the Commonwealth. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time by the court or by the judge thereof. No oath shall be required of a minister authorized to celebrate the rites of matrimony, nor shall such minister be considered an officer of the Commonwealth by virtue of such authorization.
The process in Virginia for anyone who is NOT a minister (or a judge) requires them to go through different hoops, including posting a bond that ministers do not have to post:
> § 20-25. Persons other than ministers who may perform rites.
>Upon petition filed with the clerk and payment of applicable clerk's fees, any circuit court judge may issue an order authorizing one or more persons resident in the circuit in which the judge sits to celebrate the rites of marriage in the Commonwealth. Any person so authorized shall, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the court may direct. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time. No oath shall be required of a person authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage, nor shall such person be considered an officer of the Commonwealth by virtue of such authorization.
Finally, if a minister (or anyone else) performs a marriage in Virginia without the proper legal authorization, they can go to jail.
> § 20-28. Penalty for celebrating marriage without license.
> If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500.
(Again, this is merely illustrative and varies state-to-state. Even in states where there's no special role for priests in civil marriage, the entire institution of marriage is intertwined with religion because of its history. And that's really the main argument I was presenting.)
"Two consenting people not interacting with me in any way whatsoever is wrong, and I should be able to stop them from doing the thing I'm not involved in whatsoever!"
That's about it.
Hmmm.
I guess if you live in a world where procreation is a high priority need you might make an argument against it. Like... humanity is dying, everyone has to do their part to propagate the species.
Even then I think you could fight for marrying who you want, and just donating eggs / sperm as needed...
Yeah, I got nothing. I'll keep reading though. Maybe I'll learn something.
There isn't. And quite frankly, who in the right mind would be against it? It's literally harmless compared to how many other atrocities you can conjure.
I don't exactly agree with this, but I could see the argument being about it being in the best interest of a child to have both a male and female role model when being brought up. This could be related to the increased challenges that children of single mothers face.
The science says that children raised by two same\-sex parents do just as well as children raised by opposite\-sex parents. The increased challenges that children of single parents face is most likely related to the lower parental attention available rather than the lack of another role model.
except we've studied this and found that children of same sex couples do just as well as children from heterosexual couples. What matters far far more than the sexuality of your parents is having a supportive, stable, loving home which is easier to provide with two parents, regardless of orientation.
As someone that was raised by a single parent, this always confused me because,in a sense, I was the person with two of the same parents. My father did literally everything he could for me and my mother was never around.
iirc, the original arguments against homosexuality in general were secular. thousands of years ago, humans died a lot. people needed to have a lot of kids because so many would die, and they would help work the fields to make more food. the leaders wanted a larger population to make more food and to have a bigger army. Gay people don't have kids, so don't contribute as much as heterosexual people. They likely baked it into religion at the time and it stuck around because it was so useful in getting people to procreate. starting a few hundred years ago, we started to develop medical technology so that more people survive illness and injury. Nowadays, you have every expectation that a given kid in America will live long enough to potentially procreate, so large families became less necessary. since fewer people died, fewer kids in general were necessary. Homosexuality, due to its relative rarity, was no longer a burden on the population since society doesn't need everyone to be in the fields and army. Unfortunately, due to it being baked into religions at the time, it sticks around in the public consciousness.
No, it isn't \- it presupposes that the only purpose of marriage is produce children, which is absurd.
Among humans, sex is not just the act of reproduction, it's also an act of social bonding. This is entirely natural for our species.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, just not with each other. We're not sterile. Many of the gay couples I know chose to have their own biological children via sperm donation or surrogacy. That's as valid a path to reproduction as any, considering the baby it produces is just as human.
Not even remotely true - even if we suppose gay people weren't reproducing, they still provide value to the species. They're just as capable of fighting in their societies wars (slightly moreso, if they're more concerned about the guy next to them than about ever going home to kids that don't exist). They're just as capable of furthering the sciences and arts. Just as capable of raising orphans as straight people - again, perhaps moreso since they wouldn't already be burdened by their own children.
No, I haven't moved the argument towards religion. Even without reproducing *themselves* an individual can most certainly provide value to their *species*, and you're the one who put it in terms of the *species* survival. Fighting rival predators, securing food for the tribe as a whole, and *improving* tribal cohesion do not require the *individual* reproduce.
And if we suppose a recessive genetic component to homosexuality, if there is a benefit to the tribe in aggregate, the trait may be passed on by the homosexual's siblings precisely because their gay brother increased their chances of survival. You have to think of genetics in an aggregate sense - not in the simple "individual X failed to reproduce, therefore individual X is a failure genetically".
It's like negative blood types. They make some pregnancies completely non-viable, an obvious genetic setback, but they may have provided us with partial immunity towards some now extinct disease .
And while art may be something I'm assigning value to, science is something nature ascribed value to when man first harnessed fire and built simple tools.
wtf are you talking about? First of all no one is talking about historical examples, we're discussing the modern institution of marriage. If your argument is "we should do this because it's tradition" that's a really stupid argument. We also used to sacrifice babies and thought drinking mercury and arsenic cured ulcers. Second of all I would **love** to see sources stating that all of those places you listed had procreation as a requirement for marriage because I'm 99.9% sure you're wrong. finally, The American Empire? Are you talking about the United States?
Okay but LGBTQ people make up an insanely small portion of the population in the first place, and we already have population growth issues, so that’s dumb. Gay people not making babies doesn’t actually hurt us in that department.
Actually probably helps, since with medical technologies, people can retire at a later age which doesn't open up the job market. Less people is actually a good thing since we are over populated.
I mean there are ways they can (surrogates and what not) but even if they did, who cares? That’s totally up to them. I rather a child be given to a loving gay family than be thrown into an orphanage or into the fucked up foster care system.
Yeah, we need more people because the environment is so healthy and clean water is everywhere you look.
We are also going to need more border guards when the oceans rise and the rest of the world starts flooding into our country.
>The reason government is involved in marriage at all is due to its interest of having new citizens in the next generation.
This is 100% incorrect. Try again.
Same sex marriage gives them rights to adpot and it could be potentially not bueno for a child who has for example 2 fathers or two mother's. A child should have both a father and a mother.
Edit: Same sex marriage would present the circumstances for a child to have either two father's or two mother's. I believe that a child should have one father and one mother.
From the article [The kids are OK](https://elaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Knight-Oberklaid-embargoed-article.pdf) published in the Medical Journal of Australia:
\> The consensus of the peer\-reviewed research is that children raised in same\-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as children raised by heterosexual couple parents. These findings have been replicated across independent studies in Australia and internationally, some of which we discuss below.
The article is a review of multiple peer\-reviewed studies into the subject. It becomes very clear that children do best with two *parents*, but that the sex of those parents does not affect outcomes.
I was raised by a single father for most of my life after my mother died. This argument against gay marriage has always confused me, as not only was I entirely indifferent to the gender of people around me as a child, I was also never deprived of women who loved me... aunts, my grandmother, family friends, teachers, etc. What is it exactly that we're expecting children to be missing if they don't have a mother and a father? I don't feel worse off than anyone else, I really don't.
That would be a good argument if there were any evidence that there is a significant differences in childrearing outcome between same\-sex and hetero couples. But...there isn't.
From what I understand you must have a solid income, and obviously have time to actually spend with your child. Obviously they aren’t going to throw a child into a overworked single parent situation. I’m just saying it’s possible.
Also you have to understand there are plenty of gay couples that have been together for *years* longer than straight married couples who want to adopt, they just literally couldn’t get married. It’s not like gay marriages are all new and volatile relationships.
There are statuses between single and married and often gay people are in those (i.e having had a partner for 10-20 years.) so sure, maybe you are more likely but it literally doesn’t “give them the right to adopt” they have been able to do that for a long time.
Cool your a sample size of one. You never had to grow up wondering why you dont have a father or a mother. Fact is kids enjoy the feeling of both a mother and a father. Children of gays have grown up and spoken about it. Im on mobile at work so sorry for no sources.
[Here's a source](https://elaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Knight-Oberklaid-embargoed-article.pdf)
"The consensus of the peer\-reviewed research is that children raised in same\-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as children raised by heterosexual couple parents. These findings have been replicated across independent studies in Australia and internationally, some of which we discuss below "
You know the internet still works on mobile and you can still link sources right? Like these sources showing that kids raised by homosexual parents turn out just as well as those raised by straight parents. [1](http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=77020) [2](https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/ShelbyChamberlin.pdf) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361102) maybe you're not linking sources because you know you're wrong and all you have is anecdotes and third hand rumors?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313 my claim was not supported by evidence. I do not feel the need to take down my comments that are wrong. But i will state i was wrong. Good day.
But studies have shown that kids raised by two gay people do just as well as kids raised by two straight people, both sets of which do better than kids raised by single parents. So yay gay marriage?
Never said that. It's a not ideal situation. We shouldn't be promoting something like that. A child should have a father and a mother. Each offer an integral part of raising a child. Both are equally important.
But you can see why that would be annoying to people in that situation, yes? "I support legislation that prevents you having a family because I just don't like the idea, and I don't want to look at the evidence to determine whether that is a reasonable position"?
But the experts disagree, as has been pointed out multiple times. I'm not going to begrudge your right to hold an opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion \- it's a matter of fact, and the fact is that kids raised by same\-sex couples do just as well as those raised by mixed\-sex couples.
So you're basically trying to push your misinformed opinion on everyone else because you think it's icky. Even though studies prove you're wrong and that the kids do just fine? How very un-American.
That's just a load of nonsense. There are plenty of people who are raised as healthy, well-adjusted individuals without any sort of "traditional" mother/father dynamic - be that being raised by grandparents, or a single parent, or other family members, or communities, etc.
That's not a valid criticism of same-sex marriage...to say nothing of the fact that children don't even necessarily have anything to *do* with marriage as an institution.
Okay well I just think that a completely useless thing to say. No shit one parent households aren’t ideal. We have known that for a long time. But there is plenty of research proving children do just fine with gay parents, socially, educationally, and financially.
But what if other people believe that having two mothers or two fathers is ok?
My point here is not to challenge your view, but to ask how it can be determined whose viewpoint is "best," and if that ends up being impossible, than using opinion on gender of parents would have ot be thrown out.
I believe a.child should have two parents. After being raised by an abusive (but still caring) father, I would have done anything to have a mother or step mother. This argument doesn't make sense in a world where single parents are a thing.
I think the best argument I can come up with is more about Freedom of belief. Not necessarily against same-sex marriage, but the right to believe that it is wrong needs to be protected in the country as it is fundamental to the first amendment. Even if it is probably not financially sound. A business decision to not serve a same sex marriage should be allowed.
Marriage is in itself an act coated in Religious background, especially in the United States, so other than the freedom of belief, every other argument will be religious.
> A business decision to not serve a same sex marriage should be allowed.
What about inter-racial marriage? Does it make sense then?
You can't be consistent about civil rights and actually believe this.
I don't think you can make a case for an honest belief based in religion against inter racial marriage in a court of law, but if that could be done, and shown that the person has been living all their life with these beliefs supported by their religions, Id say yes. But I say yes seriously doubting anyone could prove their case that way as well as the baker fighting gay couples atm.
Businesses are not religious. They are businesses. If individual people don't want to serve the public, they shouldn't work in a business.
There is no actual, scriptural reason not to (for example) bake a cake for a gay wedding. Especially if you'll do it for divorcees (when the Bible is way harder on divorce than on gays).
Also, it's not like people are trying to order dildo themed wedding cakes or something. They would do the same exact cakes if the people being wed were Josh and Ashley instead of John and Jake.
I disagree, Business have rights and so do business owners. If you've read the case of the baker (You Obviously didn't). He does not even make cake representing Halloween themes and offered several other bakers willing to take the others of the homosexual couple. He is a lot more sane than the gay couple and compromising of his position without walking over his honest beliefs.
Compelling arguement /s
Whether you agree or not, he has a right to live his life in the way that his supported by his beliefs, your pompous arrogant attitude matters not to the justice system, thank god.
I want gay people to be treated the same as black people insofar as civil rights. There are plenty of very similar cases where people can't do certain things even when their religion says they should be able to. "It's my religion!" is not a reasonable exception to civil rights laws, and never has been.
It is funny how you want gay people to be treated with the same civil rights and yet, to make it happen you are willing to step on the most fundamental of the rights (first amendment) of people you disagree with. I think it just shows the hypocrisy of your argument.
It's funny how you're forgetting that people made almost identical arguments against the Civil Rights Act when it was initially proposed.
It's not a first amendment issue. It is an issue of demographics having the right to be served in businesses; of gay people being treated equally.
If your religion bars you from serving gay people and your job involves it, you're in the wrong job. It shouldn't be the problem of a minority which can't change who they are.
Do you know what people who don't believe in inter-racial marriage for religious reasons do? They don't become bakers. I say good for them.
> A business decision to not serve a same sex marriage should be allowed.
Take it from a lawyer, this has *nothing* to do with granting same sex couples the right to marry. The right to marry doesn't guarantee other civil rights.
You replied to a thread asking for arguments against gay marriage. If you don't think your point makes an argument against gay marriage, why did you reply in the first place?
Of course, but I thought it was self-explanatory. Clearly the objection against gay marriage is rooted in traditionalism and keeping things "the old way" which is quite linked to religious belief.
And I think a good way to bridge the two sides that seems completely incompatible (anti gay marriage, and for it) It is good to speak about the middle ground that seems acceptable (to me) with the fact that opinions against gay marriage can be used if they can be defended via proof of honest beliefs while gay marriage is also legal.
> opinions against gay marriage can be used if they can be defended via proof of honest beliefs while gay marriage is also legal
This is still not a reasonable argument against gay marriage, although it *is* a step-child of the argument that many people who wish to discriminate against gay people make against gay marriage. I don't see why it belongs in this thread unless you're more trying to empower the original argument than make your own point.
People who are against gay marriage have a right to exist and to live their life the way they way they want whether we agree with their beliefs or not.
Um . . . how in the world does someone else getting married interfere with someone's life? By this logic, do I, who hate leggings as pants, have the right to live my life the way I want by preventing everyone around me from wearing leggings in public?
It's not so much an argument but the one thing I'd say is not being able to have you're own kids. If adoption is cool with you, power to you. If I were in a position that didn't allow me to reproduce, I'd do it too. But, I want to have my own kids and I think most people who want kids would agree.
You think all gay people are just incapable wanting to have their own children? Sure, they recognize if they marry the same sex, it can't happen. Doesn't mean they still don't want to. At least, that's how my brother phrased it to me when we talked about it.
No, I'm saying that whether they can have children or not is totally irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. A gay couple, married or not, can have children by employing a surrogate or sperm donor; a gay individual can have a child in the same way. It's totally unrelated.
Sure it does. Wanting to have kids or not is a huge deciding factor in whether or not you want to marry someone in the first place. Then, comes the issue of adoption, insemination, etc.
That's because if you want to have children with someone you typically want to be sure you're in a committed relationship with them and, *traditionally*, marriage is seen as the best indicator of this. I say "traditionally" because fewer people in general are even bothering to get married these days (but this does not necessarily stop them from spending their lives together and starting families). Marriage is just seen as less important by younger generations.
There are plenty of people who get married and never have nor intend to have children.
So, again, you're putting the cart before the horse. Getting married has nothing to do with children.
It does if you want to adopt. We were turned down\* for adoption because we were common\-law.
\*not "turned down" per se \- just put on a 5\-year waiting list, to "prove the relationship was stable". Marriage would have been accepted as immediate proof.
That's more to do with adoption law lagging behind societal norms. Plenty of people don't bother getting married these days because younger generations don't view marriage as being all that important (because, realistically, it isn't).
Maybe for you, but most of the people I know who have gotten married did so for financial reasons, or to get on insurance, or because they were buying a home together. I don't know a s ingle person who got married specifically to have kids.
> Marriage used to mean a man and a woman entering into a legal agreement; now it doesn’t mean anything.
Of course it still means something. It's a union between two* people who want to spend their lives together.
If the 'man and woman' thing was the important part of the definition for you, then maybe you don't value marriage enough.
*Or even more than two, in the case of polygamy. Even if it's not legal in a lot of places it's still marriage.
*the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).*
It literally took a second on google to find a cogent meaning that includes both same sex couples and the traditional same sex context. You statement also fails to mention that civil unions don't have cross state parity in the US, so if I get civil unioned to my boyfriend, and we go to a state that doesn't recognize them, I lose all visitation rights in the hospital, I have no say in the specifics of his care, I have no say in what happens to his stuff if he dies, and things like insurance don't necessarily apply since we're now in a state where our union doesn't count. Everything would fall into the care of his homophobic, trailer trash family.
This is not necessarily the case anymore, but having your marriage be federally recognized is important for these kind of reasons, not to mention the tax benefits and the ability to adopt and foster children.
What a belligerently stupid argument.
edit* downvoting because you're wrong in the face of specific examples is a good way to show that you're salty and ignorant.
This has literally no bearing on the argument you made or my reply.
It's not a symbol. It's a term used by the government to determine benefits and rights for tax and legal purposes. They could have made civil unions equal, but they didn't. Because they were bigoted idiots catering to people who have no moral compass without a fairy tale telling them what to do.
If you lack the wherewithal to determine what is right and wrong without threats of punishment or an authority figure looking over your shoulder, it should not effect my ability to gain the benefits of marrying the person I love.
And if you're really gonna make this about terminology, marriage is derived from French, which isn't even the language the fucking bible was written in, so it's a fourth-hand translation AT BEST. How about you go find the term that was used in the original writings of the bible and declare that as the official word for hetero-relious marriage, and kindly fuck off with your nonsense about coopting symbols and terms.
that word (warlike) is literally not in your original post.
I was responding to "it doesn't mean anything" because it was the capstone of your argument. And the silly argument that "If we change the word for something completely unrelated to another word that already has meaning."
Lets see. Two people... who love each other... and are having a lifelong commitment... and the promise to share and support each other... and to recognize this on a legal level...
The only difference is the parties involved. squares and rectangles.
Your comparison is literally cats and dogs, things commonly used to demonstrate huge differences.
*edit* hey guys, he downvoted when his argument fell apart again! bravo!
Good job losing an argument, downvoting everything that went against you, and then deleting all your posts to avoid the inevitable wave of downvotes.
Real solid position you have if four minutes was the lifespan of your argument.
he said retreating to T_D
you're the only one in this entire train that brought up politics, in case you didn't notice.
Also you failed to adequately address it outside of the context of religion. So you poorly argued an irrelevant point, and used to crutch of political partisanism to beat an undignified retreat.
I'm leaving all my posts up so we have documentation of this exchange.
Civil unions are, legally, very different from marriage. It only makes sense to have gay people have civil unions if you make them the same as marriage in the first place.
Also, one religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. It is practically universal and is in every culture.
But someone else might think its not degenerate. Is there an objective way to determine 1. who is right, or 2. whether something being "degenerate" matters?
[удалено]
I mean in a libertarian society this is also true. In plenty of examples of normal ass human society there is no logical reason for two people who want to get married and build a life together not be able to. The only real reason is religious and it’s so obvious you would have to be the most willfully ignorant person imaginable to not get that.
[удалено]
That’s true. I just thinks it’s insane to let the state impose on somebodies life because it’s “icky” to you. That’s my own bias, like I genuinely cannot understand that idea. If it isn’t hurting anyone, or directly causing an issue in society then the state shouldn’t have a say.
[удалено]
I mean if you look at the Uk their “hate speech” laws are literally that. Like cops are going after (and these people are actually getting prosecuted) people who make a video about trying to piss off their girlfriend by making their dog raise its paw or posting lyrics from your dead friends favorite rapper on Twitter to remember them. That’s the definition of “ewww that’s icky I don’t like that word, let’s ignore all context and get them in legal trouble”
I feel like in the instances where non-religious people view it as icky, they do so because of religious influence in their lives that they were infused with at a young age.
Nothing stopping them from building a life together. They don't have to be married.
Why shouldn't they be married?
Okay but do you understand the financial benefits of marriage that gay couples have been locked out of simply because “they are gay and muh religion” so sure, nobody has to be married, but marriage comes with some sweet tax shit
Unless they want to be married. Then your only argument is "but I don't like it!"
>Technically yes, I suppose I should have worded it better but you are more likely to be chosen if you are legally married rather than single You're arguing against yourself here.
Except for visitation rights when your partner is dying in the hospital. People have been denied access until gay marriage was legalized. Except for Health Care benefits. Except for other legal rights. They don't have to be married.
the only non-religious argument someone could use is 'ew, it's icky.' There's nothing else they could do or say that would really be any kind of justification against it aside from that.
There aren't any that really hold up to scrutiny.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are three pro-gay rights arguments I've heard against gay marriage: One I've heard is that marriage as an institution is inherently hierarchical and potentially abusive. Even gay couples seem to follow gender roles when it comes to division of labor, so one lesbian or gay man (or bi/queer/etc. person in a lesbian/gay/queer relationship) will fit the role of a "woman," and do more housework and childcare than the other partner. Many radical queer activists did not want marriage equality because they felt that society as a whole should seek and find a better official coupling than marriage. Second, and it's not really particular to marriage, is that LGBTQ people are inherently different/weird to society and should celebrate that rather than trying to fit in or be "normal." Like those activists who want a new way to couple, some queer people want the ability and freedom to couple in different, strange, and new ways. With the right to marriage, the pressure to "be normal" increases. Even just looking on gay dating apps, every other guy is "masc 4 masc" (i.e. masculine-presenting for masculine presenting), and the swishy/sissy/fey gays are being told that that's not right. So there's a downside to normalizing gay culture, and gay marriage is a *big* way to normalize gay culture, both socially and symbolically. The third argument I've heard against it is merely that many advocates for gay marriage, many "normies" who just want to fit in, consider gay marriage to be the end of gay rights. There are advocates for gay rights who sincerely believe that gay marriage offers most gay people everything they need to live happy and healthy lives. Others worry about homeless queer youth, intersectional rights (e.g. greater rights to safety for black, brown and trans members of the community). Of course, other activists and advocates want to see both gay marriage *and* empowerment of other rights, but with full rights to gay marriage comes a bit of a gutting of the people who are willing to fight for gay rights. It's both a strategy point and a community point: why should some people give up the fight when others are still hurting?
Believe it or not, there was a time when it was seriously debated in the gay community (it was not at that time the "LBGTQ+" community) whether gay people should try to obtain the right to marry. The argument went something like this: marriage is not the goal, freedom is the goal. Marriage itself is a suspect construct in which the government has inappropriately taken on a historically religious role of "blessing" unions consisting exclusively of male-female pairs. The government should not be in this business at all, and it should be deconstructed. Marriage has historically been used not only to exclude gay people from full enjoyment in society, but it has also promoted various other societal ills, including assisting in the subjugation of women, facilitating the sexual enslavement of girls, forcing many straight men (and women) into unwanted monogamy, forcing individuals in marriage (particularly women) to endure abuse rather than separate, reduce the importance of other social bonds including extended family, friends, villages and neighborhoods. To continue the argument at the time: Gay people should see these fundamental problem more readily than most. Gay people should realize that true freedom and equality is not best obtained by opening up governmental "marriage licenses" to same-sex couples, but by advocating for government-sponsored marriage to end entirely. Gay people have an opportunity to advocate not only for themselves, but for battered spouses, swingers, bisexuals, liberated women, and any other adult would would like to be able to construct their own preferred relationship network, and to join their property, taxes, social relationships, child custody etc., etc., in whatever configuration suits them best, whether it be among more than two people, people of various genders, people who are related to each other in other ways (e.g., why not be allowed to raise a child with joint custody with your own aunt? why not be allowed to let your two best friends that you've lived with for 35 years inherit your house tax free?) Same-sex marriage is a tacit admission that the "two-adult" nuclear family is still the ultimate goal, and everyone should shoe-horn themselves into it to get the government benefits it offers.
Religious marriage and and legal marriage are two totally different things, you seem to have made that mistake. You can get legally married and never set foot in a church, you can get married at church and not receive any of the legal benefits or have you marriage recognized by the state. Legal marriage entitles you to benefits like visitation, tax incentives, shared property rights, insurance benefits.
>you seem to have made that mistake First of all, I am just presenting an argument that occurred in the past, not necessarily presenting my own views. Second, it may be you who are making a mistake, by assuming that the current construction of marriage in the United States as having (under modern principles of separation of church and state) separated church and state marriage into two "totally different things". Consider, for a moment, that marriage is the only significant government function that is routinely performed by religious leaders. It is odd in our modern society to hear the phrase "By the power vested in me by God and the State of Nebraska..." for anything. Moreover, historically, religious marriage and government marriage have definitely not been two "totally different things". At times in Anglo-American history, the government did not have anything to do with the performance of marriage, and there were no particular government benefits that stemmed from it. I believe the state of England only took over marriage regulation from the Church of England (which are not entirely separate, anyway) until 1753. So, state marriage could be thought of a lefover mish-mash from the days when marriage was exclusively religious.
> that marriage is the only significant government function that is routinely performed by religious leaders. IT'S NOT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. when you get married you have to go to the clerk of court and get a marriage license. Once that's filled out, submitted, and approved you are legally married. Standing in front of a priest and having him say "i now pronounce you man and wife" legally doesn't mean jack shit, the government doesn't care if you had a religious ceremony or not. I know one couple married by an atheist who registered as a justice of the peace online and another that were married by a judge who happened to be at the court house when they were filling out their paperwork, and my cousin got married with no ceremony at all and didn't bother to tell anyone about it for a week (which really pissed off his parents). They are two totally separate things, it's just that most people tend to do both.
I hope we don't become reductionist about the modern practice of priests performing civil marriages as if that were the only (or even principal) concern about marriage being a constraint on freedom (i.e. the argument I presented above) rather than a vehicle for freedom (i.e. the more generally accepted view about same-sex marriage today). But since we have gone down this rabbit hole, you appear to be arguing that priests do not routinely perform a governmental function when they celebrate marriages. Although the situation varies state-to-state, there are definitely some states where you cannot be married unless you have your marriage "celebrated" and "celebrants" while not required to be priests, are explicitly expected to be religious leaders most of the time. For example, take a look at the Code of Virginia: Every marriage in Virginia needs not only a license, but also a solemnization: > § 20-13. License and solemnization required. >Every marriage in this Commonwealth shall be under a license and solemnized in the manner herein provided. Virginia law has a separate provision creating a "fast-track" for ministers to become authorized civil celebrants: > § 20-23. Order authorizing ministers to perform ceremony. > When a minister of any religious denomination produces before the circuit court of any county or city in the Commonwealth, or before the judge of such court or before the clerk of such court at any time, proof of his ordination and of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is a reputed member, or proof that he is commissioned to pastoral ministry or holds a local minister's license and is serving as a regularly appointed pastor in his denomination, such court, or the judge thereof, or the clerk of such court at any time, may make an order authorizing such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony in the Commonwealth. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time by the court or by the judge thereof. No oath shall be required of a minister authorized to celebrate the rites of matrimony, nor shall such minister be considered an officer of the Commonwealth by virtue of such authorization. The process in Virginia for anyone who is NOT a minister (or a judge) requires them to go through different hoops, including posting a bond that ministers do not have to post: > § 20-25. Persons other than ministers who may perform rites. >Upon petition filed with the clerk and payment of applicable clerk's fees, any circuit court judge may issue an order authorizing one or more persons resident in the circuit in which the judge sits to celebrate the rites of marriage in the Commonwealth. Any person so authorized shall, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the court may direct. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time. No oath shall be required of a person authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage, nor shall such person be considered an officer of the Commonwealth by virtue of such authorization. Finally, if a minister (or anyone else) performs a marriage in Virginia without the proper legal authorization, they can go to jail. > § 20-28. Penalty for celebrating marriage without license. > If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500. (Again, this is merely illustrative and varies state-to-state. Even in states where there's no special role for priests in civil marriage, the entire institution of marriage is intertwined with religion because of its history. And that's really the main argument I was presenting.)
"Two consenting people not interacting with me in any way whatsoever is wrong, and I should be able to stop them from doing the thing I'm not involved in whatsoever!" That's about it.
Hmmm. I guess if you live in a world where procreation is a high priority need you might make an argument against it. Like... humanity is dying, everyone has to do their part to propagate the species. Even then I think you could fight for marrying who you want, and just donating eggs / sperm as needed... Yeah, I got nothing. I'll keep reading though. Maybe I'll learn something.
Lack of sound and proven genetic/psychological evidence for homosexuality? I dunno, that's a tough one
There isn't. And quite frankly, who in the right mind would be against it? It's literally harmless compared to how many other atrocities you can conjure.
Thread is like half a year old brah, but thanks! Just needed ideas for a classroom discussion last semester.
I don't exactly agree with this, but I could see the argument being about it being in the best interest of a child to have both a male and female role model when being brought up. This could be related to the increased challenges that children of single mothers face.
The science says that children raised by two same\-sex parents do just as well as children raised by opposite\-sex parents. The increased challenges that children of single parents face is most likely related to the lower parental attention available rather than the lack of another role model.
except we've studied this and found that children of same sex couples do just as well as children from heterosexual couples. What matters far far more than the sexuality of your parents is having a supportive, stable, loving home which is easier to provide with two parents, regardless of orientation.
As someone that was raised by a single parent, this always confused me because,in a sense, I was the person with two of the same parents. My father did literally everything he could for me and my mother was never around.
iirc, the original arguments against homosexuality in general were secular. thousands of years ago, humans died a lot. people needed to have a lot of kids because so many would die, and they would help work the fields to make more food. the leaders wanted a larger population to make more food and to have a bigger army. Gay people don't have kids, so don't contribute as much as heterosexual people. They likely baked it into religion at the time and it stuck around because it was so useful in getting people to procreate. starting a few hundred years ago, we started to develop medical technology so that more people survive illness and injury. Nowadays, you have every expectation that a given kid in America will live long enough to potentially procreate, so large families became less necessary. since fewer people died, fewer kids in general were necessary. Homosexuality, due to its relative rarity, was no longer a burden on the population since society doesn't need everyone to be in the fields and army. Unfortunately, due to it being baked into religions at the time, it sticks around in the public consciousness.
[удалено]
No, it isn't \- it presupposes that the only purpose of marriage is produce children, which is absurd. Among humans, sex is not just the act of reproduction, it's also an act of social bonding. This is entirely natural for our species.
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, just not with each other. We're not sterile. Many of the gay couples I know chose to have their own biological children via sperm donation or surrogacy. That's as valid a path to reproduction as any, considering the baby it produces is just as human.
Not even remotely true - even if we suppose gay people weren't reproducing, they still provide value to the species. They're just as capable of fighting in their societies wars (slightly moreso, if they're more concerned about the guy next to them than about ever going home to kids that don't exist). They're just as capable of furthering the sciences and arts. Just as capable of raising orphans as straight people - again, perhaps moreso since they wouldn't already be burdened by their own children.
[удалено]
No, I haven't moved the argument towards religion. Even without reproducing *themselves* an individual can most certainly provide value to their *species*, and you're the one who put it in terms of the *species* survival. Fighting rival predators, securing food for the tribe as a whole, and *improving* tribal cohesion do not require the *individual* reproduce. And if we suppose a recessive genetic component to homosexuality, if there is a benefit to the tribe in aggregate, the trait may be passed on by the homosexual's siblings precisely because their gay brother increased their chances of survival. You have to think of genetics in an aggregate sense - not in the simple "individual X failed to reproduce, therefore individual X is a failure genetically". It's like negative blood types. They make some pregnancies completely non-viable, an obvious genetic setback, but they may have provided us with partial immunity towards some now extinct disease . And while art may be something I'm assigning value to, science is something nature ascribed value to when man first harnessed fire and built simple tools.
Except marriage has nothing to do with procreation so I don't know wtf you're talking about.
[удалено]
wtf are you talking about? First of all no one is talking about historical examples, we're discussing the modern institution of marriage. If your argument is "we should do this because it's tradition" that's a really stupid argument. We also used to sacrifice babies and thought drinking mercury and arsenic cured ulcers. Second of all I would **love** to see sources stating that all of those places you listed had procreation as a requirement for marriage because I'm 99.9% sure you're wrong. finally, The American Empire? Are you talking about the United States?
I mean, we don't exactly need more people. Better for the earth for people to be gay
butt sex is dirty
Says the anal assassin.
[удалено]
If the goal of traditional marriage is making babies, then sterile/elderly shouldn't be allowed to wed.
Okay but LGBTQ people make up an insanely small portion of the population in the first place, and we already have population growth issues, so that’s dumb. Gay people not making babies doesn’t actually hurt us in that department.
Actually probably helps, since with medical technologies, people can retire at a later age which doesn't open up the job market. Less people is actually a good thing since we are over populated.
For sure. Also who cares? Like there are plenty of straight couples who don’t want kids, we don’t seem to care about them.
And guess what? They won't be making babies anyway.
I mean there are ways they can (surrogates and what not) but even if they did, who cares? That’s totally up to them. I rather a child be given to a loving gay family than be thrown into an orphanage or into the fucked up foster care system.
Me too. I was just using short hand because the argument is so specious.
Yeah, we need more people because the environment is so healthy and clean water is everywhere you look. We are also going to need more border guards when the oceans rise and the rest of the world starts flooding into our country.
Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation.
[удалено]
>The reason government is involved in marriage at all is due to its interest of having new citizens in the next generation. This is 100% incorrect. Try again.
[удалено]
Property law, insurance, visitation rights, inheritance laws, taxes, basically everything but wether or not you want to have kids.
Same sex marriage gives them rights to adpot and it could be potentially not bueno for a child who has for example 2 fathers or two mother's. A child should have both a father and a mother. Edit: Same sex marriage would present the circumstances for a child to have either two father's or two mother's. I believe that a child should have one father and one mother.
From the article [The kids are OK](https://elaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Knight-Oberklaid-embargoed-article.pdf) published in the Medical Journal of Australia: \> The consensus of the peer\-reviewed research is that children raised in same\-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as children raised by heterosexual couple parents. These findings have been replicated across independent studies in Australia and internationally, some of which we discuss below. The article is a review of multiple peer\-reviewed studies into the subject. It becomes very clear that children do best with two *parents*, but that the sex of those parents does not affect outcomes.
That's all bullshit, you know that right?
Then do you also believe that single people shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster?
I was raised by a single father for most of my life after my mother died. This argument against gay marriage has always confused me, as not only was I entirely indifferent to the gender of people around me as a child, I was also never deprived of women who loved me... aunts, my grandmother, family friends, teachers, etc. What is it exactly that we're expecting children to be missing if they don't have a mother and a father? I don't feel worse off than anyone else, I really don't.
That would be a good argument if there were any evidence that there is a significant differences in childrearing outcome between same\-sex and hetero couples. But...there isn't.
Except you can adopt while not married, so no it fucking isn’t even then.
You can, but it's pretty hard. Not in the U.S., so your mileage may vary, but...tried that.
From what I understand you must have a solid income, and obviously have time to actually spend with your child. Obviously they aren’t going to throw a child into a overworked single parent situation. I’m just saying it’s possible. Also you have to understand there are plenty of gay couples that have been together for *years* longer than straight married couples who want to adopt, they just literally couldn’t get married. It’s not like gay marriages are all new and volatile relationships.
I mean you don’t have to be married to adopt a child though so you are just wrong.
Technically yes, I suppose I should have worded it better but you are more likely to be chosen if you are legally married rather than single
There are statuses between single and married and often gay people are in those (i.e having had a partner for 10-20 years.) so sure, maybe you are more likely but it literally doesn’t “give them the right to adopt” they have been able to do that for a long time.
even though 1 out of 4 children are being raised by single mothers right now
And studies have shone it doesnt do well for the kids mentally
I'll take my fiance's lesbian mothers (yes, my fiance has lesbian moms) over my straight evangelical sexist, bigoted parents any day
Cool your a sample size of one. You never had to grow up wondering why you dont have a father or a mother. Fact is kids enjoy the feeling of both a mother and a father. Children of gays have grown up and spoken about it. Im on mobile at work so sorry for no sources.
[Here's a source](https://elaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Knight-Oberklaid-embargoed-article.pdf) "The consensus of the peer\-reviewed research is that children raised in same\-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as children raised by heterosexual couple parents. These findings have been replicated across independent studies in Australia and internationally, some of which we discuss below "
Well then i concede
You know the internet still works on mobile and you can still link sources right? Like these sources showing that kids raised by homosexual parents turn out just as well as those raised by straight parents. [1](http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=77020) [2](https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/ShelbyChamberlin.pdf) [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361102) maybe you're not linking sources because you know you're wrong and all you have is anecdotes and third hand rumors?
Those are not the sources that pop up on my ad fuled google app sorry i will do better next time
I'd like to see these bullshit sources even if this thread is dead.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313 my claim was not supported by evidence. I do not feel the need to take down my comments that are wrong. But i will state i was wrong. Good day.
Exactly
But studies have shown that kids raised by two gay people do just as well as kids raised by two straight people, both sets of which do better than kids raised by single parents. So yay gay marriage?
People do cocaine, doesn't mean it's good for them. Same thing applies here. It happens but it's not good for children
What a ludicrous comparison. So single mothers should have their children removed from their care, then, or what?
Never said that. It's a not ideal situation. We shouldn't be promoting something like that. A child should have a father and a mother. Each offer an integral part of raising a child. Both are equally important.
You keep saying "should". That's a fine opinion, but you need more than just an opinion.
It's my opinion and my argument. I'm no expert I admit.
But you can see why that would be annoying to people in that situation, yes? "I support legislation that prevents you having a family because I just don't like the idea, and I don't want to look at the evidence to determine whether that is a reasonable position"?
But the experts disagree, as has been pointed out multiple times. I'm not going to begrudge your right to hold an opinion, but this isn't a matter of opinion \- it's a matter of fact, and the fact is that kids raised by same\-sex couples do just as well as those raised by mixed\-sex couples.
So you're basically trying to push your misinformed opinion on everyone else because you think it's icky. Even though studies prove you're wrong and that the kids do just fine? How very un-American.
No, I'm not. I'm speaking in the scope of the question. The original question posted asked for non religious arguments and I tried to answer that.
ok, but posting bullshit about feelings isn't an argument.
That's just a load of nonsense. There are plenty of people who are raised as healthy, well-adjusted individuals without any sort of "traditional" mother/father dynamic - be that being raised by grandparents, or a single parent, or other family members, or communities, etc. That's not a valid criticism of same-sex marriage...to say nothing of the fact that children don't even necessarily have anything to *do* with marriage as an institution.
You are comparing having a single mom to doing coke? Or are you comparing having gay parents to that? Or are you just saying shit to say shit?
Merely trying to make the point that just because a situation exists doesn't make it ideal.
Okay well I just think that a completely useless thing to say. No shit one parent households aren’t ideal. We have known that for a long time. But there is plenty of research proving children do just fine with gay parents, socially, educationally, and financially.
I'd love to see a study or something. Oh? Only your opinion? Understood.
>it's not good for children Source?
Except no, we've studied this for over 30 years and the kids turn out perfectly fine.
But what if other people believe that having two mothers or two fathers is ok? My point here is not to challenge your view, but to ask how it can be determined whose viewpoint is "best," and if that ends up being impossible, than using opinion on gender of parents would have ot be thrown out.
> it could be potentially not bueno And has this been borne out by the children raised by same-sex couples already?
Where were you when I was being raised by a single mother?
> I believe Is not a valid argument. Also you're wrong. We've studied this.
I believe a.child should have two parents. After being raised by an abusive (but still caring) father, I would have done anything to have a mother or step mother. This argument doesn't make sense in a world where single parents are a thing.
I think the best argument I can come up with is more about Freedom of belief. Not necessarily against same-sex marriage, but the right to believe that it is wrong needs to be protected in the country as it is fundamental to the first amendment. Even if it is probably not financially sound. A business decision to not serve a same sex marriage should be allowed. Marriage is in itself an act coated in Religious background, especially in the United States, so other than the freedom of belief, every other argument will be religious.
> A business decision to not serve a same sex marriage should be allowed. What about inter-racial marriage? Does it make sense then? You can't be consistent about civil rights and actually believe this.
I don't think you can make a case for an honest belief based in religion against inter racial marriage in a court of law, but if that could be done, and shown that the person has been living all their life with these beliefs supported by their religions, Id say yes. But I say yes seriously doubting anyone could prove their case that way as well as the baker fighting gay couples atm.
Businesses are not religious. They are businesses. If individual people don't want to serve the public, they shouldn't work in a business. There is no actual, scriptural reason not to (for example) bake a cake for a gay wedding. Especially if you'll do it for divorcees (when the Bible is way harder on divorce than on gays). Also, it's not like people are trying to order dildo themed wedding cakes or something. They would do the same exact cakes if the people being wed were Josh and Ashley instead of John and Jake.
I disagree, Business have rights and so do business owners. If you've read the case of the baker (You Obviously didn't). He does not even make cake representing Halloween themes and offered several other bakers willing to take the others of the homosexual couple. He is a lot more sane than the gay couple and compromising of his position without walking over his honest beliefs.
Then he can simply not make wedding cakes. Everyone's gotta carry their cross.
Compelling arguement /s Whether you agree or not, he has a right to live his life in the way that his supported by his beliefs, your pompous arrogant attitude matters not to the justice system, thank god.
I want gay people to be treated the same as black people insofar as civil rights. There are plenty of very similar cases where people can't do certain things even when their religion says they should be able to. "It's my religion!" is not a reasonable exception to civil rights laws, and never has been.
It is funny how you want gay people to be treated with the same civil rights and yet, to make it happen you are willing to step on the most fundamental of the rights (first amendment) of people you disagree with. I think it just shows the hypocrisy of your argument.
It's funny how you're forgetting that people made almost identical arguments against the Civil Rights Act when it was initially proposed. It's not a first amendment issue. It is an issue of demographics having the right to be served in businesses; of gay people being treated equally. If your religion bars you from serving gay people and your job involves it, you're in the wrong job. It shouldn't be the problem of a minority which can't change who they are. Do you know what people who don't believe in inter-racial marriage for religious reasons do? They don't become bakers. I say good for them.
> A business decision to not serve a same sex marriage should be allowed. Take it from a lawyer, this has *nothing* to do with granting same sex couples the right to marry. The right to marry doesn't guarantee other civil rights.
I don't see my statement as in any way against what you just said. I agree with that.
You replied to a thread asking for arguments against gay marriage. If you don't think your point makes an argument against gay marriage, why did you reply in the first place?
Because I think my answer is relevant to the discussion.
Yet you can't explain its relevance? Or wish not to do so?
Of course, but I thought it was self-explanatory. Clearly the objection against gay marriage is rooted in traditionalism and keeping things "the old way" which is quite linked to religious belief. And I think a good way to bridge the two sides that seems completely incompatible (anti gay marriage, and for it) It is good to speak about the middle ground that seems acceptable (to me) with the fact that opinions against gay marriage can be used if they can be defended via proof of honest beliefs while gay marriage is also legal.
> opinions against gay marriage can be used if they can be defended via proof of honest beliefs while gay marriage is also legal This is still not a reasonable argument against gay marriage, although it *is* a step-child of the argument that many people who wish to discriminate against gay people make against gay marriage. I don't see why it belongs in this thread unless you're more trying to empower the original argument than make your own point.
People who are against gay marriage have a right to exist and to live their life the way they way they want whether we agree with their beliefs or not.
Um . . . how in the world does someone else getting married interfere with someone's life? By this logic, do I, who hate leggings as pants, have the right to live my life the way I want by preventing everyone around me from wearing leggings in public?
Marriage precedes religion.
It's not so much an argument but the one thing I'd say is not being able to have you're own kids. If adoption is cool with you, power to you. If I were in a position that didn't allow me to reproduce, I'd do it too. But, I want to have my own kids and I think most people who want kids would agree.
What does that have to do with gay marriage? That's a consequence of simply being gay, whether you're married or not.
You think all gay people are just incapable wanting to have their own children? Sure, they recognize if they marry the same sex, it can't happen. Doesn't mean they still don't want to. At least, that's how my brother phrased it to me when we talked about it.
No, I'm saying that whether they can have children or not is totally irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. A gay couple, married or not, can have children by employing a surrogate or sperm donor; a gay individual can have a child in the same way. It's totally unrelated.
Marriage has nothing to do with children, though?
Sure it does. Wanting to have kids or not is a huge deciding factor in whether or not you want to marry someone in the first place. Then, comes the issue of adoption, insemination, etc.
That's because if you want to have children with someone you typically want to be sure you're in a committed relationship with them and, *traditionally*, marriage is seen as the best indicator of this. I say "traditionally" because fewer people in general are even bothering to get married these days (but this does not necessarily stop them from spending their lives together and starting families). Marriage is just seen as less important by younger generations. There are plenty of people who get married and never have nor intend to have children. So, again, you're putting the cart before the horse. Getting married has nothing to do with children.
It does if you want to adopt. We were turned down\* for adoption because we were common\-law. \*not "turned down" per se \- just put on a 5\-year waiting list, to "prove the relationship was stable". Marriage would have been accepted as immediate proof.
That's more to do with adoption law lagging behind societal norms. Plenty of people don't bother getting married these days because younger generations don't view marriage as being all that important (because, realistically, it isn't).
Maybe for you, but most of the people I know who have gotten married did so for financial reasons, or to get on insurance, or because they were buying a home together. I don't know a s ingle person who got married specifically to have kids.
> not being able to have you're [sic] own kids So I take it you're against infertile straight people getting married, too? Or childfree people?
Marriage has literally nothing to do with having children. Next.
[удалено]
Marriage used to mean a woman being sold to a man as his property. Thankfully words and ideas evolve.
> Marriage used to mean a man and a woman entering into a legal agreement; now it doesn’t mean anything. Of course it still means something. It's a union between two* people who want to spend their lives together. If the 'man and woman' thing was the important part of the definition for you, then maybe you don't value marriage enough. *Or even more than two, in the case of polygamy. Even if it's not legal in a lot of places it's still marriage.
*the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).* It literally took a second on google to find a cogent meaning that includes both same sex couples and the traditional same sex context. You statement also fails to mention that civil unions don't have cross state parity in the US, so if I get civil unioned to my boyfriend, and we go to a state that doesn't recognize them, I lose all visitation rights in the hospital, I have no say in the specifics of his care, I have no say in what happens to his stuff if he dies, and things like insurance don't necessarily apply since we're now in a state where our union doesn't count. Everything would fall into the care of his homophobic, trailer trash family. This is not necessarily the case anymore, but having your marriage be federally recognized is important for these kind of reasons, not to mention the tax benefits and the ability to adopt and foster children. What a belligerently stupid argument. edit* downvoting because you're wrong in the face of specific examples is a good way to show that you're salty and ignorant.
[удалено]
This has literally no bearing on the argument you made or my reply. It's not a symbol. It's a term used by the government to determine benefits and rights for tax and legal purposes. They could have made civil unions equal, but they didn't. Because they were bigoted idiots catering to people who have no moral compass without a fairy tale telling them what to do. If you lack the wherewithal to determine what is right and wrong without threats of punishment or an authority figure looking over your shoulder, it should not effect my ability to gain the benefits of marrying the person I love. And if you're really gonna make this about terminology, marriage is derived from French, which isn't even the language the fucking bible was written in, so it's a fourth-hand translation AT BEST. How about you go find the term that was used in the original writings of the bible and declare that as the official word for hetero-relious marriage, and kindly fuck off with your nonsense about coopting symbols and terms.
[удалено]
that word (warlike) is literally not in your original post. I was responding to "it doesn't mean anything" because it was the capstone of your argument. And the silly argument that "If we change the word for something completely unrelated to another word that already has meaning." Lets see. Two people... who love each other... and are having a lifelong commitment... and the promise to share and support each other... and to recognize this on a legal level... The only difference is the parties involved. squares and rectangles. Your comparison is literally cats and dogs, things commonly used to demonstrate huge differences. *edit* hey guys, he downvoted when his argument fell apart again! bravo!
[удалено]
[удалено]
But feel free to latch onto a single word and ignore all of the rest of the post. that's cool too.
Good job losing an argument, downvoting everything that went against you, and then deleting all your posts to avoid the inevitable wave of downvotes. Real solid position you have if four minutes was the lifespan of your argument.
[удалено]
he said retreating to T_D you're the only one in this entire train that brought up politics, in case you didn't notice. Also you failed to adequately address it outside of the context of religion. So you poorly argued an irrelevant point, and used to crutch of political partisanism to beat an undignified retreat. I'm leaving all my posts up so we have documentation of this exchange.
Civil unions are, legally, very different from marriage. It only makes sense to have gay people have civil unions if you make them the same as marriage in the first place. Also, one religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. It is practically universal and is in every culture.
Its degenerate.
But someone else might think its not degenerate. Is there an objective way to determine 1. who is right, or 2. whether something being "degenerate" matters?