bristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3697 times:
It occurred to me that most of the reasons against same sex marriage are based on religious views with people often quoting the bible. Are there any/many reasons why people are against same sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion?
CalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3644 times:
Quoting bristolflyer (Thread starter): It occurred to me that most of the reasons against same sex marriage are based on religious views with people often quoting the bible.
I find this to be the ultimate fallacy of this line of reasoning. Those that are so strongly outspoken about same sex marriage often ignore other aspects of the Bible. Leviticus 18 and 20 and Deuteronomy all contain so called verse about how same sex marriage is sin, but yet other passages are often ignored. (See Deuteronomy 12–26.)
Deuteronomy 14 (New International Version):
These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep ... camel, the rabbit or the hyrax.
Lamb? Venison? Anyone?
Quoting bristolflyer (Thread starter): Are there any/many reasons why people are against same sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion?
I think those that do prefer traditional marriage on non-religious grounds are just those who are uncomfortable with the idea of two same sex partners cohabiting. It's a change thing, I think.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 20476 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3620 times:
Here are a few:
1) The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
Regardless of the sensibility of this philosophy, the fact remains that the government is in the marriage business, and as long as it is, equal protection under the law demands that gays be allowed to marry as well. So this argument doesn't really work.
2) The tax benefits that married couples get in essence punish single people, so we shouldn't be extending them to gays as well.
Likewise, one can't deny a certain segment of the population the same rights others have just because others feel slighted by it. So this doesn't work either.
3) Allowing gays to marry would represent an economic hit to the country, as more people would be eligible for reduced taxes by virtue of being married.
And while this may be true, that's the cost of doing business in a country where we have equal protection.
So none of these really work. But then again, there really is no justification to ban gay marriage at all.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1638 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3587 times:
I know a few non-religious people that aren't a fan of gays altogether just because they don't like the idea of a man having sex with a man. They find it "gross". But I should note that these people have never been outspoken about gay marriage, so I'm not sure if that counts towards the original question or not.
Yes please! I had some fantastic lamb lollipop hors d'oeuvres at a networking event last week and have been craving ever since.
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): 3) Allowing gays to marry would represent an economic hit to the country, as more people would be eligible for reduced taxes by virtue of being married.
And while this may be true, that's the cost of doing business in a country where we have equal protection.
Interestingly enough, the marriage business would actually go a long way to counteract the hit suffered by the tax reductions. Weddings are a massive expense. When same-sex marriage was legalized in the state of Washington last year, many in British Columbia were quite worried about the wedding industry there since quite a large portion of their business was based on gay couples crossing into Canada to get married.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21346 posts, RR: 54 Reply 8, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3525 times:
Gay people know from their own experience that different people can have fundamentally different preferences, simply by growing up being gay in a straight-dominted world.
But some straight are ignorant of that fact and adhere to the illusion that absolutely all people had to feel exactly alike and that variations could not exist.
This leads to the bizarre theory that gay people were "really" straight, but for some inexplicable reason acted against that presumed straight nature of theirs.
Despite the overwhelming implausibility of that false explanation, especially organized religions mostly stuck to it nevertheless.
This just gets more and more difficult with gay people no longer being mysteriously exotic objects of people's wild imaginations but increasingly just ordinary relatives, friends, neighbours and co-workers.
It's just a fact: Different people can and do in fact have different inclinations, and only acting against the one one actually happens to have would be "unnatural".
Discrimination advocates are simply ignoring a crucial bit of information and are constructing whole ideologies from that false idea.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 17920 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3500 times:
As has been pointed out. When you strip religion away, you are left with the honest answer:
"I think gays are icky and I don't like them."
You'd be amazed at the things that have been defended or opposed using religion. Slavery, denial of anesthesia to women in labor (even for C-sections), interracial marriage, women's suffrage, etc. etc. etc.
I have to disagree with you that it's solely a religious argument. I've heard people approach it with an exclusively biological mindset who believe that life only exists to multiply itself, and since gays can't procreate and grow the population, it is unnatural.
There's also the contingent out there who believe that since gays and lesbians can't procreate, they must recruit straights. Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform. Simply not desiring something doesn't make it "icky".
CalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16): There's also the contingent out there who believe that since gays and lesbians can't procreate, they must recruit straights. Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform. Simply not desiring something doesn't make it "icky".
Was that why that gay guy was hitting on me? And here I thought I was attractive. Dang.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10051 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3393 times:
My basic opinion is that people should be left alone with what they think is their sexual way unless it means harm to anyone. No hatred here against homosexuals.
But: the idea of marriage and the underlying sense of it is to tie man and woman closer together to produce kids.
Gays cant produce kids (well, technically they can of cause) and therefore do nothing to guarantee that the human race exists any longer. Therefore I am against marriage of same sex couples. Why should law and society support something that is widely believed to be a genetic defect without any positive aspect for the future of mankind?
That said, I anyway do think that only marriages that produce kids should be allowed to enjoy tax reductions in the long term. Marriages not producing kids for whatever reason should loose at least part of their their fiscal benefits after 15 years or so. Marriage shouldnt be allowed to be perverted into a tax-evasion model because that is only discriminating singles.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 5704 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3390 times:
President François Hollande is applying his platform promise of "marriage for all" currently, while himself not believing in marriage and asking for countries he visits to accommodate his partner.
This to say that just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean you are legitimate in opposing it.
Now, the right-wing opposition is against it, but officially not for religious reasons, because invoking religion would backfire. Last time it happened was in 1997 when deputy Christine Boutin, a devout catholic, brandished her bible in the National Assembly, she was booed and expelled and it demonstrated the conservatism of the right (conservatism being an insult similar to "liberal" in the US). She was against civil pacts aimed at gays but open for all, now she says those pacts are good and enough, marriage is only for a man and a woman. She even said that LGBT can marry, just do it with someone of the opposite sex !
Arguments are that "it's not natural" and that "children should have a father and a mother". Of course marriage itself is not natural but as long as they appear to do their jobs of opponents, who cares ? There is also the argument that children with two mothers/fathers will be victimized. Then they ask for a referendum. But they didn't do any when in power, even when 3 millions people were protesting in the streets.
I'm already jubilating at the thought of seeing them all admit, in 3-4 years, that they were wrong and now support the law.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 17920 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16): Many fear homosexuals solely on the basis of their belief that they are a recruitment target for sexual acts they have no desire to perform. Simply not desiring something doesn't make it "icky".
If you *fear* me based on the idea that I might convince or "recruit" you to do something that you genuinely don't want to do, then you must think what I do is pretty "icky."
If you were actually confident that nothing I could say or do would convince you to turn gay, you wouldn't have such a fear.
So I lump that argument in with general animus.
25 vikkyvik: Have at it, I say! If you and your dog BOTH consent to getting married, I don't have a problem with that. Of course, your dog is not considered an ad
26 AeroWesty: Do you not have sex with women because you have neither any erotic or romantic attraction to them, or is it because you think women are "icky"? For m
27 Aesma: I'd say having less than two kids is actually helping humanity, in the current situation. But LGBT marrying often see marriage as a way to start a fa
28 RomeoBravo: There's actually no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all. Absolutely no reason.
29 AeroWesty: Marriage has legal ramifications. The state needs to be involved to legitimize a marriage simply by default, to give the union legal standing.
30 Mir: May I assume that you are also against the marriage of elderly couples or heterosexual couples that cannot, for one reason or another, have children?
31 mt99: OK fine - so are you OK with Civil Unions? or just 2 guys living together for their entire life. In neither of these cases would children be produced