Can you come up with a valid argument against legalizing same-sex marriage without using your religion or you're subjective morality?Can you argue against legalizing same-sex marriage without using religion?
no, but I cant get light out of a bulb without plugging it in either.Can you argue against legalizing same-sex marriage without using religion?
Sure no problem.
The act of procreation and the raising of your genetic offspring are arguably the biggest and most important aspects of human life. Certainly you can lead your life prioritizing other aspects higher but you can't deny that the conjunction between man and woman ranks quite high within our cosmic responsibilities.
Being of such undeniable importance our collective nation has provided a bill of rights so to speak, an agreement of terms both legal and spiritual, infleunced by culture which defines and provides special privilege for such unions between two people.
Marriage is the definition of an agreed union between man and woman to propagate our existence as a species.
So to change the definition of marriage and remove the aspect of procreation and genetic offspring creates an entirely new definition.
What then is the union between man and woman?
Regardless of civil rights legislation or impassioned speech making - that union is still something wholly different than a same-sex union. Sorry that's just reality. They are two different things.
It is rather overly emotional and frankly irrational to destroy one definition only to create two new definitions. Particularly when the ';new'; definition of man woman unions will in fact simply be the exact same thing it always was. But thanks to semantics having caused much duress, stress and futilely wasted energy.
Clearly you could change the terms of your question or restate it such a way to attempt to rebuke the simple logic above, however it will not refute the fact that male/female unions are different than same sex unions - and therefore, strictly categorically speaking, will be it's own unique entity.
Can you argue against legalizing same-sex marriage without using religion?
Yes. It should not be legalized, because this would an infringement of our First Amendment rights.
';Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.';
The bottom line is that marriage, is and always has been an establishment of religion, therefore government should have NEVER gotten involved in it. The Constitution grants them no authority in this matter. Marriage should have been left up to the church. If the state wants to offer contractual unions that offer special benefits, they should do so through civil unions, not by redefining marriage. Mark my words, if laws are passed that legalize gay marriage, it won't be long before priests are being thrown in jail for hate crimes or discrimination when they refuse to marry gays. Make no mistake, this debate is about freedom of religion, not gay rights.
According to your logic, probably not (but you have a preconceived acceptable answer, don't you?)
Marriage is a religious ceremony and therefore should not be recognized by the state. That means that ';married'; should not be a legal status.
If you give benefits for one religious ceremony, where does it end? I've been Baptized, should I get a tax break? Of course not. Why then, should it be any different if I get married?
Thumbs down all you want; I'm just advocating separation of church and state.
Wow. more people than I thought want the government to decide our religion for us.
I can argue FOR same sex marriage using religion.
I can also argue FOR it using legal grounds.
I can also argue FOR it using my own personal experience growing up with gay role models.
There are many political issues where I could agree with some points of the other side (abortion comes to mind), but there is no question in my mind about supporting gay marriage.
the only problem is with Definition.
the combination of both gay and straight sex terms being used as as a single term will cause errors, due to the fact that too many loop holes will form through laws.
the definition and creation of separate terms for both sects would be ideal as it would make aspects easier for people, employers and judges to define on a more accurate basis.
the term marriage could become misleading if not used in the right context. if people are fine with being gay and being married they can attain to a term that has the same meaning but lowers the confusion.
mostly people tend to get aggreivated about the terms. so a change in terms, like, civil union etc. will give more accurate information on the circumstances of the relationship but still hold with few exceptions the same lawfull right as marriage.
change the term everyones happy.
mostly.
lol - they will marry for the benefits.
What is preventing me from marrying one of my male friends for his benefits. He has a very sweet insurance package.
They cannot have children - I was told I couldn't have children when I was 15, does that mean I should not have issued a marriage licenses?
American Tradition - now there is a stretch. At one time it was tradition to kill natives, keep slaves and burn witches.
There is no reason outside of religion that could be easily refuted, outside of the fact that survivor benefits will be a drain on social security. However if you twist that bad boy around, it actually support gay marriage since survivor benefits are a legal entitlement granted by secular government and protected under the bill of rights. Which means that there cannot be any exclusionary language.
Yup. Thousands of people will marry their best friends for the insurance, tax and medical benefits. They are worth thousands of dollars a year.
And it isnt my morality, it is everyone elses'. Marriage is marriage and not gay marriage because society thinks marriage is special and should be celebrated. If we thought gay relationships were special we would have a ceremony for them.
the only reason anyone can ever come up with is websters dictionary and legalities, the former being a dumb reason and legalities, well, people play with the system all the time anyway so why dont we just let the homosexuals have the right to marry.
you know, if all of the homophobes would just acknowledge that we exist and deserve the right to a peaceful life with the same privilage as them, then they wont have to hear from us!
isnt that great? they can just go back behind their cutain and that would be it
well the original term of marraige is a union of two ppl, a man and a woman, so if you have two men or two women what is that supposed to be called? no matter what, to me, it can never be called a marraige so why try to do it? just my opinion. also if kids were to come about in this so called marraige, they would be messed up! this should not be legal.
Tradition. When we legalize this, it will never end. It will be group marriage after that.
';Love is love, blah, blah...'; I certainly love my dog and my guinea pig. Soon I'll be able them marry him too, huh?
When I was a kid, I used to say ';I love ice cream,'; and my brother would say ';Then why don't you marry it?'; Well soon that will be a reality and it is SICK.
Gay couples will adopt or artifically have children. Who will think that they should be homos. Soon the whole world will be a big orgy or a lot of gays... there will be no reproduction.
We currently separate male and female bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. Well, we might as well quit cause it's really cool to be gay now.
Gays, and I'm not trying to be hurtful, but they tend to be ';loose.'; Gays are MUCH more likely to have HIV/AIDS. If it weren't for them, we KNOW there would not be AIDS. Some gay guy had sex with an ANIMAL. It only will spread disease.
That's only a little, by the way.
what's the big deal? gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. they can make a will and leave property, wealth, etc to their partner same as any other couple. in addition there is special consideration based on sexual preference when it comes to 'hate crime' laws that give preferential treatment to gays in a crime. and guess what else? gays aren't being denied rights that straight people have. i can't marry someone of the same sex either. it is an issue that applies to everyone, not just gays.
weren't we brainwashed to think that the gay culture is separate and distinct from the straight lifestyle? but now they want to be like us? i just don't get it. live your lives. you're not being oppressed.
%26lt;republican
I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
But the term marriage is reserved for religious couples.
And if the term marriage is so sought after, then religion will always be involved.
I support lesbians and gays all the way. not because I fell like they need it but because I want women to stay the fu*k away from men.
they screw up our lives and make our lives a living hell.
the more lesbians the better. so they can stay the hell away from men.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8J鈥?/a>
To me it is about them trying to change the definition of a word that already has and has had a definition for many years now. What gives them the right to just go around changing definitions of words to suit them? I mean really. It's kind of cocky of them. (no pun intended)
yes - why ruin your life? You can simply walk away from your crazy partner now. Why get married and let them take half? I agree with your comments on reducing breeding. We do have too many people now and not enough resources to sustain them.
Can you define the word marriage in a historic sense without using the word religion.
It's a biblical term.
My problem with gay marriage has nothing to do with religion as I am an atheist, my problem with gay marriage is that it diminishes gender roles in society.
marriage is EXCLUSIVELY a religious institution....the left uses gay marriage to attack churches(white churches)...because they were rejected by their families,and by proxy,the church...
There is no explicit constitutional right to homosexual unions, nor is there an explicit ban on them. This makes them entirely a state matter per the 10th Amendment.
Yes. Marriage generates a father and mother, the best combination of nurtureres to raise children.
Government shouldn't be marrying people at all and therefore shouldn't increase the number of circumstances under which they do.
It' s impossible to do so. The whole issue is sexist. Why can every female citizen marry a man, but I can't? Just because I have a couple different parts?
To use a famous quote.... ';YES WE CAN!';
Government operates on the system of popular vote. If the populous does not want gay marriages then it should not be recognized. Simple as that.... Are we done here yet?
No because marriage is a religious rite. Civil unions are not.
I asked a similar Q and the problem revolved around the word marriage and what it means
Lets see ,if I want to raise German shepards , should I get two males or two females . ( by today's mind set I guess it makes no difference
Yes. Men and women belong together. That is how babies are made. When two women or two men can make a baby you let me know and i'll vote to legalize gay marriage
Children need a male and female figure in the home to balance. Not a butch and a fairy
Perflexed...you are AAAAWWWEESOMMMMEE!!!! Kudos!!!
I'm all for legalizing it. But some would say that changing our 'American Tradition' of always having a man and a women together would just be unethical. That's about all I can pull outta my bum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment