Non-Religious Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,
I am afraid I am not inclined to waste my time with you if having said most of the world you then proceed to present not much of the world. No wonder you havent seen my argument, you dont seem to really read the posts properly.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Which is what I have done. Its observable that a male sex and female sex are functional for sexual reproduction, and that same sex couples aren’t. Therefore my non religious argument rests on that reality.

Except for the fact that couples need not be able to reproduce with one another in order to legally wed. Thus, your opinions on same sex couples being "dysfunctional" have nothing to do with marriage.

And forget the reports as I doubt if you are going to agree with any I cite and I with any you cite.

Then we only have our opinions, and no means to continue this debate.

Actually I suggest it is your godless beliefs that is the problem, as having had an observably sound reason described you wish to link it to religion.

Sir, I take it as insult that you call my beliefs "godless". I am a Christian. To state that I am not is offensive and untrue.

Most people don’t recognise same sex marriage and I have given a good reason why they inhernatly know what is right and what is wrong, your attempts to intimidate by implying its just my idea is failing miserably.

Most people who don't recognize same sex marriage will admit that do so for religious reasons. You claim that your case against same sex marriage is non-religious, and I dispute that it truely is - since you have admitted that your belief that same sex couples are "dysfunctional" is based on your religious beliefs.

I am sorry, but no I dont care to, I have already repeated my argument many times.

Sir, I have just recently re-read the majority of your posts in this thread. I have not seen any evidence given by you that same sex marriage is harmful to societies that legally allow it.

I do not believe that you have given such evidence, nor do I believe that such evidence exists. Feel free to try and prove me wrong on this.

 

[cantata]

As to same sex unions my argument is that this dysfunction is harmful, to health, to the child and to society.

To what child?

How to health?

How to society?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What rights, they are your idea; marriage is man and a woman for most people. Are you assuming I am going o adopt your position because you

I beg your pardon?

Rubbish. My argument is that as same sex unions are dysfunctional for sexual reproduction they are not desirable. All you and a number of others is argue it doesn’t harm society whilst I have argued it does.

Wait.
Wait.
Wait.

That's your argument?! Good grief man, any idiot could tell you that . But, in case you hadn't noticed, we're talking about same-sex marriage, not same-sex sex.

Since when do couples have to make babies?

Well as only biological parents can know, we see the dangers of your uninformed attitude.

Absurd. Biological parents are

You prove it hasn’t.

Don't be childish. You made the claim, you provide the proof.

The null hypothesis is assumed until it is refuted. You are invoking change where none is apparent.

But because you're as stubborn as a mule, I'll bite:

• "There is no evidence that giving partnership rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Marriage rates, divorce rates, and non-marital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe and the United States for the past thirty years. But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were underway well before the passage of laws that gave same-sex couples rights."
• "Divorce rates (in Scandinavia) have not risen since the passage of partnership laws and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased."
• "Non-marital birth rates have not risen faster in Scandinavia or the Netherlands since the passage of partnership laws. Although there has been a long-term trend toward the separation of sex, reproduction, and marriage in the industrialized west, this trend is unrelated to the legal recognition of same-sex couples."
• "Non-marital birth rates changed just as much in countries without partnership laws as in countries that legally recognize same-sex couples' partnerships."

This is the result of a study by Professor M.V. Lee Badgett from the University of Massachusetts. She also demonstrated that "[e]xtending marriage to same-sex couples will boost California state and local government revenues by over $63.8 million".


So, brightmorningstar, I've provided proof of my claims: same-sex marriage does not detrimentally affect societies, and instead seems to improve them.

there is no such things as same sex marriage in most of the world so why do you keep referring to it. You seem unable to accept any reality at all.

Why do I keep on referring to it? Because that's the topic of conversation! "Same-sex marriage" is the marriage of two people of the same sex.

I ask you again: cite studies, surveys, and international reports that demonstrate an overall decline in the society as a result of legalising same-sex marriage.

You say it is detrimental to society. Why do you say this? What evidence or rationale do you have that makes you come to such a conclusion?

It's not hard, brightmorningstar. Just cite the reports. Don't dodge the question, don't meander off into semantical issues.

What makes you think that couples who cant produce children themselves have a clue what they are talking about?

Well, the biggest reason is that the ability to have children has absolutely no bearing on coherency. Sterile couples are just as sensible as their fertile counterparts.

 

[Psudopod]

Brightmorningstar - Can you let me know if you are happy with my last post and to carry on discussing using those terms?

 

[David Brider]

Which is not most of the world is it! SO don’t use the phrase.

I didn't.

But not marriage so don’t use the phrase.

Civil unions are effectively marriage in all but name, just shorn of the religious trappings.

If your belief that same-gender marriage

let me stop you there. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in most of the world either.

But it exists in some of the world - a large chunk of the "western" world, in fact - and if it is in any way detrimental to society one would expect you to be able to point out instances of it being so.

As I have said I have shown you my argument...

So far, you've presented three reasons for being opposed to same-gender marriage. 1.) That same-gender unions are unable to produce offspring. 2.) That same-gender unions are bad for society. 3.) That same-gender unions are bad for children (you seem to mean, by this, any children that same-gender couples bring up as their own, either having adopted them or having conceived through artificial means).

Trouble is, you've yet to adequately demonstrate why the first point should be an argument against same-gender unions (lack of ability - or indeed desire - to produce offspring not being a grounds for disallowing opposite-gender couples to marry, why should be a grounds for disallowing same-gender couples to marry?). You've yet to produce data to support your thesis that same-gender unions being bad for society. And you've been shown data that actively refutes your suggestion that same-gender couples make bad parents.

...that you don’t agree is your choice but if you cant see the argument you are either blind or haven't read the posts.

I've read your posts. I've not seen you produce the data which you maintain you have produced for the second or third points, nor any adequate explanation as to why the first point should be an issue worth considering. If, as you seem to think, I've genuinely missed something you've posted which answers my requests for such data/explanation, then why would it be so much of a problem for you to link me to the post(s) in question?

David.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Here is another report... http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html
Doyou agree?

Let's look at this (biased) site, and some of their claims. They state to have the "facts" about (homosexual) same sex marriage. And I would like to argue against each of these "facts".

"Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived."
Actually, while nothing on this issue is certain, "gay couples can be as stable as straight couples". And wouldn't allowing marriage to same sex couples make it more likely that their relationship would last? If the issue is that same sex relationships don't last long enough: Legal Status Helps Relationships Last Longer.

Also, we don't deny marriage to couples just because it is suspected the marriage won't "last long enough". Last time I checked, celebrities are still allowed to marry. *wink*

"Fact #2: Studies show homosexual marriage is hazardous to one's health."
There is risk of STIs from anyone - gay, straight, bisexual, or whatever - who has unprotected sex, especially with multiple partners.

Also, since there is less chance of getting an STI if a couple is completely monogamous and in a long-lasting relationship - and since marriage promotes both of those values - this would again be a reason to legalize same sex marriage.

"Fact #3: Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence." "Fact #4: Homosexual domestic violence is a logger problem than gay bashing."
These are basically the same point - assuming that by "logger" they mean "larger". Anyway, we do not prevent people who might commit domestic violence from marrying.

All this shows is that, regardless of the legal status of their same sex couples, we need to offer more resources to help more men who are being abused by their partner - just like we currently have in most places for abused women.

"Fact #5: Homosexuals make poor parents."
Except that more recent studies have concluded that children raised by same sex couples are "no better and no worse" than children raised by opposite sex couples.

If not whats the point of keeping citing reports?

The point is that each side gets to show evidence that their opinions are at least somewhat true in reality.

This is a debate forum, sir, not a "everyone state their opinion for fun" forum. If you do not wish to debate, you are free not to come here. But you should expect people who disagree with you to debate with you about your opinions.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,
Thanks for your reply and sorry for the delay in my response.
Actually I appreciate your offer to establish the definitions.

As there is no definition in the dictionary I used for bigender, but there is for bisexual, I think it would be best to use sex to describe male or female rather than gender, and as one of my issues is about the use of the words homosexual and homosexual, would you be prepared to use ‘same sex attraction’ and ‘opposite sex attraction’ instead?

Couple:

Remember that this thread is Arguments against same sex marriage. In this context, I believe it is fair to assume that couple refers to two people in a mutual relationship, rather than just to people. Are you happy to accept that (unless stated otherwise) when I say couple, this is the usage I mean?
Yes very much so., same sex couple, opposite sex couple please.

Considering the point about, can we agree that the two terms above are largely interchangeable? We’re talking about two people who want to marry, and the reasons why the should or should not be allowed. Yes, technically, you could have a gay man and a lesbian woman together, but it’s unlikely that they are going to need to fight for the right to marry each other. Are you happy then to accept that when I say homosexual couple, I mean two gay men or two lesbian women in a relationship with each other? Similarly, when I say same sex couple, I mean either two gay partners or bi partners in a relationship?

Perhaps we need to identify what marriage is.
From the freeonline dictionary again
a.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" Lloyd Rose.
4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

As pink and blue can be a good marriage of colours for example, can I ask what union a same sex one is?
You see a man woman marriage is one of love of the two people with potential sexual reproduction. A marriage between two people of the same sex is not, its one of love presumably but with sexual activity. You see an offspring is another example of a union where two come together and produce a new one.
If is talking about sex, one is talking about using sexual reproductive organs and thus same sex sex isnt using them in the way they were designed to reproduce.

 

[Psudopod]

As there is no definition in the dictionary I used for bigender, but there is for bisexual, I think it would be best to use sex to describe male or female rather than gender,

Agreed.

and as one of my issues is about the use of the words homosexual and homosexual, would you be prepared to use ‘same sex attraction’ and ‘opposite sex attraction’ instead?

Isn't that rather redundant? I mean, homosexual means having an attraction to the opposite sex, so it just seems that I'd be typing more letters to mean the same thing!

Yes very much so., same sex couple, opposite sex couple please.

Okay. Same sex couple - two people of the same sex in a relationship; opposite sex couple - two people of opposite sex in the same relationship.

Perhaps we need to identify what marriage is.
From the freeonline dictionary again
a.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" Lloyd Rose.
4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

I think we're looking at the first one, and debating whether it should be confined to a man and a woman. You feel it should, I feel it shouldn't. Sound right?

You see a man woman marriage is one of love of the two people with potential sexual reproduction. A marriage between two people of the same sex is not, its one of love presumably but with sexual activity.

Well, I'd think most opposite sex marriage involves sexual activity too. Also, not all opposite sex marriage has the potential or the desire for reproduction.

If is talking about sex, one is talking about using sexual reproductive organs and thus same sex sex isnt using them in the way they were designed to reproduce.

Again, I'd disagree. Oral sex, anal sex, non penile pentration do not involve sex organs plural. And these are activities carried out by both same sex and opposite sex couples.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan Child,
Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
What rights, they are your idea; marriage is man and a woman for most people. Are you assuming I am going o adopt your position because you

I beg your pardon?

Granted. But the question was what rights? What you see as rights others see as wrongs.

That's your argument?! Good grief man, any idiot could tell you that . But, in case you hadn't noticed, we're talking about same-sex marriage, not same-sex sex.

There is no such thing as same sex marriage for most people in the world and I don’t recognise it.

Since when do couples have to make babies?

We have done that point.

Don't be childish. You made the claim, you provide the proof.

The only childish comment was the one that demanded proof. The vast majority have always recognised marriage a man and woman, if you think you can prove it isnt do so.

So, brightmorningstar, I've provided proof of my claims: same-sex marriage does not detrimentally affect societies, and instead seems to improve them.

And as you will have noted I have provided proof of my claims that same sex union is detrimental to society.

Why do I keep on referring to it? Because that's the topic of conversation! "Same-sex marriage" is the marriage of two people of the same sex.

There is no same sex marriage in the UK as its not recognised as the same, its called civil partnership. So what is this same sex marriage you keep referring to?

[quoe] I ask you again: cite studies, surveys, and international reports that demonstrate an overall decline in the society as a result of legalising same-sex marriage. [/quote] The reports given are flawed and probably gay funded as I have shown they refer to heterosexual marriage. As most of the world doesn’t recognise same sex marriage there is obviously no such thing a heterosexual marriage. So ist obvious these reports are gay biased approaching the issue from a flawed starting point.

As I said we can swap studies all day but you seem to be wanting me to provide one to you that it is unlikely you are ever going to be convinced by. What is the point of that?

You say it is detrimental to society. Why do you say this?{/quote] Because of what I have explained,

What evidence or rationale do you suppose makes same sex union marriage when it isnt the same as marriage.?

It's not hard, brightmorningstar. Just cite the reports. Don't dodge the question, don't meander off into semantical issues.

Which reports the ones I have cited? Deal with the last one and tell me a little about why you disagree

Well, the biggest reason is that the ability to have children has absolutely no bearing on coherency. Sterile couples are just as sensible as their fertile counterparts.

Coherent isn’t the same as experience. Are you assuming people with experience are going to be incoherent?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

Okay. Same sex couple - two people of the same sex in a relationship; opposite sex couple - two people of opposite sex in the same relationship.

excellent.

I think we're looking at the first one, and debating whether it should be confined to a man and a woman. You feel it should, I feel it shouldn't. Sound right?

sounds right.

Well, I'd think most opposite sex marriage involves sexual activity too. Also, not all opposite sex marriage has the potential or the desire for reproduction.

Ok I think you have gone astray already. Let me repeat
.. a man woman marriage is one of love of the two people with potential sexual reproduction. A marriage between two people of the same sex is not, its one of love presumably but with sexual activity.
Do you agree?

Again, I'd disagree. Oral sex, anal sex, non penile pentration do not involve sex organs plural.

Then is that sex? I can hug a male or female friend and whether I have sexual desires for them or not its still not sex to hug them. So no, as I said if is talking about sex, one is talking about using sexual reproductive organs and thus same sex sex isnt using them in the way they were designed to reproduce.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The reports given are flawed and probably gay funded as I have shown they refer to heterosexual marriage. As most of the world doesn’t recognise same sex marriage there is obviously no such thing a heterosexual marriage. So ist obvious these reports are gay biased approaching the issue from a flawed starting point.

Someone who ignores evidence contrary to his position renders any discussion futile. I have nothing further to say to you, brightmorningstar.


I'm outta here, folks.

 

[Psudopod]

Ok I think you have gone astray already. Let me repeat

.. a man woman marriage is one of love of the two people with potential sexual reproduction. A marriage between two people of the same sex is not, its one of love presumably but with sexual activity.
Do you agree?

I agree with the two statements in their own right, but I don’t think they are exclusive. In most cases there is sexual activity in a marriage, whether it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex one. Indeed the consummation of marriage used to be very important. Also, just because there is the potential for reproduction, doesn’t mean it can or will happen.

Then is that sex? I can hug a male or female friend and whether I have sexual desires for them or not its still not sex to hug them. So no, as I said if is talking about sex, one is talking about using sexual reproductive organs and thus same sex sex isnt using them in the way they were designed to reproduce.

You and I are both adults, so I think we can assume that we both know what sexual attraction is. I think a sexual act is one you’d only want to do on a person you were sexually attracted to. For example, you might hug a male friend, and I certainly hug female friends, but I wouldn’t want to perform a sex act on them. (That was hard to write without crossing TMI boundries J )

 

[WatersMoon110]

The reports given are flawed

How, specifically are these reports flawed?

Which reports the ones I have cited?

You've cited an article report that shows that children raised by a single guardian don't do as well as children raised by two guardians. You've cited a report that shows that adult children of divorced parents are less likely to marry someone of the opposite gender.

And you've cited a "Pamphlet" from the Family Research Institute. The studies cited by that pamphlet are mainly outdated - some reaching far back to when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Newer studies, as I've shown in my previous post to you on this page, have shown much of the conclusions on that pamphlet to be mistaken.

Not to mention that none of it backs up your claims - that same sex couples are "dysfunctional" or that same sex marriage damages any society that has legalized it. This last claim you have cited no evidence for in this thread - though you have made that claim multiple times.

The point still remains - legal marriage is not based on the ability to reproduce with one's intended spouse. I would really like to see why, given this fact, what non-religious arguments do you have against same sex marriage?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To psudopod,
Ok I think you have gone astray already. Let me repeat

.. a man woman marriage is one of love of the two people with potential sexual reproduction. A marriage between two people of the same sex is not, its one of love presumably but with sexual activity.
Do you agree?

I agree with the two statements in their own right, but I don’t think they are exclusive. In most cases there is sexual activity in a marriage, whether it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex one. Indeed the consummation of marriage used to be very important. Also, just because there is the potential for reproduction, doesn’t mean it can or will happen.

Now you have referred to sexual activity which wasn’t in my statement. In both a marriage and a same sex union there can be love but only in a marriage can there be sexual reproduction. So there is a fundamental difference.

If you wish to talk about sexual activity, well that can exist in other combinations not just with a same sex couples, so are you proposing any sexual activity is a criteria for any couple?

You and I are both adults, so I think we can assume that we both know what sexual attraction is. I think a sexual act is one you’d only want to do on a person you were sexually attracted to. For example, you might hug a male friend, and I certainly hug female friends, but I wouldn’t want to perform a sex act on them. (That was hard to write without crossing TMI boundries J )

On the contrary this is the point. I can still hug a male or a female friend whether I have sexual attractions to them or not. I can hug a person because I am sexually attracted to them, Hugging simply isn’t a sexual act. If I am sexually aroused my arms don’t go erect do they, my penis does. My penis is my sexual reproductive organ. I maintain none of your views are correct.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Watersmoon110,
Sorry my friend I dont think you are making any real attempt to debate. I shall focus on debating with Psuodpod who is not only making every attenpt but able to understand the debate.

How so, specifically are these reports flawed?

In the ways I have described. For exmample the majority of people dont see same sex unions as marriage and wouldnt call marriage heterosexual. The reports are clealry biased. Nor from experience do I believe the findings, which is hardly surprising when they look at the stats from sexual attraction, heterosexual/homosexual rather than sex male/female.
As to your view of the reports, well thats just your view, my view is that your citatons are flawed.
The key issue here thought is that my although my opinion that same sex union is error is only as good as your opinion that it isnt, what you seem unable to acknowledge is the observable fact my opinion is based on, namely the sexual reproduction

 

[WatersMoon110]

The key issue here thought is that my although my opinion that same sex union is error is only as good as your opinion that it isnt, what you seem unable to acknowledge is the observable fact my opinion is based on, namely the sexual reproduction

I disagree, but I am sorry to leave you with the impression that I do not understand your point or wish to debate with you. On the contrary, I feel I am trying very hard to understand what exactly your beliefs on this matter are. And I desire, very much, to continue debating with you. But I admit that I seem to have gone about both of these things in the wrong manner - and I apologize for offending you.

I understand that you feel marriage should only be granted to people who are of opposite genders. And that you feel this way because only humans of opposite genders can reproduce with one another.

However, I feel that because legal marriage is not based on an ability to reproduce with one's intended spouse; it is illogical to deny marriage to same sex couples simply because they cannot reproduce with one another.

Given this aspect of legal marriage (that it is not required that a married couple be capable of reproducing), I would be ever so interested to hear your opinions on the matter. I want to ask you, specifically, the following question:
Why you feel that marriage should be denied to same sex couples merely because they cannot reproduce with one another?

 

[selfinflikted]

This is easy. The crux of bright's argument is sexual reproduction. The simple fact of the matter is, that until reproduction (i.e. producing children) is a prerequisite for marriage, your argument is no argument at all. Period. Married couples are not required to make babies.

 

[Psudopod]

Now you have referred to sexual activity which wasn’t in my statement. In both a marriage and a same sex union there can be love but only in a marriage can there be sexual reproduction. So there is a fundamental difference.

If you wish to talk about sexual activity, well that can exist in other combinations not just with a same sex couples, so are you proposing any sexual activity is a criteria for any couple?

You said "A marriage between two people of the same sex is not, its one of love presumably but with sexual activity."

My point was simply that this isn't unique to same sex relationships. Also, the ability and desire to reproduce are not constant across all marriages.

I disagree that sexual activity is a criteria for couples. I just think its common in most.

I can still hug a male or a female friend whether I have sexual attractions to them or not. I can hug a person because I am sexually attracted to them, Hugging simply isn’t a sexual act.

I agree, hence the point I was trying to make was that a sexual act is one that you would only be happy performing with someone that you find sexually attractive.

I don't think either of these points are arguments against same sex marriage, so I don't want to get bogged down in them. From what I have read, your two main points are that same sex activity is disfunctional, and that same sex realtionships are harmful to both society and any children being raised by those couples. Let's examine those points.

I disagree that same sex activity is disfunctional because I think pleasure is a function of sexual activity. I think this is demonstrated by the existance of the g-spot, both vaginal and anal. However, even if we disagree on this point, I don't see why this is an argument to deny marriage. Afterall, even in opposite sex married couples, it's not all sex for reproduction and it's not all "functional sex". It might be for some couples but it certainly isn't for all. And we don't make opposite sex couples sign a contract saying they will only persist in "functional sex" once married.

Regarding the dangers caused by same sex marriage, I have to agree with the other posts on this thread that you haven't satisfactorly laid out your arguments for this. I would ask you kindly to write them again, or to give links to the post where they have been laid out, so I can examine them afresh.

 

[levi501]

We don't deny heterosexual couples marriage licenses when the couple is infertile so what's this potential for reproduction copout?