Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Factually, the best way to raise kids is in a stable, emotionally healthy environment. The gender involved is fairly irrelevant.

Pat Conroy's books about his family, like The Great Santini, have that external image of the perfect nuclear family - military father, stay at home mother, 2.x kids, etc, show this off pretty well. A terrible, screwed up family environment gets you screwed up people, no matter what the gender assignment.

I have a terribly hard time worrying about what two consenting adults two houses down from me are doing, gay or straight as long as it stays between the two of them. And I have an even harder time figuring out why anyone else should either.

And a gay couple with a kid just says "dual income household" to me, which in the case of a child, is always best (not necessarily right, just best).

I might think people who follow the furry lifestyle are batgak crazy, but I don't lobby with a political body to force them see my way.

Just because "it's icky" is not a good anti-same sex marriage argument.

It's 2014, sometimes girls like girls and boys like boys. Who cares?... Some. Sadly, but they're dying off, hell the head of the westboro baptist church is in the ground and plenty of other old timers who are outraged by "the gays" will likely join him in the ground before ya know it.

Young people don't care, they really don't give a damn, even the hardcore conservative youngsters don't seem to care. More and more independent denominations of the church don't even care, their numbers are dwindling anyway, a lot of them can't afford to care. Any pr executive on the planet will tell you where this is "trending" and what side to be on.

If you don't like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex then. Seems simple. Gay marriage has been legal in canada for almost a decade. The only people who cared were the same ones who take pictures of taco bell and try and pass them off as abortions.

dereksatkinson wrote:
The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.

 Ouze wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.

And I'll third this.

Although they should be putting a hand in it when legal matters are involved, like establishing next of kin. The importance of just that one thing when it comes to any kind of marriage is HUGE, as I am now married after dating for seven years.

All those years I was lucky not to have been just where the same sex couples are right now- if the significant other is in the hospital and unable to make decisions and their family doesn't like you, you are screwed if you want to see them, even if you are absolutely sure you know their wishes, becuase you are considered absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law because of the status of same-sex couples currently.

But like I have always held as a belief, the only other person's sexual nature I care about is the one I am having sex with. Everyone else gets a *shrug*.

Hey guys just thought I'd stop by and...wait a minute.

steps out side and looks at thread title...

Well gee, look at the time! Gotta go!

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.

And I'll third this.

It's a neat idea, but not anything that we can implement today. Marriage is written into so many laws from city levels to federal levels that you will never be able to undo marriage as a legal status. It's similar to gun laws: ideas like gun control look good on paper, but once you realize that you can't undo centuries of "everybody have a gun" reality sets in. Same with marriage, we have had centuries of "marriage" as a legal status, even non-governmental agencies and businesses rely on that legal status to make decisions and to provide benefits. Credit, health insurance, regular insurance, hospital visits, etc. We are just too deep now to undo that.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

This is my opinion as well. I don't believe the state should have a role in solemnizing any marriage regardless of the specifics of the participants; nor should it give any benefit or penalty to such status.

And I'll third this.

Agreed.

D-usa, I disagree it's impossible. Take the state out of it, call everything "partners" as far as the state is concerned. Problem solved. The state doesn't determine who I marry and honestly shouldn't for anyone.

So, a long time ago, like forever ago, there was a society of happily married men. they lived with their husbands in harmony with the nomadic tribes of women. the gay men knew that they could not bear children and so struck a deal with the nomadic women. the lesbian women were happy to bear their young, to boost their ranks with more females. each cycle the men and women would meet, exchange pleasantries and children, over time it became a festival where the children could play while the adults did adult things, like drink and talk. the children grew learning to love their own gender, but one year a couple of children one boy, and one girl fell in love. their families were pretty OK with it because they had no reason to hate love. years pass, and the couple had a family, and decided to move out on their own, to make their own farm, and raise their children. over the years couples of one man and one woman formed around this first couples farm and eventually created a township. over one hundred years since the first couple of one man and one woman, bandits and raiders plagued the countryside. The society of man was ransacked, and many were killed. The tribes of women tried to help, but were ultimately defeated. Not knowing of the third society, the society of mixed genders, the raiders left the land ransacked. The society expanded into the abandoned city of Man. and by three hundred years later, the societies of Man, and the tribes of Women were forgotten, or on purpose, discredited and hidden.


thousands of years later, the agents of the one who must not be named stand guard, preventing the prosperous societies of old to be re-created, making same sex marriage to be looked down on, and snubbed in society at large.

The argument does not exist, it is smoke and mirrors hiding the truth. The real truth, which will never be known.

Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

Oh really?

In my opinion, the right to engage in "marriage" should not be dictated or regulated by the state in any way shape or form. Neither traditional nor same sex marriage should be recognized by any government entity. The same rights and privileges of inheritance should be freely transferable to any other individual or entity without restriction.

That is a non-religious argument.

It's also either a non-sequitor or a disingenuous argument, as you are not arguing against gay marriage, you are arguing against state recognition of all marriage. If you make an argument against all marriages, but only when gay marriage is being proposed then you are actually changing the subject in a misleading way, and could be accused of intellectual dishonesty. Do you only ever object to the state being involved in marriages when the topic is gay marriage? If so, you might consider whether that's your real objection or not.

Let's assume that ending state recognition of marriage -- which is completely fundamental to a vast swath of civil law -- is off the table. That is a non-starter, there is not now nor will there ever be the political will to end the state recognition of marriage. It would so completely screw inheritance law that vast fortunes would suddenly be vulnerable to government seizure, which means it flat out cannot and will not happen.

So, given that - is there an argument against gay marriage that is not founded on either a religious belief about the immorality of homosexual relations (or a unexamined, knee-jerk and immature "two guys kissing? eew! gross!" reaction)? I have never heard of any such argument.

friendlycommissar wrote:
So, given that - is there an argument against gay marriage that is not founded on either a religious belief about the immorality of homosexual relations (or a unexamined, knee-jerk and immature "two guys kissing? eew! gross!" reaction)? I have never heard of any such argument.

The other argument is that the state has an interest in perpetuating itself and so has a bias towards recognizing marriages that will produce offspring.

It's a gakky argument, obviously, since plenty of couple marry and don't have kids, or people who have had hysterectomies or vasectomies or are just barren or whatever still get married, but you asked and there it is.

friendlycommissar wrote:
It's also either a non-sequitor or a disingenuous argument, as you are not arguing against gay marriage, you are arguing against state recognition of all marriage. If you make an argument against all marriages, but only when gay marriage is being proposed then you are actually changing the subject in a misleading way, and could be accused of intellectual dishonesty. Do you only ever object to the state being involved in marriages when the topic is gay marriage?

This was asked of Derek, but I'll answer since I feel the same way.

Since straight marriage is so much more common, it's rare that anyone should ask me, "how do you feel about straight people getting married"; but I assure you my answer would be the same: that marriage is a private covenant between two consenting adults and does not require government participation.

People can be completely bigoted about gay marriage without being religious about it. It's just harder to avoid owning the blame for being said bigot, though.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

Thanks

Change is scary and people hate it. And when it's a change that only benefits somebody else, well then you're asking people to get scared about a change that won't even help them. So they oppose it.

I think that explains most of the fundamental emotional drive that leads people to oppose gay marriage, religious or otherwise.

Everything else, all those silly arguments we've heard hundreds of times, that stuff is all basically just made up to justify that base emotion, that anxiety about change.

All those years I was lucky not to have been just where the same sex couples are right now- if the significant other is in the hospital and unable to make decisions and their family doesn't like you, you are screwed if you want to see them, even if you are absolutely sure you know their wishes, becuase you are considered absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law because of the status of same-sex couples currently.

Living Will.
DNR is another

One needs to do research into these. First though one has to be aware of them.

Living Will is a loop hole.

 d-usa wrote:
Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.

Exactly, which is why most people are okay with it as the easiest to implement solution available. But removing government from determining "marriage" (most people don't consider themselves married because of going to the court house, but because of the ceremony / commitment they make) and just calling everything "partners" as far the government concerned would be more accurate, honestly. As many have noted, marriage is a religious idea in and of itself. I have no problem with this, but it does make using the term more broadly a bit inaccurate.

In the end I voted FOR gay marriage in Maryland when it was on the ballot. But only because there was no civil union option. Given how people are using the term, it's a lot more appropriate and that is what I support- civil rights for all unions. That has incredibly broad support. "Marriage" is the incendiary term, and what the government really shouldn't be in the business of determining. Government status matters for civil rights, and that's why to me supporting civil unions is a no brainer. But using a religious term to describe that civil status is what causes all the drama, unnecessarily in my view. The end result is the same, equal recognition and rights for all... but using the term "marriage" is going to continue to be a huge stumbling block to getting equal rights for all unions sooner.

Federal action is likely the only fast way, as the easy states (like Maryland) have mostly all taken action already, or are in the process of doing so. A civil union law at the federal level is the ideal, fastest solution, to me.

If you do some research you will find marriage was not originally religious but as a way to combine land ownership. Even men would marry other men for such a purpose. You will also fine marriage laws came around way before Christianity for example just look up the code of hammurabi.

But the word "Marriage" has to be in it or its a no deal. Give them the rights now and eventually 30-40 years down the road the word marriage slides back in to cover all

To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.

Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Yes, while it's practical, it also smacks of "separate but equal" to me.

I thought the "win" is for the same rights as traditional married couples. You need like two more generations to get past mindsets now Give them the rights same as traditional couples and eventually it becomes so common to see that the word "Marriage" is back in use to cover all.

Its about the only way to get both State and Federal out of the issue they shouldn't be in in the first place

You mean Judaism, right? I'm assuming that's what you meant.

I wasn't referring to any specific religion- most religions have marriage, and most people consider it a religious convention. How it came about thousands of years ago doesn't seem all that relevant to this discussion. This is all in the context of modern democracy- go back very far and this was a non issue for many other reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yeah, that's why civil unions only work if government considers all unions the same. Separate but equal sucks, and doesn't work.

I mean in general. The biggest reason I hear against it is because "Jesus". Even though it states nothing about homosexual marriage in the bible.

At least here in the US.

 d-usa wrote:
To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.

Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

It also gets to the point which is that marriage being handled by government and business isn't in itself a problem. As with all things, stupid policies are the problem. Married/partnered/civil unioned whatever you want to call it. As a legal status identifying individuals in a familial committed relationship (or whatever I assume people know what I mean here) is practical for a lot of things. Too practical to really toss out the window.

You can change the word but it's the same thing and oddly enough will be subject to the same kinds of problems.

 RiTides wrote:
I wasn't referring to any specific religion- most religions have marriage, and most people consider it a religious convention.

I think that's going to depend on where you are. Here in Oz, we have far more weddings conducted by civil celebrants than by priests these days, even though only around 25% of the population identify themselves as having no religious affiliation. More and more people are seeing marriage as something that is between themselves and their partner, and nothing at all to do with a church.

Vash- You apparently don't mean in general, as your second clause clearly points out . If you want to talk about the origin of marriage, it's wayyyyyyyyyy before Jesus came on the scene. If you want to consider that tradition, then you're taking about Judaism and the Torah, not Christianity.

But that's getting a bit far afield particularly in a thread about non-religious considerations for gay marriage. As a strictly civil issue, it has broad support, even from most religious people I know. But that's strictly as a civil / equal rights issue, which is all that really matters regarding government involvement.

And I agree with you on marriage being around before that. But the main thing against it here is people pushing bigotry and playing on peoples fears to keep it down.

Edit: I know they said with out religion in the OP but it is a huge issue to ignore it the way it is being used.

I don't care myself. I niether for it nor against being its between two consenting adults. Now if they get added benefits then I might have issues

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

"Ewww, gross."

Anything more complicated than that can be accurately summed up as "I'm a repulsive bigot, but I don't want to admit that I'm a repulsive bigot so I'll make up a bunch of nonsense so I don't have to state my reasons openly".