#1 Edited by krspaceT (1466 posts) - - Show Bio

Please do explain to an atheist why such a thing is bad in reasons I could understand?

#2 Posted by consolemaster001 (5133 posts) - - Show Bio

Some people argue that gay marriage should be opposed because it denies a child either a father or a mother.

That's all that comes to mind.

#3 Posted by Saren (25569 posts) - - Show Bio

There are plenty of such reasons, problem is they're all stupid. Like the argument that legalizing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope that ends with legalizing bestiality.

Moderator
#4 Posted by Joygirl (19286 posts) - - Show Bio

SANCTITY OF FAMILYYYYYYYYYYYY AND ALSO TRADITION FOR TRADITION'S SAKE!

#5 Posted by Billy Batson (57914 posts) - - Show Bio

There are plenty of such reasons, problem is they're all stupid. Like the argument that legalizing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope that ends with legalizing bestiality.

That one is funny because you can counter it with one sentence.

BB

#6 Posted by krspaceT (1466 posts) - - Show Bio

Some people argue that gay marriage should be opposed because it denies a child either a father or a mother.

That's all that comes to mind.

Er, there are plenty of single parents who raise their child well, and father and mother roles aside, let's say a child really does need a male and female figure in their life, as some claim. If a Same Sex couple adopts a foster care kid, who often really need a parental figure at all, is having 1.5 parents worse than having none?

I myself believe that child development is not so black and white as this, its just merely a deconstruction.

#7 Posted by laflux (15031 posts) - - Show Bio

There are plenty of such reasons, problem is they're all stupid. Like the argument that legalizing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope that ends with legalizing bestiality.

this

#8 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

There are plenty of such reasons, problem is they're all stupid. Like the argument that legalizing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope that ends with legalizing bestiality.

/End thread

I've also heard many morons claim that if a gay person raises a child it becomes more likely to be gay itself, spreading like a disease I guess.

#9 Edited by cameron83 (7133 posts) - - Show Bio

What everyone above says

#10 Edited by Emequious_Swerve (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

None that make any sense.

#11 Posted by gor724 (826 posts) - - Show Bio

#12 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@gor724 said:

Yes now in gif format, perfect!

#13 Edited by PeppeyHare (4310 posts) - - Show Bio
#14 Posted by ImagineMan16 (466 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's the thing... I'm from a very religious background, and do consider myself a religious person (though I've never really found a church that I could stand, they've all seemed to either be all about money, or just totally out of left field with their practice) and I don't really see the big deal. I understand the argument about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" but... is it only straight people who we're allowing to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage, then? Because even modern heterosexual marriages don't exactly match up with biblical marriage. And in my opinion there are far, far worse things going on in the world that God would want to be punishing us for. I just really don't get the fuss over this one issue in particular, when the church seems content to ignore every other issue.

#15 Posted by russellmania77 (14832 posts) - - Show Bio

cuz ur dad might make an embarrassing speech

#16 Edited by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

Perhaps natural selection.

EDIT: I'm sorry, my mind interpreted the OP as being specifically about homosexuality not homosexual marriage. Please forgive.

The only non-religious argument I can think of against gay marriage would have to do with entitlements, tax subsidies, etc. All else seems to fall into the realm of ethics and morality which of course would begin to stray into religion in one way or another.

#17 Posted by waezi2 (7065 posts) - - Show Bio

Aids?

Na, that would be homosexuality alone...

I guess you could argue, that its not "natural," or something like that.

Online
#18 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (23803 posts) - - Show Bio

@waezi2 said:

Aids?

Na, that would be homosexuality alone...

I guess you could argue, that its not "natural," or something like that.

O_o What?

#19 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@waezi2 said:

Aids?

Na, that would be homosexuality alone...

I guess you could argue, that its not "natural," or something like that.

O_o What?

Wait, is he saying straight people can't get aids? That's a load off my shoulders.

#20 Edited by dccomicsrule2011 (23803 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363: The data actually shows more straight people have HIV then gays IIRC.

#21 Posted by waezi2 (7065 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363: sure they can. What makes you think so?

Online
#22 Edited by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@waezi2 said:

@dctv3363: sure they can. What makes you think so?

It was a sarcastic response to your post. Is that just some kind of stereotype or is that something you actually believe?

#23 Posted by waezi2 (7065 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363: No, it were a example of a opinion from a nonreligious person, who are against homosexual marriage.

Now I'm insulted.

Online
#24 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3502 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363: The data actually shows more straight people have HIV then gays IIRC.

Actually: "In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU."

MSM: men who have sex with men

Source: CDC

Not that I think that should make a difference about gay marriage. Just the facts.

#25 Edited by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@waezi2 said:

@dctv3363: No, it were a example of a opinion from a nonreligious person, who are against homosexual marriage.

Now I'm insulted.

Sorry,

That comment was kind of hard to tell one way or the other.

#26 Posted by waezi2 (7065 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#27 Posted by krspaceT (1466 posts) - - Show Bio

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

@dctv3363: The data actually shows more straight people have HIV then gays IIRC.

Actually: "In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU."

MSM: men who have sex with men

Source: CDC

Not that I think that should make a difference about gay marriage. Just the facts.

Data also suggests that legalizing Gay Marriage decreases AIDS frequency. Its logical really; there would be more secrecy, and thus more risk, for a gay person wanting to get laid (As all people, straight or gay, generally wish to do) in a location without gay marriage (Such as Mississippi or Texas) than in a state where it is legal and not as controversial (Like Connecticut or Massachusetts)

In the scale of logic, this one is a bit below the median, like a 3 out of 10.

#28 Edited by Squares (5230 posts) - - Show Bio

Some people just don't like gay people.

#29 Posted by MaccyD (3933 posts) - - Show Bio

It's more personal opinion over here and less about religion when it comes to gay marriage. It's pretty much accepted now here anyway so it makes no difference.

#30 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@squares:

Judging by the number of threads it seem that some people are obsessed.

#31 Posted by Squares (5230 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

#32 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

#33 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@squares said:

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

Honestly I agree with you. Personally what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is their business. Unfortunately continually making it a public issue of equal rights seems to only draw the line more clearly in the sand. But I understand the interest (obsession) particularly among those younger than 25. Based upon the level of media saturation etc the issue has gone mainstream and many are like the rubberneckers who stop traffic in hopes of catching a glimpse of blood and guts.

@dctv3363 said:

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

As I alluded to above there are arguments based upon entitlements, etc.

In a democracy, voters determine policy (or they are supposed to anyway) and voters are human beings with differing belief systems. Until the majority support homosexual marriage (or elect activist judges who will override existing precedent) and force legislation and vote in new legislation the majority and past precedent governs.

#34 Edited by jloneblackheart (5506 posts) - - Show Bio

The best legitimate answer is probably taxes.

Moderator
#35 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@squares said:

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

Honestly I agree with you. Personally what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is their business. Unfortunately continually making it a public issue of equal rights seems to only draw the line more clearly in the sand. But I understand the interest (obsession) particularly among those younger than 25. Based upon the level of media saturation etc the issue has gone mainstream and many are like the rubberneckers who stop traffic in hopes of catching a glimpse of blood and guts.

@dctv3363 said:

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

As I alluded to above there are arguments based upon entitlements, etc.

In a democracy, voters determine policy (or they are supposed to anyway) and voters are human beings with differing belief systems. Until the majority support homosexual marriage (or elect activist judges who will override existing precedent) and force legislation and vote in new legislation the majority and past precedent governs.

I know I just find it sad that people can't look past there religious biases, and decide things based on a legal stance at least. The constitution say's that all men have equal rights, not all heterosexual men.

#36 Edited by Renchamp (2333 posts) - - Show Bio

@jloneblackheart said:

The best legitimate answer is probably taxes.

Not anymore. The IRS recently began to recognize spouses instead of husband and wife. That means, if you are a spouse under your state's laws then the IRS will extend the same tax considerations to you.

Moderator
#37 Posted by Renchamp (2333 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363 said:

@kuonphobos said:

@squares said:

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

Honestly I agree with you. Personally what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is their business. Unfortunately continually making it a public issue of equal rights seems to only draw the line more clearly in the sand. But I understand the interest (obsession) particularly among those younger than 25. Based upon the level of media saturation etc the issue has gone mainstream and many are like the rubberneckers who stop traffic in hopes of catching a glimpse of blood and guts.

@dctv3363 said:

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

As I alluded to above there are arguments based upon entitlements, etc.

In a democracy, voters determine policy (or they are supposed to anyway) and voters are human beings with differing belief systems. Until the majority support homosexual marriage (or elect activist judges who will override existing precedent) and force legislation and vote in new legislation the majority and past precedent governs.

I know I just find it sad that people can't look past there religious biases, and decide things based on a legal stance at least. The constitution say's that all men have equal rights, not all heterosexual men.

On the other side (just to play devil's advocate) the Constitution was written by men that believed that black people were only 3/5 of a person... Historical legalities have very little footing in this arena.

Moderator
#38 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@renchamp said:

@dctv3363 said:

@kuonphobos said:

@squares said:

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

Honestly I agree with you. Personally what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is their business. Unfortunately continually making it a public issue of equal rights seems to only draw the line more clearly in the sand. But I understand the interest (obsession) particularly among those younger than 25. Based upon the level of media saturation etc the issue has gone mainstream and many are like the rubberneckers who stop traffic in hopes of catching a glimpse of blood and guts.

@dctv3363 said:

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

As I alluded to above there are arguments based upon entitlements, etc.

In a democracy, voters determine policy (or they are supposed to anyway) and voters are human beings with differing belief systems. Until the majority support homosexual marriage (or elect activist judges who will override existing precedent) and force legislation and vote in new legislation the majority and past precedent governs.

I know I just find it sad that people can't look past there religious biases, and decide things based on a legal stance at least. The constitution say's that all men have equal rights, not all heterosexual men.

On the other side (just to play devil's advocate) the Constitution was written by men that believed that black people were only 3/5 of a person... Historical legalities have very little footing in this arena.

Actually Jefferson wrote it with slaves rights in mind. He even originally included several parts about how slavery was wrong, but the southern states threatened to leave if those parts weren't scratched out, as their economy depended on slavery. So now it's mostly just there as subtext.

#39 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@renchamp: On the other side (just to play devil's advocate) the Constitution was written by men that believed that black people were only 3/5 of a person... Historical legalities have very little footing in this arena.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here. It still follows that if one thinks the laws are incorrect or unjust (which interestingly raises the moral argument from the other side of the coin) then what one can do is work to influence and change the law by using the democratic system. The states only find homosexual marriage illegal because that is the current law in those states. B!tching and whining about it though perhaps cathartic for some is really ineffectual and might be counter productive as it only serves to entrench some who support the illegality.

#40 Posted by Renchamp (2333 posts) - - Show Bio

@renchamp said:

@dctv3363 said:

@kuonphobos said:

@squares said:

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

Honestly I agree with you. Personally what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is their business. Unfortunately continually making it a public issue of equal rights seems to only draw the line more clearly in the sand. But I understand the interest (obsession) particularly among those younger than 25. Based upon the level of media saturation etc the issue has gone mainstream and many are like the rubberneckers who stop traffic in hopes of catching a glimpse of blood and guts.

@dctv3363 said:

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

As I alluded to above there are arguments based upon entitlements, etc.

In a democracy, voters determine policy (or they are supposed to anyway) and voters are human beings with differing belief systems. Until the majority support homosexual marriage (or elect activist judges who will override existing precedent) and force legislation and vote in new legislation the majority and past precedent governs.

I know I just find it sad that people can't look past there religious biases, and decide things based on a legal stance at least. The constitution say's that all men have equal rights, not all heterosexual men.

On the other side (just to play devil's advocate) the Constitution was written by men that believed that black people were only 3/5 of a person... Historical legalities have very little footing in this arena.

True, but he also didn't free many of his own slaves. Then again, this moral turpitude is the very quandary gay marriage finds itself in. People don't know how to break out of the rut of traditionalism. Should we change? Should we stay the same? (It's worked this long, eh?) Is it too risky to try something new? I know many conservatives for expanded gay rights and many liberals for traditional marriages. There is no black and white with the issue (outside of a religious argument) because we just don't know what the effects of widespread gay rights will do to society. It's all speculation right now.

Moderator
#41 Posted by Renchamp (2333 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
#42 Edited by MisterAnderson (514 posts) - - Show Bio

@krspacet:

Good reasons? Probably a lot of sh**ty, small-minded ones. No good ones.

#43 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@renchamp said:

@renchamp said:

@dctv3363 said:

@kuonphobos said:

@squares said:

@kuonphobos: Yeah, personally I find that kind of sad. Sexuality seems like such a strange thing to hate someone for.

Honestly I agree with you. Personally what occurs between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is their business. Unfortunately continually making it a public issue of equal rights seems to only draw the line more clearly in the sand. But I understand the interest (obsession) particularly among those younger than 25. Based upon the level of media saturation etc the issue has gone mainstream and many are like the rubberneckers who stop traffic in hopes of catching a glimpse of blood and guts.

@dctv3363 said:

If we can't even come up with any real non-religious reasons, why is this still illegal in some states? I thought we supposedly had separation of church and state, but I guess not.

As I alluded to above there are arguments based upon entitlements, etc.

In a democracy, voters determine policy (or they are supposed to anyway) and voters are human beings with differing belief systems. Until the majority support homosexual marriage (or elect activist judges who will override existing precedent) and force legislation and vote in new legislation the majority and past precedent governs.

I know I just find it sad that people can't look past there religious biases, and decide things based on a legal stance at least. The constitution say's that all men have equal rights, not all heterosexual men.

On the other side (just to play devil's advocate) the Constitution was written by men that believed that black people were only 3/5 of a person... Historical legalities have very little footing in this arena.

True, but he also didn't free many of his own slaves. Then again, this moral turpitude is the very quandary gay marriage finds itself in. People don't know how to break out of the rut of traditionalism. Should we change? Should we stay the same? (It's worked this long, eh?) Is it too risky to try something new? I know many conservatives for expanded gay rights and many liberals for traditional marriages. There is no black and white with the issue (outside of a religious argument) because we just don't know what the effects of widespread gay rights will do to society. It's all speculation right now.

I get what your saying, but I still think it's a pretty ridiculous rule. I can't really think of any negative way it would effect society, and no one has presented any legitimate concern. It's like you said, I think it's mostly just fear of change.

#44 Posted by Dabee (2383 posts) - - Show Bio

Sure.

  • They are secretly in the closet, and want to appear as non-homosexual as the possibly can by fighting against it.
  • Ignorance

Non religious, but certainly not good reasons. (So no good reasons at all.)