Non religious argument against same sex marriage

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Non religious argument against same sex marriage

Viewing 49 posts - 51 through 99 (of 99 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1089803

    akuperma
    Participant

    MDG: To support your argument, you would need to favor banning adults who are incapable of childbearing from marrying (which would ban second marriage for many divorced and widowed). You would also have to find a way to reciminalize adultery/seduction which used to be crimes (albeit not very serious ones). However once marriage was redefined such that many childless people are allowed to marry, and that there are no criminal, or even civil, sanctions for lack of fidelity in marriage – the door was opened to gay marriage. In other words, the barn door was opened 50 to 100 years ago, if not more, and its too late worry about the queer horses having escaped.

    #1089805

    cchocker
    Participant

    There are two seperate things here: 1) KNOWING right from wrong and 2) being able to explain the logic behind it. Someone can know intuitively what a car is but not be able articulate and explain just what makes this thing (a smart car) a car as opposed to a golf cart with a roof.

    Hashem has imbued each person with the intuition- with regards to certain things- as to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Ask a secular person if an incestous marriage is wrong. They will all, to a person, say it is absolutely wrong. Ask them to explain why it’s wrong and they can not. Same goes for having relations with an animal, eating human flesh (from someone who died naturally), etc.

    This ability to judge right from wrong is the basis for why and how Hashem can hold people accountable for the evil they do and has been the basis of establishing societal norms since the beginning of time. Adam didn’t have the Torah. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov didn’t either. Neither did any people before Matan Torah. There was still RIGHT and

    WRONG.

    Therefore when goyim behave in a “WRONG” way, even if one cannot explain logically as to WHY what he is doing is wrong, you can still know that he did do wrong- even according to him.

    This is the greatness of all people. The ability to be able to discern and therefore be bocher between right and wrong. To be able to explain your decisions logically to everyone in a way that can hold up to an amoral mindset- that is not guaranteed or required to be able to do the right thing which goyim also have the ability to do.

    #1089806

    MDG
    Participant

    “Our definition of marriage has no relevance to them.”

    Most people don’t believe in having an open marriage.

    #1089807

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Also, many non-Jews aren’t faithful to their spouse. From what I’ve heard, adultery isn’t uncommon among non-Jews. Maybe there shouldn’t be marriage for them either? Yes, they have a different definition of marriage than we do

    Unfortunatly we are not immune to this disease

    #1089808

    lebidik yankel
    Participant

    I think there is a very simple non-religious reason against gay marriage;

    Many forms of partnership exists. Think of room-mates, business partners, therapist-patient bonds and so on. They are valid and real. But they are not marriage.

    Marriage is a particular bond between two people. It can incorporate producing children and physical intimacy, or it may not. There are marriages that no longer sustain these, yet are valid marriages.

    Some marriages have no love. Some are marriages based on a particular need or convenience. But if they incorporate certain basic features, they are marriage.

    I propose that marriage has been defined as: a relationship that provides exclusivity – at least on the woman’s part – and carries responsibility for the man, if for supporting the wife, or some other financial arrangement.

    It refers back to the ideal of a woman and man living together, supporting each other and fulfilling each other. Even if the marriage is proposed for a certain time – say the pair intends to marry only for a year, – the frame of reference remains the institution just mentioned.

    And it refers to a man and a woman. Nothing other than that is meant by ‘marriage’. Other relationships are called friendship, love or devotion.

    So in short, the argument against gay marriage is that its not marriage. The word just doesn’t mean that, because it never did.

    #1089809

    cent_cent
    Participant

    Simcha613 – That is definitely true. Correlation is far from causation. And the argument is exactly what is said by these groups. If they were more accepted then these things would not happen. To be honest, there could be some merit to that. However, some of the health issues are not related to marriage and acceptance. Even in places like San Francisco where it is almost an honor to be gay the rates of many diseases are still way higher and I’m pretty sure the depression and the like are the same. (no study has shown it to be different there).

    One more things, the gay lifestyle has been shown to be especially out of control in many ways such as: drugs, pedophilia, and staggering number of people who they have been with (trying to keep it G-rated). Way way way more than heterosexual people. I find it very hard to believe that these things would change if they could marry legally. (in California it has been legal for some time now).

    #1089810

    About Time
    Participant

    Morality is at the pinnacle of the Legal system, and referred to in criminal Law, left ,right and center.

    Often perversely by the same crowd.

    End-of-life is persuasively turned into: it’s immoral to let someone suffer or doctors ( or anyone)should be entitled to end a life.

    Paradoxically, capital punishment ought to be prohibited because:it’s immoral for us to end any life, even a serial murderer

    Abortion and even for some post-birth:what makes this fetus or infant a human?

    Paradoxically robots or chimpanzees, however, should be given some human rights

    “Legal systems are not merely systems of rules but also systems of principles..In order to arrive at adequate legislation it is necessary to stratify these principles and rank them by employing moral judgement.”

    #1089811

    About Time
    Participant

    All the rationalizations are just more elaborate means of disguising a formal chap. 11 for our mission that we were given by our Maker some many centuries ago.

    He who created you, Knows

    .

    Lord Jakubowitz once stated there were four philosophy based revolutions in

    in the past several centuries

    1.The British Puritan Civil War

    2.The american

    3. The french

    4.The russian

    The first two were based on the bible ,and though there was bloodshed,brought greater human dignity and progress to mankind.

    The latter two were based on secularism and and brought destruction and regress

    #1089812

    Curiosity
    Participant

    To Matan1 – Actually the American College for Pediatricians had THIS to say regarding the ruling:

    As for the OP’s point, as others have alluded to, there are 2 reasons for Government to intervene in the matter of marriage – ANY marriage – by regulating certification and granting married citizens benefits that unmarried citizens cannot get:

    1) To promote marriage because the government seeks to uphold a traditional religious/moral value system.

    2) To promote marriage because the government seeks to increase the financial, health, and social welfare of its population – believing that increasing the population and cultivating an environment where the next generation can be raised under stable, monogamous parents.

    At the end of the day, same-gender “marriage” does neither. It definitely does not adhere to any religious or traditional value system, nor does it contribute in the second way. These couples as a fact, are unable to increase the population, they have shown to alarmingly proliferate the spread of AIDS, HIV, and other STDs, they have been shown, as a generalization, to not be capable of establishing a stable, monogamous, healthy environment for any children which they may foster from others. See quote above as well as many, many other studies. It simply is not rational for any government to encourage this behavior, even from a strictly Utilitarian point of view.

    As for “equality” and “discrimination”: Everyone in the USA is equally entitled to marry one person (at a time) of the opposite gender, without discrimination against religion, race, physical handicap, or personal belief. Everyone should be equally forbidden to marry one person of the same gender, of unlawful age, of incestuous relationship, or of non-human species. Period.

    #1089814

    About Time
    Participant

    These threads seems more like attempts to push off a dirge or an obituary for USA

    In a few days will be July 4. Many still will go through motions of celebration. [ pumped up now more than ever,red, white and blue, by the media and all who, a half a generation ago,used to disdain the patriotic celebrations- but we digress]

    But for tens of millions of goyim, in their heavy hearts they feel that the sun is setting

    America was once ” the last,best hope on earth”

    Wistfully,it had a nice run

    Nevermore

    Lest you claim as you will,this is a bit exaggerating

    here’s a Dare:

    Walk into a foreign embassy, serve them a couple of drinks to loosen them

    Then just ask them

    In a few days will be July 4. Of course, many will go the motions of celebrations. [ pumped up by the media and all who a half a generation used to disdain the patriotic celebrations- but we digress]

    #1089815

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    The argument that government sanctions marriage purely because of the fact that it is the union that produces future citizen’s is a pretty good one.

    The argument that state’s if so “childless’ couples should be illegal is pretty weak intellectually.

    As Jews we are all aware of some basic concepts 1) Every rule has an exception 2) We rule based on the overwhelming majority, and regarding the other’s “Lo Plug” we do not differentiate.

    The overwhelming majority of traditional marriages are with he intent of producing children, if not immediately eventually. The fact that there are exceptions is irrelevant. “Lo Plug”.

    #1089816

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Even without that argument it’s a pretty cut and dry case.

    Biologically Men and Woman are different.

    That is a fact.

    Emotionally Men and Woman are different.

    That is another fact.

    So it follows that a relationship between them is inherently different then one between two members of the same gender.

    This is an unalterable truth, one that cannot be changed no matter the words used.

    Until now secular society recognized that singular relationship as the one called marriage, the term marriage was not extended to include other types of relationships.

    As such the recent decision changes the very meaning of the word it “re-defines” marriage to mean a relationship that is intrinsically different on many level’s, and yes, Justice Kennedy may argue that there is one commonality between them, love, but it would take a theologian, not a lawyer, to argue that is the defining quality of the term.

    And I would note that any theologian would be unsuccessful.

    The relationship between Parent and child is loving, is it not?

    Is that relationship, which is in many way’s an unbreakable bond termed “marriage”?

    It obviously is not.

    Why not?

    It’s a loving relationship!

    The answer is because love is an important component of marriage, however it is not the only factor involved.

    So as Justice Roberts in his brilliantly argued dissent showed, the justices of the majority threw logic and law out the window and simply ruled with what they desired.

    #1089818

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    The other answer is that there are many different types of love and only one word is used.

    #1089819

    Curiosity
    Participant

    It is worthwhile to add that, in terms of building a stable household to produce a physically and mentally healthy future generation of citizens, homosexual couples are, statistically, way off the charts in terms of domestic violence – particularly female couples.

    #1089820

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Ben lavi

    There are an enourmous amount of second marriages (or more) in the US. people in the 40’s and 50’s who are divorced with kids already. They do not want any more kids than they already have and they have to blend their families together.

    It is not a rare exception, nor is it an exception in the frum community either, there are plenty of second marriages of people in their 40’s and 50’s

    #1089821

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    homosexual behavior is very dangerous!

    same sex “marriage” legitimizes it and going to guarantee that more people will engage in said behavior.

    Even liberals will admit to this if the question is posed properly.

    they have in their lexicon something that they abbreviate as a “B” in their letter their known abbreviation that starts with a “L” and sometimes ends with a “T”

    Liberals don’t like to focus on that part because if people would they lose their sympathy factor they need to push in order to win over the hearts and minds of the ignorant masses

    Suppose a “B” likes both men and women equally, but wants to be married. If same sex “marriage” is not allowed then that same man will marry a woman, but if we allow same sex “marriage” that person will be 50% likely to “marry” a man. So same sex “marriage” will guarantee that homosexual relations will occur.

    According to to the CDC In 2013, 75% of the reported P&S syphilis cases were among male gays

    According to to the CDC in 2010 78 percent of new HIV infections in men were among gays (and not due to drugs)

    same sex “marriage” is literally bad for the health of the country!

    #1089822

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    No it is not a “rare” exception in the sense it is truly rare, however it is inarguable that one of the defining characteristics of a normal traditional marriage is the desire to build a family and it is the only union capable of doing so.

    (unlike love which is a characteristic found in may different types of relationships)

    The fact there are exceptions does not invalidate the rule, and to argue as much would mean that there can never be any rule’s since practically each and every single rule has an exception, however we generally rule based on the majority.

    #1089824

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Anyone can be unfaithful, Being unfaithful is not limited to same gender people. and the consequences of being unfaithful applies to both

    #1089825

    Matan1
    Participant

    Curiosity,

    The American College for Pediatricians is a political group, not a scientific one.

    “1)To promote marriage because the government seeks to uphold a traditional religious/moral value system.”

    In the US there is a separation of church and state. Its not the government’s job to enforce religion or religious practice. Plus, traditional values are not necessarily good. Traditionally, women could not vote, and owning slaves was the norm.

    “2) To promote marriage because the government seeks to increase the financial, health, and social welfare of its population – believing that increasing the population and cultivating an environment where the next generation can be raised under stable, monogamous parents.”

    This will help the financial, health and social welfare of the population. There are many benefits that married couples have that unmarried couples don’t. Like tax benefits and being able to make health decisions for their spouse. Plus, it’s not like homosexual people will be increasing the population anyway. They can’t have children, whether they are married or not. And I have not seen any evidence that children raised in same gender households are any worse off than those in mix gender households.

    #1089826

    Curiosity
    Participant

    Those who fail to grasp the concept of “Lo Plug” are claiming that the Federal Government should cease to support marriage for those who cannot conceive or who plan on not having children. This would mean that they would also stop granting benefits to married couples once they reach an age at which they can no longer conceive, which would require that the government mandate physical checkups on all married individuals. First of all, just because a couple cannot conceive or chooses not to does not mean that they cannot provide a healthy household for children. Second, it is unconstitutional for the government to breach your privacy by inquiring on these matters. It is not the government’s business how your family planning or reproductive organs work.

    At the end of the day, even an infertile heterosexual married couple can still adopt or foster a child and, in general, provide a physically and psychologically healthy and stable environment, which is greatly beneficial to society. Homosexual couples have shown to be far less capable of doing so. This is a fact, despite several dissenting research studies, the large majority of which have been shown to stray from accepted scientific method, have gaping holes in methodology, or have fabricated data. Please, do a little more studying than Page 1 of a Google search. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to redefine marriage for the sake of extending government benefits to couples which are, as a whole, destructive to society.

    #1089827

    cent_cent
    Participant

    @zahavasdad – Its true that anyone can be unfaithful but the numbers are staggering when it comes to gay couples. Just a couple numbers:

    1 – Among homosexual males in their current relationships 4.5% reported fidelity (that is 4.5% as in 95.5% were not)

    2 – A 1997 study found that between 10.2-15.7 percent had more than 1,000 different “relationships” (trying to find the right language for this forum) That means different people.

    3 – Another study from Bell and Weinberg found that 28% had more than 1000 different “relationships” and 43% had more than 500.

    These are crazy numbers and there are more and more like it. The out of control nature of that culture is unbelievable.

    #1089828

    cent_cent
    Participant

    @matan1 – There are no major studies of this because it has not been common for so long so its hard to say. However, if you assume that a stable household with two parents is a good thing (which is pretty universally accepted) then having parents who are most likely not going to stay together would be bad in its own right.

    #1089829

    kfb
    Participant

    Alot of people in this country do believe in Gd. Gay marriage is forbidden in the Torah, Bible for Christians and Catholics and the Quaran

    #1089830

    Matan1
    Participant

    cent_cent,

    Do gay couples break up more than straight couples?

    #1089831

    cent_cent
    Participant

    Matan1 – I don’t have numbers offhand but infidelity is extremely high for them (94.5% in gay males according to studies). I can’t imagine that having a good impact on staying together.

    I’m not sure if there have been any studies about this. Would have to research that.

    #1089832

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Matan 1.

    You asked for a secular argument against the re-definition of marriage.

    I gave you one.

    Incidentally it is one that more or less 4 Justices of the Supreme Court more or less agreed with and wrote detailed secular legal briefs supporting?

    Why are you ignoring it?

    Do you have a logical response to it?

    #1089834

    cent_cent
    Participant

    Matan1 – there was a 2003 study done in the journal AIDS by Dr. Maria Xiridou about this. Study found that average length of relationship of gay males is 1.5 years. Additionally, the people in these relationships averaged 8 other “relationships” per year. Compare this to the US average of 67% of heterosexual relationships last more than 10 years.

    The gay women seem to be better in this regard but they have their own issues (see statistics on spousal violence).

    #1089835

    simcha613
    Participant

    Ben Levi- He’s disagreeing with it, as I do, because it’s pretty weak. The facts on the ground is that marriage is not equal to a means to building a family. You claim all the other cases are exceptions… well, when there are too many exceptions, you begin to question the rule. And while you say 4 Supreme Court justices agreed with it, the rest, the majority, seemed to say it’s pretty weak.

    I am against gay marriage. I am disgusted by it. I wish it wasn’t legalized. I’m just being honest with myself, I can’t think of a good reason without invoking religion, God, or the Torah why it shouldn’t exist. The arguments made here are pretty weak. Honestly, I think if gay marriage wasn’t against the Torah, no one here would have a problem with it, despite all the non-religious secular arguments given here.

    #1089836

    Matan1
    Participant

    They ruled based on what they felt the constitution has to say about it. The constitution, as great as it is, is a man made document. It is not the arbiter of objective right or wrong.

    #1089837

    flatbusher
    Participant

    Other religions also oppose homosexuality, and the U.S. is based on Judeo-Chistian law, so the discussion of a secular reason to oppose it is really not relevant since this country has a religion basis and most people follow that. A secular argument would be that it goes against the nature of the species, whose continuity depends on sexual activity between a male and female, for without that, the species would die out. But other than that, there probably is no good reason to oppose. And as it is, even with the religious basis of the law, it doesn’t seem to make a difference anyway.

    #1089839

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    The facts on the ground is that marriage is not equal to a means to building a family.

    As marriage has evolved from a structure in which a family could grow (the “original meaning”) to an affirmation of individuals’ love and a financial/legal “next of kin”, so too has the “right” to be married. From the opinion:

    Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.

    #1089841

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Simcha613,

    I was not referring to that post, all I was doing there was merely pointing out the flaws of that the the fact that there are “marriages’ that cannot have children is irrelevant as to determining the general purpose of marriage.

    However that is not my argument because I think the argument may be true but it’s is not intrinsic rather it is based on circumstance.

    What I hold as the better argument is the one in my next post which Matan1 has not responded to.

    #1089842

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    As marriage has evolved from a structure in which a family could grow (the “original meaning”) to an affirmation of individuals’ love and a financial/legal “next of kin”, so too has the “right” to be married. From the opinion:

    And so I would ask GAW,

    Based on what you seem to think marriage has evolved to is a father and son “married” is a “mother and daughter” married?

    #1089843

    Matan1
    Participant

    Ben Levi, true, that has been the traditional definition of marriage. But just because it the traditional meaning, doesn’t mean it is the right meaning.

    #1089844

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    So can you give a cogent secular argument why the term “marriage” should be changed to include a relationship that is different both biologically, emotionally, and in what the tangential abilities (one can produce children one cannot?

    #1089846

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    BL

    Marriage is just not about 2 people living together, there are legal rights as well. The Superme court case that overthrew DOMA is a good example

    The Windsor vs US case a few years ago in the supreme court was about this. 2 women “married” in Ontario in 2008. At the time New York did not allow such marriages but recognized them if done elsewhere. In 2009 Thea Spyder died leaving a decent sized estate. Surviving spouces are allowed to inherit their deceased spouces estates tax free, however since the federal government did not recognize this relationship even though NY did, Editih Windsor owed $360,000 in estate taxes that she would not have owed if she was married to a man.

    #1089847

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Based on what you seem to think marriage has evolved to is a father and son “married” is a “mother and daughter” married?

    1: It is a fallacy to assume that because I am able to explain the positions of others, that I agree with their position. For the record, I completely disagree for a number of reasons, including those you state.

    2: Nonetheless, the majority of SCOTUS disagrees, and that makes it law in the USA (right or wrong).

    3: After reading the opinion (in part), I can not see any justification in the opinion to not include in the 14th Amendment rights the liberty of any consenting adults who wish to have a loving (even if not one that would involve the act of procreation) relationship. Denying the formalization of such a relationship via marriage would infringe on their “individual autonomy”, and the state would need to pass strict scrutiny (which IMHO it would not pass) to deny 14th Amendment rights of “equal dignity” before the law.

    #1089848

    anon1m0us
    Participant

    First off, the federal government has no rights to what transpires in the bedroom. This should be a state issue. The same way one state can ban guns while others allow it.

    2nd….based on the logic that equality includes all, incest and polygamy should also be permitted based on the notion as adults we are free to love whomever our hearts desires. The only rationale was based on religious law that forbids these marriages so now that this no longer applies, the other types of marriages should be allowed. Especially if I want to marry my dog Bernard as we are so close and love each other.

    #1089849

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    The federal government decides tax laws. Filing a joint federal income tax return is a federal statue not a state statue

    #1089850

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    anon1m0us – you would have a hard time proving that your dog loves you in that way, but if you say so……

    #1089851

    writersoul
    Member

    Many/all of these arguments seem to be against gay relationships. While some reference specifically marriage, it really does seem that the only difference between one and the other is that in marriage one gets specific governmental benefits.

    Unless the point is that marriage itself is a charged term or concept which should not be changed (which I could sort of see), I really don’t see why this makes a difference at all. If not for the PREVIOUS acceptance of gay relationships, this ruling (as well as all of the previous state laws) would not have passed or even come up, meaning that the likelihood of a gay relationship occurring at all doesn’t seem to be increasing overmuch through the ruling itself. As this whole issue is a societal one in which the legal issue seems to be both minuscule and simply financial benefits, and considering that passing or not passing a law can do NOTHING about this societal issue, I really am not sure I see the nafka mina here.

    #1089852

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Writersoul, legalizing marriage is a new level of acceptance.

    See meforshim on 9 in the Medrash here:

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14385&pgnum=62

    #1089859

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    GAW: You started your post by stating that you cannot explain the positions of others then ended it by stating you see no reason not to extend the “rights’ of marriage to same gender couples.

    So let’s try and define things.

    1) no one was denied the right to marriage, any man can marry any woman.

    2) There are those who choose for whatever reason not to enter a marital relationship, in a democracy you cannot force someone to do anything (except buy health insurance) and therefore they had the right to stay single or enter other types of relationships.

    3) Due to the fact that some people did not like what marriage was they decide to change it.

    Sort of like if I do not like what a table is I try and change it to a chair.

    As such they began to insist that a loving relationship between two same gender individuals is also a marriage.

    Now factually, scientifically, and inarguably any way you want to put it there are many huge difference between the relationship between a man and a woman and tow individuals of the same gender.

    1) Biologically the relationship is extremely different

    2) emotionally they are extremely different

    3) The side effects are extremely different, on can have kids one cannot.

    However these individual decided that none of above characteristics are what define the term marriage rather it is the presence of “love’ and any two individuals in a loving relationship are married.

    If the only requisite for marriage is “love” then again why is a mother and daughterer not married?

    Why are two best friends not married?

    why are two close siblings not married?

    In my mind the answer is quite simple.

    Love is an important part of marriage but it is not the only part there are many unique aspects of that particular relationship.

    The combination of all these factors are found only in the relationship between a man and a woman and it is that unique relationship that is marriage.

    Hence the secular “argument” against same gender marriage is essentially.

    It simply is not marriage. It is relationship it is many things but it is not marriage.

    #1089860

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Parental love is not a kind of love that belongs in a marriage.

    #1089861

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    GAW: You started your post by stating that you cannot explain the positions of others then ended it by stating you see no reason not to extend the “rights’ of marriage to same gender couples.

    Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? I wrote the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

    That being said, your Beef is with Justice Kennedy, not me. Go argue with him. I’m not going to try to explain it yet again.

    #1089862

    000646
    Participant

    Ben Levi,

    For some reason you pretending that the love between a parent and child is the same thing as the love between spouses. It’s not and the fact that we use the same word for both is a failure of our language. The love that two members of a same gender couple have for each other is the same kind of love spouses of opposite genders have for each other. There is no difference.

    #1089863

    yytz
    Participant

    On average, active same-gender attractive males tend to have many, many more partners than do any straight males. Some have hundreds or thousands, and precautions are not taken in many cases. This causes huge public health problems, including the spread of disease (including most HIV cases in the US) and the use of illegal drugs that help maintain this lifestyle.

    Society thus has an interest in discouraging toeiva, including by not recognizing their unions as marriage. Teoiva marriage won’t really encourage exclusivity because there’s already a tradition that toeiva marriages aren’t exclusive. Its main effect will be to legitimize toeiva and encourage everyone with any such desires to take part.

    Mike Huckabee’s supreme court brief mentions the public health argument, certainly a secular one, though he doesn’t talk about the details.

    This secular argument is probably one of the main reasons why until the year 2000, virtually no society on earth ever recognized toeiva marriage. Men and women are complementary in this respect. When you have same-gender relationships, many of the men go nuts and wallow in sensuality with extreme excess, harming themselves, others and society. Just as in Sodom!

    #1089864

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    I am not pretending that the “love” between parent and child is the same as that between spouses.

    I am merely pointing out that there are a great number of factors that make the relationship between same gender individuals vs a man and a woman completely different.

    There is merely one factor present that may or may not be the same and that is love,

    (And one can even argue based upon statistics that even that factor is different

    If the “love” is the same then why is there so many more “break ups” and unfaithfulness in those relationships then in same gender relationships? but that is a sidebar)

    However the presence of love does not make the relationship the same for if that was the case any relationship with “love” would be called a “marriage” and conversely any relationship without “love” would not be called “marriage”.

    If two individuals marry for money or social status shall we stop calling that marriage!

    Of course not!

    A woman and man who wed are married because that is the term that has been used for generations to describe that unique and different relationship, just as a table is called a table and a chair is called a chair.

    A chair is not called a table because it may have a flat part to it and table is not called a chair because it may have legs.

    Put simply I find it absurd to thing the same term that is used to describe the marital relationship between man and woman can be used to describe a completely different relationship, that between two individuals of the same gender.

    #1089868

    YW Moderator-127
    Moderator

    This topic, and any others like it are being closed.

Viewing 49 posts - 51 through 99 (of 99 total)
  • The topic ‘Non religious argument against same sex marriage’ is closed to new replies.


Trending