Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Is there a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I want to preface this with something: If you simply claim" it is the traditional definition of marriage", then you must know that, in the US, the "traditional" definition of marriage is "A man and woman of the same race". That was only overturned 40 years ago.

38 Answers

Relevance
  • khard
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Also apparently those homosexual animals have picked up some unnatural behavior.

    2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

    3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

    4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

    5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

    6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

    7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

    9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

    10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage

    • I'm sorry but number 7 is NOT correct. Lets say Martha "my wife" and I have a baby (we're straight) and the baby grows up in a homosexual environment, he would most likely turn gay, I do not support gays or gay rights BUT I don't bash them, it's their choice.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    http://www.freeoakleys.com/

    Oakley Polarized Sunglasses for Women | Oakley

    Attachment image
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    My Atheist boyfriend says it isn't natural. From a scientific standpoint, it isn't. The sex part, anyway. Marriage is just a legal bond and is a joke these days. Let them marry, they are just going to get divorced like so many in the hetero world. No difference, really.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Bruce
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Yes. The non-religious argument against "gay marriage" is the argument for actual marriage, which is the permanent mating union of a man and a woman.

    Unlike any other species, human offspring require about two decades of maturation and education to function as independent adults. Instead of bounding off a few days after birth to forage, human infants need long-term teaching and nurturance at the hands of both biological parents to learn the complex knowledge and skill needed for success in the human economy.

    We have overwhelming sociological evidence that children thrive under the tutelage of both mother and father rather than from the limited care of a single parent. A child whose mother and father form a permanent mating relationship is more likely to be physically healthier, psychologically more stable, higher achieving in school, better able to forge good relationships with peers, and less likely to get in trouble with the law. Such children have clear, measurable advantages on almost any index of health, wealth, and success over peers raised by single parents (who are nearly always single mothers).

    Given the biological and sociological realities, societies have encouraged marriage over the alternatives of indiscriminate sexual coupling or cohabitation since prehistoric times. This includes societies in southern and eastern Asia virtually untouched by Christianity, including the most populous countries in today's world. Because marriage answers a human need for stable two-parent families, it has always been a fundamental human institution.

    Without strong encouragement of marriage, mating couples tend to practice cohabitation, an inherently unstable relationship that usually leaves children with only the mother's care, which is an incredible hardship for the mother and a gross disadvantage for children. Thus, marriage is needed to prevent poverty and neglect of women and children.

    Homosexual coupling is one of innumerable variations of indiscriminate sexual relations antithetical to marriage. It is a particularly virulent form of sexual immorality because it rejects not only fidelity to a single mating partner, but also the heterosexual orientation on which marriage depends. Every act of homosexual orgasm conditions the participants to sexual pleasure outside of marriage, and thus militates against the sexual exclusivity that makes marriage possible.

    As the permanent mating relationship of a man and woman, marriage does not require persons of the same race, but it does require partners of each sex for the act of mating. This is a biological requirement, a.k.a., a fact of life.

    Cheers,

    Bruce

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    It does not contribute to procreation of our species. i.e. all life forms fight for survival and strive to procreate so that they can ensure the continuation of their species. Homosexuality does not support this natural instinct. But in my opinion we have too many people on this planet and we'll run out of resources if we continue to expand the population at this rate so I say let the gays do what they want, its not hurting anyone.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You must mean same sex marriage since many gay people are already married and have children.

    The non religious argument against same sex marriage is that it can be abused to exploit taxation laws and welfare benefits... even by people are not gay.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    gay marriage is not logical or natural. two of the same gender cannot procreate. It defies reason. It's like a mutation, it can happen...but it's not encouraged for any good reason.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    What constitutes a "religious" argument? Am I not allowed to mention God? What about goodness, love, fidelity etc? Most likely you'd take any argument I put forth as religious in nature and therefore discard it as "bigotry".

    Source(s): Roman Catholic
    • Login to reply the answers
  • JamesH
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Why should we answer a post asking for a nonreligious argument in a forum entitled "Religion and Spirituality"?

    Sure, there are good answers, but in this forum the only ones that are relevant are the "religious" and "spiritual ones", such as http://www.jimfeeney.org/againstgaymarriage.html

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    If you're going to argue that gay marriage should be allowed because they are consenting adults (which is the only serious reason I've heard), then yes, there is: if we should allow consenting adults to marry, then in order to not be discriminatory, we would have to allow relatives to marry (bro/sis, father/daughter, etc.). If we don't, then that's discriminatory.

    Now, if you're going to say we can't allow relatives to marry because of the increased risk of birth defects in the children, then in order not to be discriminatory, you will have to ban marriage for all people with an increased risk of having kids with defects. After all, you can't only ban relatives on that premise - you must ban everyone with an increased risk, otherwise you're discriminating. So that means people like my husband's sister (who has a defect of two sets of certain organs, which she got from her mom, who got it from her mom) and me (I have a relatively minor heart defect) should not be allowed to marry, because those are genetic and can be passed down to our kids. In fact, who doesn't have a defect? I mean, where do you draw the line, then? Bad teeth? Predisposition to acne? Who decides?

    Anywho, you asked for a non-religious argument. That's mine.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well then NO - there isn't - because without God and God's word & commandments regarding the sanctity of marriage and family then gay marriage would be totally and completely acceptable in the eyes of MAN and the world. Any and all arguments against gay marriage have to do with GOD's word - nothing nonreligious would have any bearing that I can think of. I.M.O.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.