by Xtreme2252 on April 1st, 2008

Question

Help answer this question below.

WITHOUT BRINGING RELIGION INTO IT, can you name one good reason WITH FACTS, to support an argument against gay marriage or the gay lifestyle for that matter?

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 71 helpful answers below.

by mistje on April 1st, 2008
Nope, but I couldn't come up with a reason why two people who love each other and want to commit to each other shouldn't be able to in the first place. :)
Comments
- There are no reasons.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on December 5th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on April 1st, 2008
There is no good argument, religious or otherwise against gay marriage. And it's not really a "lifestyle," just part of my life.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Alex P. Keaton on April 1st, 2008
In many respects, not having a legal marriage can help with taxes. The "marriage penalty" is still in place for incomes over about $75K. As you may or may not know, we have a "progressive" tax system where the first $10,000 for a single person is taxed at 10%, another amount is taxed at 15%, etc. etc. Well for a married couple the first three tax brackets are doubled (e.g. the first $20,000 is taxed at 10% for a married couple) but then the brackets are not quite doubled. To make it simpler it would be like this: if you had two single people: each of them would be taxed at 10% on their first $10K. But if you had a married couple, it would be 10% on the first, say, $17K. The next $3K to round out $20K would be taxed at 15%.

Of course this is reason for any two people not to marry, but I have to throw in my two cents.

I believe the government, believing itself to be independent of religious judgment and imposition, has no business regulating marriage as solely between a man and a woman. That's the Constitutional basis that should be honored. Religions, such as mine, should have no business in setting a government's policy. Though my religion and even my personal morality does not believe in it, it is wholly abhorrent to the Constitution and the freedoms we are guaranteed as Americans for there to be a discrimination based on sexual preference. Two people who wish to apply for a license of marriage in any state and who apply in good faith to make such a union work should be unimpeded by that state's government in obtaining such license. Case closed.
Comments
- Bra-vo!
  
  Report
  
  by Keysha on April 1st, 2008
- Alex, your argument sounds pretty good, but the problem is that no one is being discriminated against, here. If a man with homosexual tendencies chooses to marry a woman, nobody’s stopping him; he has the same rights as every other man in the country. If a woman with homosexual tendencies chooses to marry a man, nobody’s stopping her; she has the same rights as every other woman in the country.
  
  Some argue that it’s inconsistent for men and women to have different rights, but this is exactly what the ERA was designed to accomplish, and it was defeated once everybody figured out that it was an unmitigated disaster wherever it was introduced into a state Constitution. Women’s sports teams were ruled unconstitutional, child support from noncustodial parents were ruled unconstitutional, the list went on and on. Men and women are *supposed* to be different, and the law’s desire to recognize all reasonable equality (e.g. the wholly appropriate request that either gender receive equal pay for equal work) should still recognize those differences and make allowances for them.
  
  Others have likened our modern marriage controversy to opposing interracial marriage, but the problem with this is that people of different races are inherently the same. If you take a white man, a black man, an Asian man, etc., you’ll find that they have the same body parts, the same basic biology, even the same basic desires (cultural differences excepted, of course). People of different genders, on the other hand, are different mentally, physically, sociologically, biologically, chemically, basically in every conceivable way. Just as having health insurance doesn’t give me the right to see an obstetrician on their dime—nor require them to cover a prostate exam for my wife—so the government should not be required to invent unnecessary “rights” for people that choose to act upon their aberrant predispositions (which every one of us has; should murder be legalized because serial killers were “born that way”?).
  
  The bottom line is that while it may be *politically* correct to support homosexuality, that doesn’t make it right, and the government has a responsibility to protect and institution that is in the best interests of both our nation and its people (as pointed out in my own answer).
  
  HTH!
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on July 21st, 2008
- Otter, I appreciate your spirited response. Yes, people of different genders are different mentally, physically, sociologically, biologically, chemically, basically in every conceivable way, EXCEPT under the law. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution guarantees equal protection.
  
  I hope you recognize that the opposition against gay marriage is entirely a religious one. And religious people hold great power in our government, either as powerful lobbying bodies or within the government itself. No one can argue that there is a civil injury when two men or two women, who already lived together and did everything together (which I should add was already protected under the law) decides to marry and use the civil advantages extended to married couples to be an unchallengeable heir to a spouse's estate, receive government assistance, etc. There is no change in lifestyle, and it's not like they will walk around with a big sign that says "MARRIED." Why then should we be concerned?
  
  Report
  
  by Alex P. Keaton on July 21st, 2008
- Churches only wish to slander and disturb the privacy of gay couples, attempting to prevent them from being together by ensuring the imposition of enough roadblocks, either governmental or in the judgments of the members of their congregations, to their happiness. One can call gay marriage and gay relations a sin, but that word doesn't translate into the civil environment as a civil injury and indeed neither are.
  
  Report
  
  by Alex P. Keaton on July 21st, 2008
- A spirited response as well, however, even neglecting the Christian principles on which this nation was founded (which neglect is, after all, the subject of this thread), the government’s interest in marriage is that of promoting a strong society. I refer you again to my own answer to this question at http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3338610 .
  
  Peace!
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on July 21st, 2008
- Marriage penalty? Why is it then as a single person, I pay higher taxes at $25K than a married couple making $50,000? When I die, no one gets squat. And my living costs are proportionately higher than married.
  
  And on income taxes I don't get head of household tax deductions.
  
  As for employment a single person makes $8000 less annually than married, is less likely to get hired or promoted.
  
  All in all if married people pay a penalty, I would love to be penalized.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on July 22nd, 2008
- FerretGuy, your arguments are pretty solid, but I would be interested to see what’s behind that “$8,000 less” statistic. I would guess that single people are also, on average, younger than marrieds, which could contribute to that. I would also expect that single people are, as a whole, more transient among both jobs and locations and would thus lack the opportunity for promotions (which also affects income).
  
  For all I know, the statistic you’re citing accounts for these things, but if not, they do seem to be pretty important considerations.
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on July 23rd, 2008
- All very interesting thoughts, I don't know enough about tax in US to comment.
  
  Just wanted to say about Otter's comment "even neglecting the Christian principles on which this nation was founded" was innaccurate. The majority of the founding fathers believed in a deity, but Christianity was certainly not what the majority believed nor approved. Seperation of church and state was largely because of christianity's historical interference in state matters.
  
  Report
  
  by CesareBorgia on April 16th, 2009
- I humbly disagree, CesareBorgia. Most of the Founding Fathers were indeed Christians; they just recognized—as you so rightly pointed out—that religion (Christianity included) had long been used as an excuse to exercise unrighteous dominion and founded a nation wherein that wouldn’t happen.
  
  Take Thomas Jefferson, for example. He is often portrayed as an atheist, but in an 1822 letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, he stated that he was “[h]appy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity,” but “must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages.” This pretty well sums up the position of the FFs: Christianity is great; what people have done with it is not.
  
  HTH!
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on April 17th, 2009
- We are not doing too well on the "without bringing religion into it" part of the question.
  
  Report
  
  by CesareBorgia on April 17th, 2009
- True enough. ;-)
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on April 17th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
11 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Gingerminx on June 11th, 2008
Nope.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Jack Wallace on April 1st, 2008
As long as we're talking about legalizing gay marriage in the USA, yes:

1. The vast majority of the Americans are totally against it and won't stand for activist courts and judges that have no regard for the will of the people, let alone the history and traditions of the entire human race. The US (supposedly) being a democracy, that's all the argument one needs.

But, there's also this one: Marriage as a legal institution is BY DEFINITION AND DESIGN a legal arrangement for the designation of legitimate offspring as opposed to illegitimate ones. That's it. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is the means by which we designate legal offspring and a factory for producing and caring for the next generation of legitimate progeny. That's the only interest and stake the state has in it. As homosexual couples cannot produce offspring - legitimate or otherwise - the term "marriage" doesn't apply, and the state has no interest in such unions as it neither derives benefit from them nor suffers at their disolution. As the state has no interest/stake in such unions, it has no jurisdiction over them and no authority to extend itself in this way in this area.

The problem is the homosexual lobby is (deliberately?) confuising marriage as a legal institution and marriage as a religious and social institution. But the government, the courts, and the law can only forbid, permit or require, but have no power or authority to sanctify, bless, reproach, or curse. What the proponents of gay marriage are trying to get from the government, they can only get from the churches (and synagogues, mosques and temples) and from society itself, and they will not force it from them at government gunpoint authorized by court order.

As for all the legal privileges of married persons with respect to each other, all of those are already available to homosexual partners and - if they want absolute legal security - they can secure these by executing a few legal instruments, such as a Will, a business partnership contract, and a Medical Power of Attorney. So the truth is, homosexual couples really don't need to enter into a legally recognized marriage to obtain the rights they claim they are being denied by not being allowed to enter into a legal marriage.

Now, the question for you is....

Without bringing silly sentimentality that wrongly imagines that two-people loving each other and having sex with each other with the purpose and value of marriage, can you name one good reason WITH FACTS to support an argument FOR gay marriage? Why should we embark on the most radical and extreme social engineering program in history - completely disregarding and indeed spitting in the face of 30,000 years of human history - to please and appease an exceptionally small (about 1% of the population*) and eccentric fringe group, against the will the vast majority of the population?

*note: yes, just 1%. Kinsey's infamous 10% figure was actually that 10% of surveyed prison inmates confessed to having had a homosexual experience at least once.
Comments
- "Marriage as a legal institution is BY DEFINITION AND DESIGN a legal arrangement for the designation of legitimate offspring as opposed to illegitimate ones."
  .
  So people that are infertile or that do not want kids should not be allowed to marry?
  .
  The ones that are against homosexuality are the ones that use religion. I don't know of ANYONE that can flat-out say, "I am not religious, I have no moral objection to it, but I think it is wrong, and this is why..."
  .
  Oh,and you DID bring religion into it.
  
  Report
  
  by Keysha on April 1st, 2008
- Right on, Just Keysha!
  
  Report
  
  by anonymous on April 4th, 2008
- Can I please have your statistics for your statements about the majority of Americans being against it? Since it would be very simple to just include anyone who wishes to marry the law would have to change very little and it would not be a manger upheaval. And why should gay people or anyone for that matter be forced to go through several legal processes to obtain the same rights someone else can get just by getting married?
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on April 4th, 2008
- I completely agree, Gingerminx. I happen to be a heterosexual person who is NOT against gay marriage, and most people I know feel the same. This majority spoken of here represents noone I know.
  
  Report
  
  by anonymous on April 4th, 2008
- Well I don't like to define who I am by who I sleep with and I am not American, but I have trouble believing that the majority of Americans are against it. I just wanted the facts that were asked for and not just the opinions.
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on April 4th, 2008
- I certainly do not generally define myself by who I sleep with, either, but in this case I was making a point. I happen to be married, and think the right should belong to everyone. Most Americans I know do not have a problem with gay marriage at all. I would like the facts, also.
  
  Report
  
  by anonymous on April 4th, 2008
- I am married also, and think anyone who wishes to marry should be able to do so.
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on April 4th, 2008
- The fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage is so well documented you could only have hard time believing it because you insist on denying it. If the majority of Americans wanted it, it would have been allowed years ago. But every effort to sneak it through the courts meets with mass protests. If the gay lobby could get their agenda passed through the ballot box instead of liberal activist courts, they would.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on June 27th, 2008
- If it is so well documented Stormarm please let me know where so I can read it.
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on June 27th, 2008
- http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
  
  Report
  
  by Dazed and Confused on July 9th, 2008
- Your link is interesting reading Suttlebutt as it shows 51% say they should not be allowed to marry with full legal rights yet 58% oppose an amendment which would actually ban same sex marriages. I don't know the organisation that conducted the poll nor the way in which it was conducted so can not say how accurate nor fair and unbiased the poll was but it seems that it clearly does not support that the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage. Thank you.
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on July 9th, 2008
- Everytime it's been put to the voters in any state, including California, the proposed bill or amendment to allow same sex marriage has been voted down by at least a factor of 2-1.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on August 28th, 2008
- Similarly, every referendum and state constitutional ammendment put to the voters to restrict/define marriage to being between 1 man and 1 woman, or to not extend special privileges/protected status to homosexuals, has passed overwhelmingly.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on August 28th, 2008
- I am not American but I understand that at a federal level gay marriage is not recognised but at a state level California and Massachusetts both recognise gay marriages which would suggest that public opinion is changing. Also,Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. And, Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. Although they are only small steps, perhaps it will spread and bring about a positive change.
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on August 28th, 2008
- The link I posed cited polls from such sources as ABC News, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Princeton, Gallup, and other reputable, known sources. If you'll scroll down through each poll, it will state the dates they were run, the number of participants, and the margin of error. Was just trying to be helpful with "documented statistics". Not sure you can get much more reputable polls than those sources.
  
  Report
  
  by Dazed and Confused on August 28th, 2008
- Thank you Scuttlebutt, I will check it out.
  
  Report
  
  by Gingerminx on August 28th, 2008
- Sure thing. Not saying I have an opinion one way or another, was just looking for something that might fit the bill of what you were looking for. :-)
  
  Report
  
  by Dazed and Confused on August 28th, 2008
- I'm trusting that the overwhelming success of voter ballot initiatives last november banning gay marriage including in of all places California has proved just how far off these supposed public opinion polls were.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on January 12th, 2009
- Yes, 52.3%, No, 47.7% for that vote. That is hardly 'overwhelming.' And, considering the issues that are coming up about that election, I'd not say that the 'public opinion polls' were that far off.
  
  Report
  
  by Keysha on January 12th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
19 comments | Post one | Permalink
by koldkanuck on June 11th, 2008
Eventually humanity would cease to exist through attrition people dying and not being replaced.
Comments
- hmm.. do you think if homosexual marriage were legalized, everyone would eventually become homosexual? Seems extremely unlikely to me.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on June 11th, 2008
- thanx for the DR gawd bless you
  
  Report
  
  by koldkanuck on June 11th, 2008
- It was a hypothetical answer,if all the steer are queer no more cattle would appear.
  
  Report
  
  by koldkanuck on June 11th, 2008
- neat humorous catch phrase. HOWEVER steers are castrated so it don't matter if the steers are queer. nice try though.
  
  Report
  
  by purplepickleater on June 11th, 2008
- Knew that but it wouldn't have catch phrased otherwise.
  thanx
  
  Report
  
  by koldkanuck on June 11th, 2008
- Well, whether they are married or not, a gay couple won't have kids. And they aren't going to go straight and make babies just because they can't get married.
  
  Report
  
  by AsiaNeko on November 14th, 2008
- What about adoption?!
  
  Report
  
  by kashie on December 1st, 2008
- Mother's day and fathers day could be so confusing for an adopted child
  
  Report
  
  by koldkanuck on December 1st, 2008
- adoption, and mothers day and fathers day wouldn't be confusing if they understood the situation they were in, as I trust they would
  
  Report
  
  by miissd on December 1st, 2008
- Only if EVERYONE was gay. But at the moment we have a horrible thing called over-population.
  Maybe gays really do help the world.
  
  Also, being gay, I plan to adopt. Therefore I'm helping a child without parents get out of the horrible system that they were put in.
  
  Report
  
  by kenn4eva on August 10th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
10 comments | Post one | Permalink
by NoMorph on June 11th, 2008
LEGAL, NO! The only logical problem to me is the failure to reproduce offspring, which is why we are male and female. If we all were gay we'd become extinct. But that's not illegal..:)
Comments
- Trust me, heterosexuals reproduce MORE THAN ENOUGH to keep the world going lmao Overpopulation is already a problem in countries like china and japan, i dont think we need to have any more of a surplus of children right now. lol
  
  And if we WERE all gay, the population would still continue, artificial insemination and surrogate mothering would still be options.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- Youre right pal, homosexuality could be good for overpopulation.
  
  Report
  
  by hardskapunk on June 11th, 2008
- Marriage isn't technically a prerequisite for reproduction outside of personal religious/moral reasons and regardless of whether or not homosexuals are allowed be married they aren't going to be having children unless they take advantage of artificial insemination or adoption. Also allowing homosexuals to marry won't make everyone gay, straight people will continue to reproduce in the regular fashion.
  
  Report
  
  by Spirit of the Nomad on June 11th, 2008
- If we take homosexuality as a social instead of biological condition, and take into consideration its huge growth in this century, then we must face the fact it will grow even more, maybe in a hundred years there will be as many gay people as straight.
  
  Report
  
  by hardskapunk on June 11th, 2008
- It isn't that there are MORE homosexuals, its that there are more OPEN homosexuals.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- There are more gays! If a person has homosexual desires but decides to live straight then it's not gay. Most cultures have rejected it so now that a global culture has started to accept it, in the future there will be many more.
  
  Report
  
  by hardskapunk on June 11th, 2008
- The attraction is what makes them gay, i could be married to a woman and have 2 kids but i'd still be gay.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- I am a lesbian and I am planning to have more. You know they have these new fangled things called Sperm Banks.. And some people don't know when to stop having kids.
  Trust me the human race wont become extinct.
  
  Report
  
  by Trisha Had her baby on November 13th, 2008
- We are not all gay. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will not make anyone less desiring to reproduce.
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
9 comments | Post one | Permalink
by hardskapunk on June 11th, 2008
The last-naming of the children.
Comments
- How is that an adverse affect?
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on June 11th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Waiting Patiently on June 11th, 2008
our insurance rates will rise because of it...
Comments
- could you expand that a little?
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- just like our medical bills rising because of illegal immigrants the cost is dispersed to the general population.....in this case the insurance companies(however short sighted this may be) will equate higher costs because of the homosexual activities, and of course pass the extr cost onto the general public.....
  
  you can also see the comparison to school property taxes, i live in a border city and they have a huge illegal population whose kids are going to american schools. the cost for this i pay in higher property taxes
  
  Report
  
  by Waiting Patiently on June 11th, 2008
- those are illegals, gays are US citizens. And what do you mean by homosexual activities?
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- don't get wound up here i am not saying whether it is right or wrong, however your question asked for reasons it would have a negative impact on society, insurance companies are notorious for finding any reason to raise our rates....if a woman is in the most likely years to reproduce our rates are higher...thus the same things the hiv/aids rates are higher in homosexuals thus higher rates , we already pay for these things but insurance companies will take advantage of this and raise rates again
  
  personally i don't care what people choose to do with their lives, afterall it is their life.
  
  Hope this answered your Original question, because i will not be drug into a debate about gay rights.
  
  Report
  
  by Waiting Patiently on June 11th, 2008
- i wasnt trying to debate, i just got confused about what you were saying, but i do see what you mean by insurance companies finding any reason they can to raise rates.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- good point
  
  Report
  
  by Lilly on June 27th, 2008
- I agree, that is a good point. Certain lifestyles are considered more "high risk" by insurance companies. Smoking, overweight, etc, due to increased medical costs. The high connection with hiv/aids - oh dear. Insurance companies would go bonkers with the rates on that one. Especially on life insurance policies.
  
  Report
  
  by Dazed and Confused on July 9th, 2008
- That's a pretty big misconception, people think gay people are more "at risk" for AIDS, but the risk is the same for everyone, gay or straight.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on July 9th, 2008
- "That's a pretty big misconception"
  
  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
  
  Report
  
  by Aintthatapip - Kevonian Overlord on July 10th, 2008
- In 2006, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among adults and adolescents were for men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by persons infected through high-risk heterosexual contact.
  
  Report
  
  by Aintthatapip - Kevonian Overlord on July 10th, 2008
- Why would insurance rates rise? Because two people of the same sex are having sex exclusively with each other, rather than with multiple partners? Sounds backwards to me.
  Oh, yeah. It means that where there were once two separate policies, now there is only one.
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
11 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Jade on April 1st, 2008
I guess the only thing I can come up with is the fact that, in most places here, gay marriage is not recognized (legal)..therefore couples do not have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. Morally..I have no argument against it, and if I were to use a Biblical reference, the only one I can come up with is.."JUDGE NOT...LEST YOU BE JUDGED". And that is certianly not an argument against it.
Comments
- Another biblical reference you ought to have a look at is Romans 1. I think that it makes the christian position on this issue pretty clear. Homosexual relations are both the consequence and continuation of sinful activity, as we go about our lives in our rejection of God. Though I do not judge anyone, they are already judged by scripture - infact we all are judged by scripture.
  
  Report
  
  by Benjamin_P on May 26th, 2011
- I would like to know when they are going to give equal rights to unmarried couples,as well as married & gay couples ?
  Just saying...
  It doesn't matter if you are with someone for 5 yrs,or 20 yrs...if you aren't married, and you are a heterosexual couple, you don't have a right to any benefits. Like insurance,life, health,dental,etc,etc. So how are we going to solve this problem?
  I believe in fairness for all,no matter what their gender,or relationship. They should have the opportunity to sign a contract,and then if they split up,they should settle the matter in court. Maybe this way, people will start being more responsible with each other. Any relationships they get into,should have responsibilities attached to it, and consequenses if it doesn't work out. Otherwise,just stay single!
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on August 14th, 2011
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by PaigeKittles on June 13th, 2008
Learn from history. Every civilization that has allowed this has collapsed within 100 years. Coincidence?
Comments
- um, almost EVERY society from the past collapsed in around 100 years, it had nothing to do with homosexuality, it had to do with war and greed for land. Also, if you look at germany when they were under hitler, THAT collapsed within a few years, and they KILLED gay people. Coincidence?
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 13th, 2008
- The Roman Empire lasted 400 years! You cannot say that almost EVERY society collapsed around 100 years b/c that just isn't so. I'm not saying that homosexuality ALONE was the reason for their falls, but you can't say it had nothing to do with it, either. The decay of morality is what mostly contributed to their falls
  
  In addition, Hitler had gays in his military! He didn't start killing gays until later on. You need to go back and reread your history.
  
  Report
  
  by PaigeKittles on June 13th, 2008
- yeah, the fact that im banging another guy is gonna cause the collapse of a country, that soooo logical.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 13th, 2008
- Moral coruption will cause it. Period.
  
  Report
  
  by PaigeKittles on June 14th, 2008
- Everyone has their own set of morals, it's what we do to help/hurt our society that will make it grow or fall. I don't see how homosexuality is "moral corruption". Whats so morally wrong about 2 people loving eachother, even if it is two men or women?
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 14th, 2008
- So much for 'without bringing religion into it' ha ha!
  
  Report
  
  by kashie on December 1st, 2008
- <b>To XOXMSperfect<b> No, everyone does not have their own set of morals b/c moral is set by Jehovah in our Holy Bible. Moral is black and white and there is no gray area in between. Perhaps you mean <i>ethics</i>, although, there is no standard for right or wrong without using the bible, so the term 'ethics' is quite ridiculous.
  
  Report
  
  by PaigeKittles on May 14th, 2009
- A diety is not necessary to set morals. In the middle east they think its moral to cover their wives faces, and christians think it's moral to stone people to death (before jesus died). Morals are based on judgement of what is right and wrong, and we all have our own opinion on it. We don't need some silly book to tell us how to live our lives. Only a weak minded fool would need a book to tell them that killing is wrong.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on May 14th, 2009
- XOXMSperfect, I have posted a reply but due to the length of it I have submitted it as another answer instead of comment. As of this moment it is located as answer #61.
  
  Report
  
  by PaigeKittles on May 17th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
9 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on June 11th, 2008
It dont. In Denmark and Sweden where they have legalized homosexual unions, the rate of heterosexual marraiges increased and the divorce rate decreased. Just the opposite of what most predicted.
Comments
- because, as many other answers have said, there isnt the closet homosexual people getting married and getting divorced because it doesnt work between them. +2
  
  Report
  
  by Twitchypants on April 16th, 2009
- Correct my friend!
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on April 16th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by MvL on June 11th, 2008
Playing devil's advocate for a moment (no pun intended), allowing gay marriage also means socially legitimizing family units based on gay couples, and having children raised by gay couples is bad for them.

However, there is no evidence that that is true. Any speculation that gay couples are any more or less capable of raising psychologically healthy children is just that - speculation. It may turn out that future studies will show that gay couples are, statistically, inferior, superior, or equivalent to straight couples at rearing children, but until such studies are conducted, we cannot condemn gay marriages or gay couples' adopting children on assumptions.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on April 1st, 2008
Nope, I can't.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by the Otter on June 27th, 2008
I expect this answer will be downrated by hypocrites that only support tolerance when it benefits them, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t respond.

There is a VERY good, nonreligious argument against homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage: children. I know statistics can be manipulated till we’re all blue in the face, but it’s not hard to find study after study showing that the average child living with an actively homosexual couple fairs more poorly than children of single parents (who already fair significantly more poorly than children in two-parent homes). Crime rates are higher, imprisonment is higher, drug abuse is higher, etc.; just Google it and you’ll find more information than you could ever hope to read.

More directly, Harvard’s Craig Cardon points out:

“Human beings learn who they are by experiencing themselves in relation to others who are the same sex and those who are the opposite sex. Children’s young minds are in particular shaped to understand the world this way, in black and white first, before they learn of the possibilities for shades of grey. The particular sex roles of a culture may vary (although women do more care of young children than men, and men are warriors, in every known culture). But human beings are born with an innate longing to experience their gender as socially significant. Which means children long to know themselves not just as people, but as boys and girls who will grow to be men and women” (“Defined by Opposites”, Meridian Magazine, 25 February 2004).

Cardon continues by stating that having opposite-gender parents fulfills “another deep social need” of young children. He then cites the Commission on Children at Risk, a panel of leading children’s doctors, research scientists and youth service professionals sponsored by Dartmouth Medical School: “For the child searching for the meaning of his embodiment, both the same-sex-as-me parent and the opposite-sex-from-me parent play vital roles” (Hardwired to Connect, The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities. ©2003 Institute for American Values, p.24).

Many claim that there is no difference, but even pro-gay social scientists Judith Stacy & Timothy J. Biblarz state:

“Evidence … does not support the ‘no differences’ claim. Children with lesbigay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and more likely to be open to homoerotic relationship. In addition, evidence suggests that parental gender and sexual identities interact to create distinctive family processes whose consequences for children have yet to be studied” (Stacy & Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 159, 176 (April 2001)).

In short, if we remove the couple from society and view marriage as nothing more than a means to fulfill the selfish needs of the parents, then you’re right: this life includes very little (if anything) that makes homosexuality inherently detrimental. However, if we’re trying to create a better world than the one we have now—a goal I think pretty much all of us share—then the situation *does* become inherently detrimental, and both society and government have the responsibility to discourage such situations.
Comments
- Your answer inaccurately suggests that gay couples must be married in order to adopt children. That suggestion is false. Gay couples can adopt by statute in at least 10 states and the District of Columbia, and restrictions are vague or nonexistent in many others.
  
  And for every skewed poll that you acknowledge, there is a skewed study. And your sources reflect that. Meridian Magazine is an LDS publication, and the "Institute for American Values" is an organization lobbying for a restriction on gay marriage.
  
  And the last article (which is STACEY & Biblarz, not Biblarz & Biblarz) you quote suggestively. As the authors state in the very article you quoted: "Most of the differences in the findings discussed above cannot be considered deficits from any legitimate public policy perspective. They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent “just a difference” of the sort democratic societies should protect and respect."
  
  Report
  
  by Alex P. Keaton on July 21st, 2008
- Alex, thanks for the correction. I obviously misunderstood the citation, which was only listed in my source as “Judith Stacy & Timothy J. Biblarz.” Now, moving on:
  
  Regarding the rest, your points are well taken, but I don’t think they have any relevance here. Yes, the sources I site are pro-marriage and anti-homosexuality. If you can show me a pro-homosexuality publication that also supports these findings, I’ll be happy to cite it, as well. Are you honestly trying to imply that these sources are biased, but opposing sources are not?
  
  Drs. Stacy and Biblarz’s conclusions regarding public policy are certainly valid, but they are at least as biased as the other quotes. To return to my original passage from their findings, the good doctors openly admit that the “consequences for children have yet to be studied,” yet your supplementary quotation proclaims said consequences to be harmless. How can they deem these etherial consequences to be “of the sort democratic societies should protect and respect” when they don’t even know what they are?
  
  I digress, though. My original assessment still stands: if one views marriage as strictly a legal institution—an assessment I do not agree with, but which stands at the crux of this question and is therefore highly relevant—then it forms the government’s stamp of approval on a relationship, the government’s way of saying “this relationship is beneficial to society.” Whether or not unmarried couples can adopt children is impertinent to the discussion, as unmarried heterosexual couples also have that right (which I also oppose, by the way). What *is* pertinent is the fact that it remains in the government’s best interests to protect and encourage the institution of marriage, the very institution that creates the strongest families, the strongest individuals, and by extension, the strongest nation.
  
  Thanks.
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on July 21st, 2008
- Which is why gays shouldn't be able to have kids. Gays will only raise gay kids. Just like straight people only raise straight people....
  
  Report
  
  by jwde2009 on March 8th, 2009
- Was that in response to me, jdwe2009?
  
  Thanks.
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on March 11th, 2009
- You show me a study saying that gays are more likely to rape or molest a child then a priest or you even and I'll show you a lier. I live day in day out with my wife. And guess what my 3 children love and adore her. If you were to ask my children who they are closer to, their father or my wife, hands down they would say my wife. My children are well educated have great hygiene and know the difference between love and hate. What are you teaching your kids? To hate because you don't understand. I never thought I would end up with a women, but love happens.
  
  Report
  
  by Misty on April 15th, 2009
- Mandr113, the only hatred I see here is coming from you. I would never teach my children to hate anybody. I have both a friend and a family member that are practicing homosexuals, and I love them just as much as I do, anybody else. True, I don’t approve of some of their actions, but then I don’t approve of some of my heterosexual friends’ actions, either—nor quite a few of my own!
  
  The whole point of my original answer (which it seems you downrated out of hatred rather than any perceived inaccuracies contained therein) is that there *have* been quite a few studies indicating that, generally speaking, the best situation for a child is in a home with two loving, committed parents of opposite genders. Sure, plenty of us are idiots and screw up that ideal situation—and many more are left without such a situation through no fault of their own—but the fact that individual situations require individual adjustments doesn’t invalidate the general rule.
  
  HTH!
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on April 15th, 2009
- Where did this general rule come from? God himself? I doubt that. Or is there a study proving that too?
  
  Report
  
  by Misty on April 16th, 2009
- My down pointing you doesn't mean I am hating you it just means I do not agree with you in the least.
  
  Report
  
  by Misty on April 16th, 2009
- That gays will only raise gay kind ans straight people will only raise straight kids. HA HA. My mom is straight does that not mean she will turn gay also. Thats how much sense your making.
  
  Report
  
  by Misty on April 16th, 2009
- Is having children the only reason for marriage? That model does not represent modern practice or its historical origins very well.
  
  Should my parents become unmarried since there are no children at home? Should my cousin and his wife not be married, since they have no plans for children at this time?
  
  Report
  
  by AlwaysHope on May 21st, 2009
- Misty, the purview of this question is specifically outside of religion. If you really want to bring God into it, that’s fine, but let’s do so somewhere else.
  
  Furthermore, of course I’m not suggesting that homosexuality is a result of having homosexual parents. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be any homosexuals in the first place. I’m not sure where that’s coming from.
  
  AlwaysHope, having children is most certainly a *large* reason for marriage, and the primary reason it is within the government’s best interest to protect it: strong families create strong children. That’s also why the government bothers to give tax credits for children: it’s in their best interests for us to do so, especially if we care for them well.
  
  Re: your parents… if you really mean to suggest that parenting ends because the children move out, I think you’ve got a pretty hard sell there.
  
  Thanks as always!
  
  Report
  
  by the Otter on May 21st, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
11 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on June 12th, 2008
society would procreate at a much lower rate due to more females being less interested in men and men being uninterested in women. this would result in an unstable society in that60 years down the road there would be a smaller work force to pay social security, medicare and taxes for the retired.

the possibility of AIDS could increase exponentially which would have nagitive effects on the mental state of society resulting in more hospitals and currently there is a great shortage of nurses. in the long run it could negitivly effect the average lifespan of the group.

the issue of legal sir name would also present itself, as when most people marry they adopt a single sir name, whose to adopt in a heterosexual marriage is socially defined, however there is nothing that defines which names is used in a homosexual marrage.

there would also become an issue of taxing domestic partnerships verses marriages. and how to go about it.
Comments
- procration is, and always will be, at a surplus. just cause gay will get married doesnt mean more people will be gay.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 12th, 2008
- oh, and since when does marriage have ANYTHING to do with more sex. lmao
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 12th, 2008
- Not to mention how do monogamous gay relationships result in the exponential increase of the Aids virus??
  
  Report
  
  by The Jester on December 20th, 2008
- Surnames are already fuzzy. Nowadays a woman is allowed to keep her maiden name if she so chooses.
  Many same-sex couples choose to hyphenate their names, such as Smith-Brown, or one may adopt the name of the other.
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
- Only 10% of the US population is gay, so that's only a small percentage of the population that won't have children together. Your SSI benefits are secure, thanks to people like the Octo mom and John and Kate.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
5 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Sosueme on June 11th, 2008
The divorce rate would increase. I pesonally think divorce is a negative thing for society (although sometimes profitable for me)
Comments
- Please explain, i don't see how gay marriage would increase divorce rate.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- The more people that get married (gay or straight), the more that get divorced, and trust me, divorce is a legal issue.
  
  Report
  
  by Sosueme on June 11th, 2008
- The pure number of divorces would go up, but I don't think the rate of divorce would increase that much overall. I recall studies showing that lesbian (and gay to a lesser extent) couples tend to stay together longer than heterosexual couples. So overall, the average marriage time might well increase a bit.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on June 11th, 2008
- In countries were homosexual unions and marraige are legal, such as The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, divorce rates fell since the legalization of gay unions.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on June 11th, 2008
- I was just addressing the number not the percentage.
  
  Report
  
  by Sosueme on July 21st, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
5 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Spirit of the Nomad on June 11th, 2008
No...it's strange, no matter how much I search and search for it I can't find one reason that meets all of your criteria....hmmmm
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by jin jang on June 11th, 2008
I could not give you any legal example on any way it could or does have an adverse affect on society.I once knew a female gay couple that adopted a girl,and bringing her up like any other child.With all the single parents,male and female,what should the difference be if they are both of them are of the same sex as long as the child is brought up in a good home.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by yeroco on June 11th, 2008
One could argue that if more gays were married, U.S. tax revenue would decrease because filing as "married filing jointly" is a lower tax bracket.

I don't know of the "marriage penalty" is gone yet, though. It might actually increase tax revenue if it isn't.
Comments
- I was going to point this one out, with an addendum.
  Some people are sure that this will have any random roommates marrying for tax purposes, but I know a lesbian and a gay man who got married for it, so it's not like it doesn't happen now.
  
  Report
  
  by Cantras on June 11th, 2008
- on the the issue of the roommates doing it for benifets, the roomates would have to proove that they are a legitimate couple, living together is a given, but in states that do have these laws already in place, they observe the couple to make sure it is legitamate. Sort of like when someone files for insurance on an injury, they make sure the injury is real before they give them the money.
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- Well, basically, they are taking a risk, but it's probably pretty low given the number of tax auditors that the U.S. gov't employs.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on June 11th, 2008
- I do know that my wife and I pay more in taxes because we don't have children. So we are paying (in my opinion) an unfair amount since we are using fewer resources as a family.
  
  Report
  
  by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on June 11th, 2008
- we pay more taxes if we dont have kids? like school taxes?
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 11th, 2008
- yeah, you spend a lot of money on other people's kids, it gets frustrating when you're not the one spawning in the first place....
  
  Report
  
  by Spirit of the Nomad on June 11th, 2008
- People get deductions for having kids that we don't get. So I am paying money into a system for services I will never use. And living by a high school, my tax levies are increased for that school.
  
  Report
  
  by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on June 11th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
7 comments | Post one | Permalink
by purplepickleater on April 4th, 2008
you have to bring religion in to the argument because
all the secular arguments add up to either gay sex is icky or i don't want to pay for gay civil employee benefits. if you take religion out of the mix the whole argument will take 2 min. and bore the hell out of everyone!
Comments
- I agree.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on August 27th, 2008
- Yep. Religion is the ONLY arguement that hasn't been contradicted, but it IS religion so it can't be counted as an arugement.
  
  Report
  
  by I Are Yogi Bear on September 29th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Lord Calvert on May 20th, 2009
No. I cannot, most of the arguments (if not all of them) against gay marriage have a religious origin.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Moongrim on April 6th, 2009
Ummmm, if we let gay folks get married, then the next thing you know, folks are gonna want to allow polygamy or multiple spouses (spice?).
Comments
- Sorry, that "slippery slope" argument has been refuted many times. {And I know you were just playing Devil's Advocate.}
  
  Nothing in any marriage equality legislation extends rights to multiple wedding partners.
  
  Report
  
  by Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo on April 6th, 2009
- Agreed w/ Pheonix: The marriage contract is between two consenting adults. Nothing in allowing two people of the same gender to marry will change that. The slippery slope argument is a piss poor excuse.
  
  Report
  
  by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on April 6th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Kimsugarr on December 3rd, 2008
No, because I'm not against gay relationships
One of my best friends is bi
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Sodahead on June 13th, 2008
Let's see, two people marrying that are not really queer, just for state and federal money and benefits. How does the state set a standard on how queer a person is? Freaks wanting to marry their pets. Their defense will be if you allow a man and a man to marry, how can you say that I can't marry my dog?
Comments
- well dogs cant sign marriage liscences, and dont have legal standing, so thats out.
  
  but they observe the couple after they get married, just like they observe someone who applies for workmans comp for a injury, they make sure its legitimate
  
  Report
  
  by XOXMSperfect on June 13th, 2008
- And no heterosexual couple has ever entered into a marriage of convenience?
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on June 11th, 2008
The only effect it would have that could be considered adverse is that it would melt the brains of the conservative, close minded, extremists. Hmm, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
Comments
- LOL, Nelson...no, I don't think that would be such a bad thing at all!
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on June 11th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Freddy Says remove all moderation points on April 1st, 2008
What is "the gay lifestyle" in your view?
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Don Gorgeous George on April 16th, 2009
No I can't. Wear a condom.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo on April 6th, 2009
There aren't any.
Not having marriage equality for a LEGAL STATUS given by the STATE is discrimination, pure and simple.
Comments
- Well duh.. I'm trying to get the right wingers to realize this on their own... :-)
  Didn't think you'd have any problem w/ gay marriage :-)
  
  Report
  
  by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on April 6th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Athrael on March 7th, 2009
Marriage is not procreation. What people decide 'oh s/he looks like a good mate to bring children in the world' and get married then have sex?

No, people fall in love and children take place afterward. Marriage takes place because two individuals want to commit completely to each other. The bondage of marriage is a sign of deep committed (most temporary I fear) love between two people and is the ultimate expression of that love *outside of the bedroom*.

Anyway you slice it there is no logical reason to ban gay marriage.

It teaches the children.... Nothing - YOU teach your children your moral codes... or you don't. Acceptance of Gay Marriage by society does not mean you or your kids have to accept it. No more than letting interracial marriages or the Muslims to practice (or Jew, or Christian or Witches).

Adoption, two gays raising children - I'm sorry you worried about kids? The truth is that abuse of all sorts takes place more often with the biological parents than any other parenting source. The Truth is also known when it comes to the balance and tolerance within the adult child of two gay parents over the average bi gendered household. The truth being that the children raised by gays are less likely to enter into faulty relationships attempting to live up to an ideal of marriage that straights have foisted unsuccessfully to the tune of 50%.

Gay Marriage will mean less failed straight marriages by closet cases who marry the opposite gender attempting to be 'normal' (an abused and over used meaningless word). It also means that fewer people will be out there spreading STDs - Gays are of the belief that monogamy is a sham simply because YOU don't allow them to marry who they love. Monogamy is really a fiction that is only supported by the concept of marriage - take marriage out of the picture and over 50% of straight people would not seek it. already 50% are not monogamous, how many are on their second marriage +.
Comments
- Good point, Athrael. At any rate, having two loving parents of one gender is far more beneficial for a child than having heterosexual parents who may abuse the child.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2009
- Of course, that's a really extreme analogy.
  
  Report
  
  by shammers still slogging along on April 16th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by I m Out of here on October 30th, 2008
Sure, Marry who ever you like!
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Slipshod Wombat and Co. on August 27th, 2008
there is no reason, with or without religion. as far as I see, Christians who think its wrong because of the bible finds there evidence where it says "Sexually Immoral", and that term evolved in homosexuality. I cannot find a spot in the Bible where it specifically points out homosexuality as wrong, and if it does let me know cause i am Christian.

but its unfair. you can't help who you are attracted to. so obviously it was God who made you attracted to your own sex.
Comments
- Uh... try reading Romans 1 for starters, and then 1Corinthians 6:9-11, Titus 1:8-10, and Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on August 28th, 2008
- either way this shows this shows an example of why Christianity may be a hoax.
  
  Report
  
  by Slipshod Wombat and Co. on August 28th, 2008
- http://www.geocities.com/cornermoose/classic_tan.html
  
  The above link is to a dissertation on what the Bible might REALLY be saying about homosexuality.
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
- I read the page. It and its quoted sources go way overboard in the characterization of ancient sexual relations being exclusively bound up in social status politics: one has to wonder if these scholars have ever read the Song of Solomon -- or the poetry of Sapho.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on January 12th, 2009
- These and thousands of other examples show that love that was both deeply romantic and erotic was hardly unknown to the ancient world, and in all these cases the lover/penetrator appeals to the beloved as the beggar-servant, not lord and master. This was true even of "Greek Love" - arguably even especially true - in which the beloved was a free citizen teenage boy, the protege' and mentoree of the adult male lover. (And in these relationships, anal and oral sex were both taboo: copulation occurred by thrusting between the boy's thighs.)
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on January 12th, 2009
- Also, re. Romans I, though the author rightly points out that the sin described in Romans I is idolatry, he refuses to see that homosexual desires and the acts they produce (both products of the "depraved mind" produced by idolatry) in and of themselves are characterized as shameful, unnatural, and abhorrent to God.
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on January 12th, 2009
- "either way this shows this shows an example of why Christianity may be a hoax."
  
  Why pray tell... Is that because you disagree with it? Your response, and the response of a great many people in society is already for known. Homosexuality is nothing new.
  
  Report
  
  by Benjamin_P on August 14th, 2011
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
7 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on August 27th, 2008
Without bringing religion into it? That's a little unfair. I personally don't have a problem with gays getting married. However, I know others who are opposed for religious reasons. I think it is very unfair to ask anybody to compromise religious beliefs. It is also unfair to start calling people bigots for their religious beliefs.
Comments
- indeedy... +6
  hopefully someone else getting married doesn't hurt our religious beliefs though
  
  Report
  
  by LuckyLefty on August 27th, 2008
- It doesn't for me, but I do get irritated seeing people on here getting called bigots for their religous beliefs.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on August 27th, 2008
- They are not bigots for their beliefs, they are bigots because they insist upon their beliefs being thrust upon people who do not share them.
  
  Report
  
  by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on November 13th, 2008
- They don't all do that.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on November 13th, 2008
- How can anything I do compromise anyone else's religious beliefs?
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
5 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Catherine on July 22nd, 2008
Its not normal, to see same sex marriages. Its perverse to me..
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on July 21st, 2008
Well, yes, based on cultural morality I can. But that too has its roots in religion.

But while I can give good reasons. I cannot justify the reasons or say that gay marriage would not be beneficial to society.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by stewart on July 9th, 2008
One reason the gay lifesytle is wrong is that it disturbs the process and ballance of the human reproduction cycle. if the gay movement were to exceed the reproduction cycle, coupled with the diseases caused by the lifestyle, populations would decline, with fewer people there would be less social security, higher medical cost, depression would ruin many lifes, i could go on and on, but the main reason its wrong is because it is selfish, that person is only cocerned with what they feel or what they think they were ment to be.
Comments
- Choosing who you love and want to be with is selfish?
  So I suppose you are a supporter of arranged marriages, set by the couple's parents to be the most beneficial to the community?
  
  Report
  
  by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on November 13th, 2008
- Actually, our planet is overpopulated as is. It certainly won't harm us if more gay people marry and decide not to have kids; in fact, it will benefit us. You also say that gay marriage is selfish, but that's a religiously based argument. It's equally selfish to force one's own beliefs on someone else and try to dictate their lifestyle for them.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by DudeLer on April 1st, 2008
Marriage begets children. otherwise, why get married? Is that factual enough? Get incorporated if you want some secure legal mutual foundation.
Comments
- So, how about straight couples who don't want or can't have kids? Should they not be allowed to marry? Or, my mother got remarried after my father passed, and she'd gone thru menopause and was in her 50s...should she have never remarried? The "getting married to have children" argument can't be used for that...not everyone has kids.
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on April 1st, 2008
- Yes, redcatt makes a lot of sense. Do you, kid, suggest that only those who can and will have children be allowed to marry?
  
  Report
  
  by anonymous on April 4th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by shammers still slogging along on April 16th, 2009
Nope.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by TheJoker on April 6th, 2009
I suppose if you were a fundamentalist Darwinist you might argue that it's destroying the fabric of evolution.
Comments
- LOL... But no... with or without a marriage license 10% of the population are not engaging in Procreation.... So married or not they're doing their evil deeds "destroying the fabric of evolution".
  
  Report
  
  by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on April 6th, 2009
- Yeh, I was stretching abit! Perhaps if you were an extremist wedding dress maker... it could threaten your business!
  
  Report
  
  by TheJoker on April 6th, 2009
- Or double it.
  
  Report
  
  by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on April 6th, 2009
- Damn.... didnt think of that!
  
  Report
  
  by TheJoker on April 6th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by jwde2009 on March 22nd, 2009
that was a response to the total bullshit answer provided, both times. there are no studies available on how homesexual relationships affect the children, this is because there has not been enough time for someone to have completely grown with homosexual parents being married. it hasn't been legal long enough for an offspring to have grown. lurking variable: no marriage. bias.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by catsmeow94 on March 18th, 2009
wait. against it? no. no i can not. love is love, in any form. can you givve me some good reasons? (im not a jerk, im really curious.)
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Malawk on March 4th, 2009
Simple answer, Sex was made for procreation, nothing more. So being gay is worthless. If love is the reason for being gay then think of this, a person loves killing, people loves beasts, should those be right too? A guide line for relationships should be set, just as a guideline should be set on everything. Without guidelines you have chaos.
Comments
- Interesting point of view.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 5th, 2009
- So then infertile couples or couples bast childbearing age should be celibate?
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Mr. Sex ~ The Original Mr. Knowitall on January 17th, 2009
There's nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle. Most gay people are very nice people. A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether or not they're good people. As for gay marriage, I think the facts are pretty clear: A man can only get a woman pregnant, not another man. If two men were meant to be together, they'd be able to breed and make kids. This could only be the case if it were a "genetic" trait meant for the ongoing survival of the human race. And since it's not, gay marriage was clearly never meant to be.
Comments
- :)
  
  Report
  
  by Banned from Yahoo on January 29th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by hedge-rider on January 2nd, 2009
This question isn't worded correctly. The word "marriage" itself stems from the French "marrier" (which means to marry), which takes part of its root from the Latin word for Mary, the mother of Jesus. In my opinion, all free people are entitled to a civil union with someone they love regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. But, to me at least, the word "marriage" itself implies religion, so I would have to leave the option of performing gay marriages up to each individual church/religion.
Comments
- Ah, but marriage itself was not always religious.
  
  Report
  
  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on January 2nd, 2009
- But it probably wasn't called marriage then.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on January 2nd, 2009
- No, but it still was it.
  
  Report
  
  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on January 2nd, 2009
- I'm not arguing the point of the question, just the wording. I agree with what you think, but you cannot say "don't bring religion into it" and "talk about marriage" (regardless of what kind) in the same sentence/question.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on January 2nd, 2009
- And if it wasn't called marriage, then it wasn't marriage. The original idea of marriage, being that it stems from a Christian word, has to do with how the Christians originally implied it. Just because people use the word now actually meaning a civil union does not mean that it is synonymous with civil unions.
  Other examples: I love you (not you figuratively, this is just for the sake of the example). I love pizza. The "loves" are not really synonymous (or at least they shouldn't be).
  Or even a better example because I am a Wiccan. Wiccans are witches, but not all witches are Wiccans. In today's world many people say "Wiccan" when they mean witch. But just because they mean it doesn't mean it is.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on January 2nd, 2009
- I get your point, but if marriage is a completely religious thing, wouldn't it mean that agnostics and atheists (and anyone that doesn't follow the mainstream religions) wouldn't be able to marry?
  
  Report
  
  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on January 2nd, 2009
- TECHNICALLY, in a church, yes. But, like I said, people use the word now to actually mean civil unions so you're saying "we got married" but you didn't if it was in a court or by the mayor or whatever. In truth, it doesn't really matter. It's all semantics. If someone wants to believe they got married when they really got a civil union, it doesn't really matter. I only stated my original answer because the question asks to leave out religion but asks about what is, to me, a religious issue.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on January 2nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
7 comments | Post one | Permalink
by babyxblues on December 20th, 2008
there is no reason...people say gay marriage is ruining marriage. but aren't people that get divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried...ruing marriage?
gay people can only get married in a few states, so you know there aren't very many that are married.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by designer is wearing a ....... on December 1st, 2008
Without bringing yeast or flour into it, can you bake me a loaf of bread?.
This can be broken into two separate questions. The first is Gay Marriage. the second is the "Gay lifestyle"..and for that No. because agreeing with another's lifestyle is subjective, based on morals which for most are based in their religion. That is like asking, "using only scientific fact and no opinion, tell me why a yellow rose is pretty?." Gay marriage is more like asking "using only scientific fact and no opinion, is it beneficial to put a yellow rose bush in a vegetable garden?"
I will answer the first.
Studies show without a doubt that chilren raised in a home with BOTH mom and dad, do better in every way to those children who are not. Her are some stats for you.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
[Center for Disease Control]
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, ]
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,
Here are some more facts as to the odds of the following happening to children not raised with both parents, Mom AND Dad
6.6 times to become teen aged mothers (if they are girls, of course),
24.3 times more likely to run away,
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions,
10.8 times more likely to commit rape,
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school,
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.
The results are in. The last 30 years of social experimentation have produced failure in evry level when it comes to our children. The decline of the two-parent(Mom and Dad), married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children. So do we now , knowing what we know keep weakening marriage by laughing at Britney for her 5 day marriages, or allow no fault divorces, or introduce gay marriage into the mix, thus confusing our children more. No, I say we fix marriage as it was meant to be...Then there is always.......
Telling the polygamist no, or the cousins no, all consenting adults they are!!!!
Comments
- Okay, you have made a good argument against divorce, now what?
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by jwde2009 on November 30th, 2008
Because the next logical step is marriage to animals, robots, and inanimate objects...?
Comments
- Wtf? Downrated like crazy?
  
  Report
  
  by jwde2009 on March 8th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on November 30th, 2008
i cud, but they would all be contrived and rediculous. The gay life style is perfectly natural and if gay people wish to show there commitment to their partner via a ceremony like marriage thn tht is perfectly acceptable. I would argue it is not needed to show ones love, but it is ones free choice.
Comments
- Eh..."perfectly natural"....I think nature would disagree with you there....
  
  Report
  
  by designer is wearing a ....... on December 29th, 2008
- well, Wot is it if its not natural?
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on December 29th, 2008
- If it were not natural, it would be forced, and no one forced me into it, it just happened.
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
- If it were not natural, it would not ocuur within many non-human species. I don't think my friend's dog was homosexual because he was trying to be "different" or as a learned behavior. He just loved to hump male dogs.
  
  Report
  
  by raindancer on March 7th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by MargaretMcGhee on October 30th, 2008
Yes, absolutely.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Dazed and Confused on July 9th, 2008
Insurance or tax fraud between people two buddies "faking" a homosexual marriage for the sake of medical coverage, life insurance pay offs, or tax breaks?

Not that that fraud doesn't already exist, it would just be yet another avenue for it, with no way to disprove it.

The only other "fact" that I could dream up would be the development of AIDS that has surfaced from the gay community. This fatal disease is heavily linked with the new gay lifestyle movement in the last 25-30 years (Rock Hudson timeframe).

Those are the only things I could see *might* be considered legit non-religion based arguments?

Most of our country's laws were based on religion to begin with. Being as this simply IS a moral issue more than a legal issue, it's hard to come up with much legal stuff.
Comments
- Two people being married to each other, forsaking all others will not spread AIDS, it will help to curtail it.
  
  Report
  
  by cornermoose on January 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink