• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LunarRay said:
Contained in the quote you provided is the central theme of his thinking... "'Judeo'-Christian". He fails to understand that the US is NOT 'Judeo'-Christian but all encompassing. Even Hindu and Muslim and Atheists count... not to mention American Indians.
Society's bible is the Constitution... not the freakin Bible...

His idea is; upon taking an oath you place your hand on a copy of the Constitution and swear to uphold the bible.
I'm a Christian but in this country your rights are not granted by God but by the Constitution...
Folks like who you quote fear the Taliban but act in accord with that philosophy. Why they don't see that is interesting while also sad.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I wish more Christians understood this. Has the education system in this country failed (I know a different discussion 🙂)? Don't they know that part of the reason the pilgrims came here was religious freedom.
 
HumblePie said:
What is the purpose of marriages? Transfer of wealth by legitimizing heirs. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)
 
elitejp said:
My reasons for getting married have more to do with religion than with anything else. Personally I dont need the govt to put its stamp of approval on who I marry to make me feel better. Thats why I dont see why homosexuals would care. One of the reasons for many people has to do with religion. Take religion out of it and I say if you want to live with your partner and call it a marriage then go ahead. Who cares? If you want me to agree with what someone is doing...well...I will always have the right to disagree.
Click to expand...

I then challenge you to get married in a church WITHOUT getting a marriage license. Then let me know how you and your wife progress through life without that state license. I'm willing to bet when you start to encounter the problems you will want to go get that state license.
 
Atreus21 said:
Disagree. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)
Click to expand...

Disagree?
You just repeated what HumblePie posted.
 
Atreus21 said:
Disagree. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)
Click to expand...

Marriage doesn't exist because sex leads to kids. That's why the family unit evolved and led to larger societal blocks (tribes and eventually nations). Marriage is there as a contract for wealth and debt transfers. Families can exist without a marriage...
 
If we agree that government should not be in the morality police business, ultimately the only reason government should get involved in the marriage business is to create incentives to sustain or grow its pool of law-abiding taxpayers.

If we then consider that homosexuals as a group have higher than average rates of personal income and they likely consume fewer state resources (if childless, as we have a huge amount of education infrastructure that they don't consume), there's an argument to be made that nations should go out and try to lure foreign homosexuals into immigrating. They should help considerably in offsetting the cost of their heterosexual co-citizens and their children.
 
Atreus21 said:
Disagree. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)
Click to expand...

Yeah i keep forgetting that women are unable to get preggers until married. Thanks for reminding me. :\
 
Marriage is financial.

It says who takes care of whose kids, whose cows/tent belongs to who, and who gets it if X dies and Y comes into the picture.

When people talk about "Traditional" it is only what THEY remember, as can easily be seen when you start rolling back the years and see how little power people had even in our own young country. When you go back and look at marriage even in Medieval Europe, you will see it a s a different contractual obligation than the stardust and fairy version we get through our whitewashed stories and fiction. (Hell, most of our stories are not even the STORIES that were used in those times to glorify heroism and the like. Again, whitewashed and Disney-fied).

Marriage is a financial and societal contract that changes with the times. Certain things can still be held as valuable or desired, but clinging to it in a selective rememberence of "Tradition" has never been a healthy socio-political mechanism.
 
nehalem256 said:
What is so difficult.

Not changing the definition of marriage to suit homosexuals is hardly persecution.

And if we were to give them civil unions that were exactly the same as marriage except for the name... well it would be a joke to say that was persecution.

If you want to see gay people being persecuted I suggest going to Iran.
Click to expand...

Waah, Rosa Parks can't sit in the seat she wants, she's persecuted, poor Rosa! Waah.
 
nehalem256 said:
As I recall from school she wanted to sit in the front, because the back was full. And after a long hard day she didnt feel like standing.

And, so I assume then if differentiating people is always wrong it is wrong to have separate bathrooms for men and women.



They are not acceptable as substitutes because gay people want society to pat them on the back. If it was about the rights civil unions would be acceptable. The only reason to want the name is because they want to force other people to recognize their unions as equally important.
Click to expand...

Replying to you is a waste of time.
 
yllus said:
If we agree that government should not be in the morality police business, ultimately the only reason government should get involved in the marriage business is to create incentives to sustain or grow its pool of law-abiding taxpayers.
Click to expand...

The government is int the business of policing morality. Its why they say I can steal someone car or have sex with my sister.

If we then consider that homosexuals as a group have higher than average rates of personal income and they likely consume fewer state resources (if childless, as we have a huge amount of education infrastructure that they don't consume), there's an argument to be made that nations should go out and try to lure foreign homosexuals into immigrating. They should help considerably in offsetting the cost of their heterosexual co-citizens and their children.
Click to expand...

You mean until the government needs their children to pay for their parents Medicare and Social Security right?
 
elitejp said:
My reasons for getting married have more to do with religion than with anything else. Personally I dont need the govt to put its stamp of approval on who I marry to make me feel better. Thats why I dont see why homosexuals would care.
Click to expand...

So you demand everyone else share your opinion? Your argument is like saying if one black person 'doesn't mind' segregation, he should vote for it because no one should care.

It's not just the government, it's the law, and it's society's discrimination.

What was wrong with Jews wearing stars so everyone knew who they were? Heck, they should have treated it like a privilege they could wear them, the whiners.

They shouldn't have cared what the government thought, just wear them, right?

I've explained the problem of discrimination, and you are obtuse, not getting it.

One of the reasons for many people has to do with religion. Take religion out of it and I say if you want to live with your partner and call it a marriage then go ahead.
Click to expand...

So, you are in favor of gays having the same legal rights as straights, including marriage?

Limiting discrimination to churches? If so, we're in agreement. I'm betting you will still vote to make it illegal.

Who cares? If you want me to agree with what someone is doing...well...I will always have the right to disagree.

And dont worry Craig I could care less how you viewed me nor do I take offense to my words being in italics. Someone elses opinion of me doesnt make me who I am. But really just because I dont support homosexuality doesnt mean im a jerk to them. I treat everyone the same. Thats the other side of the coin with me. I dont have to agree with you to treat you kindly.
Click to expand...

So, you're simply ignorant about the whole topic of discrimination and bigotry.

You like to have it both ways - they can't marry, but it's nothing personal?

They're denied rights, but you're smiling when you tell them?

Look, one of the behaviors I see with bigots is the 'hey, I don't want to (do something worse) to them, I just want (another type of discrimination).

For example, for slave owners, a common topic of right and wrong was how you treat them.

You're not like that asshole Smith down the road who beats them for minor issue, you are good to your slaves, you're a good person. Ya, they really thought like that.

So I'm glad you are 'nice' to the gays you 'oppose', and that you 'only' want to not let them marry, rather than make faces at them too.

(This marriage thing, your position is confusing, you're posting as if you support discrimination, your comments seem to say you won't, I can't tell).

I respect your right to 'feel' how you want about gays. But if you have a problem with them it's YOUR problem and wrong to make it their problem by voting against their rights.
 
nehalem256 said:
The government is int the business of policing morality. Its why they say I can steal someone car or have sex with my sister.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, at least to the extent of your two examples.

Government must step in when possessions are stolen because to not do so would invite chaos amongst the tax-paying citizenry, and in the worst possible case cause an exodus of possession-owning citizens to another nation that allows them to keep what they've earned.

Incest is a bit more nebulous but again comes down to financial incentives - simply stated, the genetics that result from incest go horribly wrong and do not further the main goal of maintaining or increasing the pool of law-abiding taxpayers (the mentally retarded tend to have low incomes).

You mean until the government needs their children to pay for their parents Medicare and Social Security right?
Click to expand...

As I think we all agree that an influx of homosexuals will not lead heterosexuals to suddenly stop procreating, I think that side of things should still be covered. However one would think that the rather obvious solution of means-testing Medicare and Social Security would take care of things; that plus the higher amount paid in by above-average earners more than covers their share.
 
nehalem256 said:
Its not a question of can. Its a question of should. The rate of poverty of single mothers is 5 times that of married couples. But hey oh cares if children live in poverty :\
Click to expand...

So what do you propose of we do with children that come from a religious married couple who got a divorce? If she is now a single mother in poverty?

You can see how your arguments hold no water right?

Anyways, im done with this thread. You people against gays being married are the most obtuse hypocritical people that couldnt come up with a rational/logical reason to appose it to save your life. Enjoy being on the losing end of history with your bigotry.
 
In case nobody else has posted this in one of the innumerable gay marriage threads:
AstEjKGCMAAvkv9.jpg
 
yllus said:
If we agree that government should not be in the morality police business, ultimately the only reason government should get involved in the marriage business is to create incentives to sustain or grow its pool of law-abiding taxpayers.

If we then consider that homosexuals as a group have higher than average rates of personal income and they likely consume fewer state resources (if childless, as we have a huge amount of education infrastructure that they don't consume), there's an argument to be made that nations should go out and try to lure foreign homosexuals into immigrating. They should help considerably in offsetting the cost of their heterosexual co-citizens and their children.
Click to expand...

Except that it ends without new taxpayers being created. Not a reason to disallow it, but it is true. It is like a logging company not planting new trees...eventually they will be out of business.
 
Last edited:
yllus said:
Incest is a bit more nebulous but again comes down to financial incentives - simply stated, the genetics that result from incest go horribly wrong and do not further the main goal of maintaining or increasing the pool of law-abiding taxpayers (the mentally retarded tend to have low incomes).
Click to expand...

If both members of the incestuous union are sterile, there will be no genetic issues. Of course, saying they cannot be married and procreate due to genetic issues opens the door to saying anyone with a genetic defect cannot marry and procreate - but I do agree with a genetic distance requirement unless both members are sterile.

If both are sterile, the only remaining reason to prevent it is morality.
 
cybrsage said:
Except that it ends without new taxpayers being created. Not a reason to disallow it, but it is true.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if gays could marry all hetro couples would go gay and stop having children? Yeah that sounds like a well thought out idea. I know i cant wait to change my sexual orientation once gays can marry. 😵

And as an added insult to injury. Gay couples wether allowed to marry or not are not going to create new taxpayers as you like to call them. (which is not totally true. Lesbians can get inseminated). So allowing them to marry makes no difference on that front. Thus your conclusion is shall we say, retarded.

Damn it, i said i wasnt going to post again but you tards ask for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top