Secular case against gay marriage

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fern

Awhile back eskimo requested an argument against gay marriage which had no grounding in a moral or religious source.

Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships.

I don't like to particpate in these type threads (endlessly recurring-type discussions such as creation v. evolution, MMGW etc where no new info is ever presented and no one's mind will be changed) but I'll add just one post to this thread.

In response to eskimospy's request, I'll add that there is a financial argument against gay marriage. There is not much that I like to subsidize through taxes or increased costs in products, but when we legalize gay marriage we will be subsidizing that arrangment. E.g., if a company offers medical coverage to the spouses of employees, this will by law be required to be extended to gay couples. So, if a gay person has there spouse acting as a housewife (unemployed/staying at home) we will be subsidizing that lifestyle.
I don't care if you want that lifestyle, but I see no good reason to force others to subsidize it. If a company wishes to implement that policy (treating gay couples the same as standard married ones) as Disney does, I think that is their right and see no good reason that the government should either ban it or mandate it.

So, there are reasons other than morals or religion (I hold no objections based upon either of those).

So yes, we will be "participating in their in their personal activities or relationships" via finacial subsidy. And I expect this will be forced upon the unwilling by courts. Actually, I expect quite a bit of litigation were gay marriage to pass. (Would a church who fired their preacher/pastor/whatever after he dumped his wife and came out of the closet with his *boyfriend* be sued? I think the answe is yes.)

Fern

So then you would agree that companies should not offer medical coverage to the spouses and children of hetrosexual couples because it would in essence be subsidizing that lifestyle??


Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexual couples and the same protections!

Peace!!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Awhile back eskimo requested an argument against gay marriage which had no grounding in a moral or religious source.

Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships.

In response to eskimospy's request, I'll add that there is a financial argument against gay marriage. There is not much that I like to subsidize through taxes or increased costs in products, but when we legalize gay marriage we will be subsidizing that arrangment. E.g., if a company offers medical coverage to the spouses of employees, this will by law be required to be extended to gay couples. So, if a gay person has their spouse acting as a housewife (unemployed/staying at home) we will be subsidizing that lifestyle.

I don't care if you want that lifestyle, but I see no good reason to force others to subsidize it. If a company wishes to implement that policy (treating gay couples the same as standard married ones) as Disney does, I think that is their right and see no good reason that the government should either ban it or mandate it.

So yes, we will be "participating in their personal activities or relationships" via finacial subsidy. And I expect this will be forced upon the unwilling by courts. Actually, I expect quite a bit of litigation were gay marriage to pass. (Would a church who fired their preacher/pastor/whatever after he dumped his wife and came out of the closet with his *boyfriend* be sued? I think the answe is yes.)

And how is that different from an argument against interracial marriage based on similar claims that legalization would result in financing/participating/subsidizing such marriages by the opposition? It isn't. Either you believe this is an equal rights issue or you don't. If you believe it is, then you can't displace those rights because of an indirect creative financial counter-argument. If you believe it isn't, a financial argument might be something to cling to, but you'd still have to weigh that against zero evidence of harm to society by permitting such a relationship to be state sanctioned.

I suspect your suspicion that the courts will force this on an unwilling populace is probably correct, but they had to do that with interracial marriage and to end segregation as well. Supporting opposition to either of those ideas today is rightly viewed as backward and bigoted. In the not too distant future when gay couples are prospering along with their children and families, most people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern

Awhile back eskimo requested an argument against gay marriage which had no grounding in a moral or religious source.

Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships.

I don't like to particpate in these type threads (endlessly recurring-type discussions such as creation v. evolution, MMGW etc where no new info is ever presented and no one's mind will be changed) but I'll add just one post to this thread.

In response to eskimospy's request, I'll add that there is a financial argument against gay marriage. There is not much that I like to subsidize through taxes or increased costs in products, but when we legalize gay marriage we will be subsidizing that arrangment. E.g., if a company offers medical coverage to the spouses of employees, this will by law be required to be extended to gay couples. So, if a gay person has their spouse acting as a housewife (unemployed/staying at home) we will be subsidizing that lifestyle.

I don't care if you want that lifestyle, but I see no good reason to force others to subsidize it. If a company wishes to implement that policy (treating gay couples the same as standard married ones) as Disney does, I think that is their right and see no good reason that the government should either ban it or mandate it.

So, there are reasons other than morals or religion (I hold no objections based upon either of those).

So yes, we will be "participating in their personal activities or relationships" via finacial subsidy. And I expect this will be forced upon the unwilling by courts. Actually, I expect quite a bit of litigation were gay marriage to pass. (Would a church who fired their preacher/pastor/whatever after he dumped his wife and came out of the closet with his *boyfriend* be sued? I think the answe is yes.)

Fern

If it's unacceptable to "force society" to subsidize the financial benefits of same-sex marriages, how come it IS acceptable to "force society" to subsidize the financial benefits of heterosexual marriages?

Are you really so clueless - or so blinded by anti-gay bigotry - that you don't understand the implications of "equal protection" under the law?