Are there any arguments against gay marriage that don't involve religon? (that also make sense?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SugarPlum

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dangerdad

Well, there is this one.

---

In both cases involving marriage, the lawmakers assumed that people would not make stigmatized choices because of government policy change. This proved to be untrue, and the choices became less stigmatized. This is similar to arguments people may make about gay marriage: if we destigmatize same sex marriage than more people will engage in it. Yup, you bet that more gay people will get married if gay marriage is legalized!

---

Hey, how about this [also slightly specious] argument from the margin? Let's say that marriage is currently... not so much stigmatized... but "devalued." That is, people in general are less interested in, or less committed to, marriage than previously. The divorce rate, at least, speaks to a lack of commitment. One could argue that the valiant struggle of gays (who live on the margin) to achieve marriage equality might actually encourage people to "re-value" marriage. Hey, if gays want it so much, then it must be worth something, right? One could also suggest that the long-term commitment of gay couples, living in monogamous, mutually-supporting relationships for years and even decades without the support of society, speaks to the strength and importance of pair bonds. This might also have the effect of re-valuing the bond of marriage.

Now, I can't say I'm convinced of either the premises or the conclusions of this argument. As a mental exercise, though, it shows you can hand wave all sorts of cause-and-effect speculation about the impact of gay marriage. Huh, maybe I'll send this out as a glurge email... hmm...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caerie

I once read an article that said a lot of databases would have to be rewritten, because they wouldn't allow for SSM. I found it rather lame, but it was honestly the best argument against it I've ever found.

---

I'm not even clear on why that would be true. Most data bases I'm aware of are forms and don't care what the name or gender of spouse is. Maybe gender would be a problem is the program automatically assumes opposite genders but that does not seem like a huge issue.

In an attempt to understand the 'other side' of the argument, I've asked on a different message board why people oppose gay marriage. This is a response about religion (and I'm too lazy to make a different topic), but how do you respond to this line of thinking? I'm guessing you simply don't, because for someone so firmly rooted in their beliefs nothing you say will change their minds, but...

"I oppose homosexual conduct for faith-based reasons. I am convinced that it is sinful conduct. (For the record, I also oppose heterosexual conduct outside of marriage for faith-based reasons... lest you think my attention is directed solely toward homosexual conduct.)

Why do I oppose gay marriage? Because I am convinced that it is wrong and sinful for ME to do anything which could be construed by God as (1) acquiescing in; (2) encouraging; or (3) approving of sinful conduct in others. For me, I am 100% convinced that I would be personally and profoundly sinning if I did not take reasonable steps (when given the opportunity) to oppose homosexual conduct -- which includes, in this instance, opposing gay marriage.

Not all persons of faith believe as I do, nor would I expect them to.

For what it's worth, I also oppose the death penalty for faith-based reasons. My faith impacts every part of my life; it is inseparable from who I am."

I've started writing my post 2 or 3 times before erasing it and starting again.
It's just too easy with religious people.

Do i go with "So you've never worked on a Sunday?" or "Why do you think your religious beliefs should be upheld in a secular society?" or "God told me that people who oppose gay marriage are sinners and you'll burn in hell"?

If they can construct a logical argument against the my God's views then we can talk.

I would start the counter-argument to that line of reasoning by asking if they themselves are "without sin" or have "removed the beam from their eyes". If not, then aren't they contradicting the teachings of Jesus not to interpose themselves in the affairs of others?

Then we go on to the render unto Caesar route, tied in with a little bit of Jesus saying that his kingdom is not of this world. In that case, shouldn't these questions of morality be decided on secular, rather than religious, grounds?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmosDan

I'm not even clear on why that would be true. Most data bases I'm aware of are forms and don't care what the name or gender of spouse is. Maybe gender would be a problem is the program automatically assumes opposite genders but that does not seem like a huge issue.

---

It seemed to be a rather lame argument, but the person writing the article claimed that the grand majority of databases are built to deal with spouses in a gender specific way. I can't recall any details on it that would help finding it again, though.

I dunno, from my days of dealing with people databases, admittedly somewhat limited and a while back, they would normally have a field that pointed at the personal record of the other party. Nothing in that involved gender. Just Person A's record connects to Person B's record through the spouse field.

Now there may very well be program specific determinors that assume that since you're dealing with person A and their gender is Female, then person B must therefore be Male, but that's an assumption thing to avoid having to hit the database for their information when perhaps you don't need it.

And even that isn't a big detractor from even group marriages. Just split apart the spousal connection to a new table, which contains contains IDs for Person A and Person B, and can contain multiple records for Person A. Programmatically insofar as the database goes, it's not a big deal. It may or may not be a much bigger deal for _applications_ to deal with.