Homosexual marriage -- provide one non-Biblical, non-religious argument against?

Your first misconception is that the burden is on people who want to keep marriage the same. It is not. The burden is on those who want to change it.

I am not convinced more than a tiny fraction of homosexuals actually want to get married. Aside from highly publicized stunts in which hundreds engaged in fake marriage ceremonies they knew to be non-binding, how many homosexual couples have actually gotten married in Vermont since it became legal? Do you have any facts? Not anecdotes, actual numbers from official sources.

Every reason I have ever heard offered in favor of homosexual marriage is disingenuous. Gays have a right to pursue happiness. Good, go, be happy. But no one has a right to do just as he pleases to be happy. I might find joy in robbing banks, but they won't let me anyway. Gays want to live together. Well, they live together now. Gays want to express their eternal love and commitment. Fine, do so. Write poems to one another; exchange golden chains; get matching tattoos. Gays want to own property in common. Nothing could be simpler. You merely have to both sign the car title or the deed. Gays want to control each other's medical treatment. Just give each other a medical power of attorney, or better yet, prepare a living will; you should do that anyway, its a lot cheaper than getting married and much more exact and likely to be honored than simply showing up in an emergency and saying you are married.

Your second misconception is that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage to all. It does not. It does not even guarantee equal rights to all. Can a minor buy alcohol? No. Can just anyone practice medicine or law? No. Can you carry a gun anywhere you choose? No. Can just anyone operate a motor vehicle? No. The

Constitution permits, and even contemplates, the states to regulate all aspects of life in ways deemed reasonable by them. Marriage is one of those aspects of life. The states get to define it and they get to regulate who may participate. In some states you can marry at 16, in others not until you are 18. The 16-year-olds in the latter state are not thereby denied their constitutional rights.

There are perfectly valid, non-religious reasons to limit marriage to one adult man and one adult woman. The principle public policy reason for marriage is the promotion of stable families. When the institution of marriage breaks down, children tend to get inadequately supervised, poorly educated, badly acculturated, and insufficiently cared for. A sad example of this in the US is in the black community where 2/3 of the babies are born out-of-wedlock and the crime and unemployment rates are horrible. The state, therefore, has a vital interest unrelated to any religious stricture in regulating marriage in a manner calculated to strengthen rather than weaken the institution.

Can you think of any principled reason to stop at homosexual marriage, once the monogamous, heterosexual line is broken? If two men is OK, why not three men? Three women? Two men and one woman? One man and 27 women. Two men, a girl and a goat? One man, three women and all their children (as sexual partners, not merely as a family)? Don't they all have a right to be happy? Should we permit our moral insecurities to interfere with that quest?

You want to open marriage to homosexual couples. But what non-Biblical, non-religious argument would limit it to just couples? There are, in fact, religious arguments for polygamy. Mormons and Muslims both believe, for religious reasons, polygamy is a good thing. Why not polyandry? Why not pedophilia? Why not bestiality? What is your principled argument that would exclude these practices once gay marriage is allowed?

There is a wealth of sociological information demonstrating that children raised in a stable, heterosexual marriage are much more likely to be healthy, well-adjusted, well-educated, happy, productive adults. Drawing the marriage line at that point makes tremendous secular sense. Once that line is gone, there is no principled reason to redraw it anywhere. Marriage would not be expanded to include gays, it would be destroyed as an institution.

If you were honest, you would admit there is no principled justification for drawing the line at any other place. But your agenda is political, so you will not admit it. If you were honest, you would say all is permitted if no one gets hurt. But that is where you are wrong. The children get hurt, and through them, all of society.

I can't give any argument against Civil Union. This is what the government has a say in. Marriage, however, is not a government institution, and as such, the government should not be regulating it at all. Marriage is essentially a religious institution, and marriages ought to be granted based upon the tenets of each particular faith. Government's only role is in registering the Civil Union that accompanies marriage.

All the debate over whether homosexual marriage should be legalized ignores this key issue. Government doesn't have authority to make homosexual marriage legal or illegal. Their only role is to determine what type of marriages should be registered as a Civil Union. Anything else is usurpation of authority.

Marriage is a religious rite when done in a church or with a preacher, however there are civil ceremony's that are called marriages and that is the way I think it should go. Not a union by God but a civil union. I think gay people ought to be afforded the same rights as Marriage. But I do not think that it should be done in a church as a religious rite.

I hate to tell you this but this country was founded on the Bible. It is even stated in the pledge of allegiance "One nation under God" Meaning founded on the Bible. This a very touchy subject. I guess I would say it's down right nasty. I'm sorry I fell this way. Hope you find what your looking for.

unfortunately there are none

there are things against homsexuality itsself though.

which i think s a bunch of bs

whatever happened to just being plain ol good honest and warm hearted, isn't that the person is is truly good? maybe you should ask that to god. you fantical relgious people

to drdee

if we legalized all drugs, we could focuse more on the crime like killers and rapists

about prositution, isn't sex between those who prefom it, you don't go bugging people about their sex life so why should you

guess what drdee gambling is legal, and i am a proud gambler so whatcha gonna do about it

first of all if you are worried about morals

deal with all the liars in the world

ahem like bush,clinton etc etc

It defies the human nature. There is a reason there are 2 sexes. Same sex marriages are illogical from an evaluational point of view. What if monkeys were gay...there would be no humans( I know it's not the best example).

Its the fuss that bothers me..seems to me you have gathered some serious well-spoken people here and the best of all is worried about potential human/goat marriages? That, to me, is a little disheartening. I'm not into it myself but i'll say this..the more weddings the better..they're good for business. Bam.ps..some not terribly well educated also, sorry to say

I agree.

I might also add that Congressional representatives and Senators do not take an oath to protect and defend the Bible, they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

democractic process. The majority of the people in America does not want it, in any state where it has came up for vote, it has been voted down.

The rule of the people.

If we would want to tolerate gay marriages, we should also think about legalising prostitution, brothels, gambling, drugs, and all other aspects of society which we think and know are morally and ethically wrong.