Non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage?

My reason is that I'm against ALL government-sanctioned marriages, straight or gay. The government has no business in that realm. Just have legal agreements between any two people that accomplish the same goal and leave the government out of it.

So people are still making the "definition" argument, as if the definition is something given, which means they're not really making a non-religious argument. As late as 1967, Barack Obama's parents would not have been able to legally marry in 16 US states, because of the "definition". The civil union option is no better, since Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) says clearly that separate is inherently unequal. The fact is the *only* argument against same sex marriage is bigotry, and they don't want to accept that they are bigots.

So people are still making the "definition" argument, as if the definition is something given, which means they're not really making a non-religious argument. As late as 1967, Barack Obama's parents would not have been able to legally marry in 16 US states, because of the "definition". The civil union option is no better, since Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) says clearly that separate is inherently unequal. The fact is the *only* argument against same sex marriage is bigotry, and they don't want to accept that they are bigots.

ok, I got one.....

Women already out number men 3 to 1 so if we allow gay marriages then there are just that many fewer men I'll have a shot at turning straight.

How does that sound?

Honestly, I don't have a problem with gays or gay marriages. Like someone said yesterday, they have the right to be miserable too and think of all the money lawyers will make when they start getting divorced. I can think of lots of reasons for gay marriages but no really valid ones against.

I'm not FOR gay marriage, but I'm not AGAINST it either. That said, an argument I've heard of is the whole reproduction dilemma. In marriage, 2 become 1 literally means that by the joining of two people will be be born 1 person. I know.. I though it was just a poetic thing.. but that's what marriage was made for... reproduction. So, since the joining of 2 gay people is not bringing new life into this world... why call it marriage??? A better term to use is union/partnership...

There are none that can't be refuted.

It isn't about the word "marriage". It's that, by calling a gay marriage something else, you are calling it separate - not the same, and that is not right. Separate but not equal is NOT right.

Marriage and civil unions are not the same. Marriage still carries more recognition and benefits than civil unions, and that needs to change in order for there to be true equality.

There are many studies that show children in homosexual families do no better or worse than those in heterosexual families - and in fact are more open and tolerant to others.

Marriage is not about procreation, or infertile and elderly couples could not marry.

I would disagree that "definition" is a bad argument. I am as sympathetic as possible to homosexuals, but why fight this battle? Shouldn't the rights of marriage be acceptable enough? Why force people to change the definition?

Other than it being "icky" or against all government sanctioned marriages, only thing I can think of is it not helping the human race in any real "positive" way. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce with the ones they love. Other than that...no clue.

This is the best argument I saw

Protecting marriage to protect children

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.

By David Blankenhorn

September 19, 2008

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

<snip>

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

I'm not bothered what they do as long as it's not compulsory for all, then I would have something to say, but that would never happen so I say each to their own. As long as it doesn't affect me I don't care either way what people do.