The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien - The One Ring

by **Guruthostirn** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:37 pm

Ok, this is a slightly old topic, but I've been curious about this. I've heard Plenty of religious reasons for why same sex marriages should be banned, but I've heard very few that Aren't based on religion. Ironically, one came from a religious person. However, I want to hear from some of you all. Are there nonreligious reasons for banning same sex marriages?

by **ihadababyitsaboy** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:16 pm

I think it is a bad idea on the grounds that if you begin widening the umbrella for what is and isn't marriage for one particular minority group, then others will find a basis for pushing their own agendas. It would be hard to deny polygamists (for example) the right to include their practices under legal marriage once you widen it for another special interest group.

by **DaisyBaggins** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:31 pm

I have to agree that once you broaden the definition of marriage that other groups(and there are many) will also want their own version of marriage. For example, polygamists have already asked for polygamy to be legal.

by **Guruthostirn** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:41 pm

That leads to a slightly different topic: what are the nonreligious reasons against other types of couplings? Eventually, it leads to the problem of whether there's any good nonreligious reasons for marriage being special at all. What say you all?

by **TheEllipticalDisillusion** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 11:12 pm

Is there a non-religious reason to limit marriage?

by **TolkienLover** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 11:26 pm

Yeah TED. Some people here use the slippery slope argument to say 'well if we allow gays to marry, next thing someone will wanna marry their pet goat.'

by **TheEllipticalDisillusion** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:12 am

Who's to say that a human and pet goat could not have a loving relationship?

by **Koba** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:36 am

<< It would be hard to deny polygamists (for example) the right to include their practices under legal marriage once you widen it for another special interest group. >> We haven´t had any problems with gay marriages... No polygamist has come claiming the same rights.

by **LordoftheF15Eagles** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:42 am

Next thing you know there will be a forty year old wanting to marry a ten year old.

by **Edhelwen** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:04 am

A non-religious reason for marriage is stability for the children. If a couple merely lives together they are a lot more likely to split up then if they are married. However marriages can be terminated and this leads to the issue of divorce etc... Non-religious reasons for gay marriages are a lot harder to pin down as the majority of people who disagree with gay relationships do so for religious reasons. {Note the wording: disagree with the relationship does not mean they treat the person any less human. Making the difference between the act and the person is a key point.} Opening the floodgates is one reason but why doesn't Guruthostirn expand on the {admitedly few} reasons he has heard? Ed.

by **ihadababyitsaboy** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:08 am

-We haven´t had any problems with gay marriages... No polygamist has come claiming the same rights.- We have already had that happen here.

by **Wandering but not lost** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:37 am

I think this is a very interesting thread merely because it made me realize how many of the arguments, for example the polygamy one, even still have religion behind it. On the topic of polygamy, I do not see why it would have to be recognized- nor incest for that matter- and here is a copy of a post that has been made in another thread by me on that matter arguing why it is a different issue to some extent or at least why gay marriages could be recognized but the others not "The problem is where do you draw the line on marriage. Up to gay couples and no more? What about polygamy? Are we infringing on muslim or mormon rights? Incest? There are many documented instances throughout history of marriages between brother and sister." -polygamy: The only argument I saw for this easiness to make fradulent claims of marriage for benefits such as insurance etc because if there are a large amount of people married to one individual then there is a massive complication of inheritance rights. Also, since a person could get married and have no restriction based on their actions as a result of being married (i.e. they can get married multiple times so in effect they could marry one person for money and then also marry one person for citizenship and marry one person for love) it can be argued that it does indeed bear question then as to the purpose of marriage. Can love be expressed between so many people? Also, it raises numerous difficult situations because it is generally seen as a very anti-feminine institution. Say wife one has health insurance. She marries husband A. Husband A marries wife 2 also. Does wife 2 benefit from Wife One's insurance? Then, say that we also allow polygyny (women having many husbands). Wife 2 marries husband B. Can husband B then benefit from wife one's insurance though husband B and Wife one never took marriage vows? However, why would wife 2 have insurance but not husband b since they are married? Finally, are husband B and wife one considered married? Then further added, would husband A and husband B be considered married as well by the same logic that wife 2 and Husband B are married? That was a complex question but it bears some credence as to why polygamy is different from LGBT marriage. -Incest: Incest can be considered detrimental to a society from scientific evidence of genetical appearance of undesirable birth defects/genetic diseases. While it bears the argument of why should we restrict people based on science (should we restrict Jewish people from producing children because of high amounts of Ty Sacs disease?) there is a different argument here as to why they should not/should be married than why LGBT people should not/should be married. There was a somewhat interesting argument about economic reasons for not allowing gay marriages that asked about what the purpose of a society supporting it is if it does not produce children. However, that argument was I feel well retaliated in the other thread though it was perhaps the only argument I can think of that was entirely non-religious. One difficulty though I see is that, like people in philosophy trying to prove the existence of God, often times the individual starts with a belief and seeks to justify it instead of having a belief based on justification. Given such, that is why I somewhat feel a lot of the arguments are somewhat lacking- they do not really convince why someone shouldnt support gay marriage I feel and are more to reinforce people's beliefs that religion is the motivation to not support it. I would be curious to hear from some athiests on the topic or perhaps some non-Western religions maybe too.

by **ihadababyitsaboy** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:17 am

-The only argument I saw for this easiness to make fradulent claims of marriage for benefits such as insurance etc because if there are a large amount of people married to one individual then there is a massive complication of inheritance rights.- This can be easily overcome with a clearly defined Will I’m sure. -Also, since a person could get married and have no restriction based on their actions as a result of being married (i.e. they can get married multiple times so in effect they could marry one person for money and then also marry one person for citizenship and marry one person for love)- Is there anything inherently wrong in doing this though? Marriage is abused by heterosexuals in many of the ways you describe, and will undoubtedly be abused just as equally by homosexuals if they receive the right to marriage. -Also, it raises numerous difficult situations because it is generally seen as a very anti-feminine institution.- I don’t see how this can be true if the women enter it voluntarily. It’s not like arranged marriages that take place in the Middle East. They are all consenting adults. -That was a complex question but it bears some credence as to why polygamy is different from LGBT marriage.- It might take new legislation for insurance rights, but if this is the only hang-up it could be easily overcome. -Incest can be considered detrimental to a society from scientific evidence of genetical appearance of undesirable birth defects/genetic diseases.- Would you consider banning ‘genetically risky’ individuals from marrying in other instances? If cancer or heart disease or other hereditary health problem runs in the family, should they be disallowed the opportunity to marry in order to keep society purer? -Given such, that is why I somewhat feel a lot of the arguments are somewhat lacking- they do not really convince why someone shouldnt support gay marriage I feel and are more to reinforce people's beliefs that religion is the motivation to not support it.- I find that it seems that many who chastise the opponents of gay marriage for using personal bias as a standard, do the same thing in regards to other unions, such as incest and polygamy, and it strikes me as being a tad hypocritical

by **yovargas** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:26 am

I would be curious to hear from some athiests on the topic or perhaps some non-Western religions maybe too. I'm an atheist. And I'm gay too. What was it that you wanted to hear? There was a somewhat interesting argument about economic reasons for not allowing gay marriages that asked about what the purpose of a society supporting it is if it does not produce children. This I always felt was the closest thing to a legitamate argument. One problem with that argument is that currently, married folk who don't (or can't) have kids get those benefits. If the idea is that society supports marriage for the children, then the economic benefits of marriage should only apply to those with children. And that would include gay couples who have adopted or had children through other means. Other problem with that argument is that marriage has legal benefits besides those for children, notably inheratence and citizenship rights. There is no reason that these benefits should not be allowed to gay couples too.

by **yovargas** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:28 am

What ihadababyitsaboy said.

by **Magpie** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:42 am

-We haven´t had any problems with gay marriages... No polygamist has come claiming the same rights.- There are also socieities in which polygamy is allowed by gay marriage is not. This argument assumes that they are forbidden for the same reason, but they don't really have anything to do with each other. Using the argument that "if these people can do it anyone can," suggests that polygamists already have the right to marry because heterosexuals can marry. Gay people are not a special interests group currently not allowed to marry--they are all legally able to marry, they're just allowed to marry the person they want, despite the fact that this person is also legally allowed to marry. -m

by **DaisyBaggins** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:18 am

Gay marriage is not in the interest of society as a whole. (Please see link.) If gay marriage becomes accepted, the institution not only will be redefined, but the concept of what marriage is will drastically change. From what I've read gay men who are in long-term relationships are rarely faithful to their partners. Presently people who are married are supposed to be faithful to each other. <A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://www.wataugademocrat.com/topic.php?tid=20&">http://www.wataugademocrat.com/topic.php?tid=20&</A>;sid=3327

by **ihadababyitsaboy** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:21 am

Remember, heterosexuals are just as guilty of being unfaithfull to their partners as homosexuals are.

by **Magpie** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:24 am

From what I've read gay men who are in long-term relationships are rarely faithful to their partners. Presently people who are married are supposed to be faithful to each other. From what I see on Jerry Springer, heterosexual people in long-term relationships are rarely faithful to their partners. The ability to be faithful has no bearing on whether or not we allow people to get married, so the mud-slinging you're doing is beside the point. Some gay people are far more faithful than some straight people. -m

by **DaisyBaggins** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:59 am

Your post doesn't make any sense. From what I've read, gay men are not faithful to their partners. What does Jerry Springer have to do with this!!!! Of course faithfulness is an intergral of marriage. It is irrational to state anything else. Your post really disturbs me, and I've seem this kind of reply many times. Whenever someone makes a remark that does not support the gay point of view, people don't attempt to make a meaningful reply. Instead, they attack the person and not their argument. In this case when I states a fact that you don't like, I become a mud-slinger. That says a lot about you and nothing about me. And you didn't take the time to read the link I posted. This is a serious issue, and you should discuss it in a serious manner.

by **Telrúnya** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:03 pm

I very much so agree with Magpie's post. One person told me it was because gay people wouldn't be paying as much taxes because they don't have kids. But...heteros can not have kids when they are married, as well. If the government isn't indorsing 1 religion (or 2, rather) like it says it isn't, then same-sex marriages should be legalized by now. Canada did it, certain states are allowing civil unions. It's only a matter of time, and until then, I'm going to keep fighting for my right to marry the person I love. And just because someone didn't take the time to read your link, doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. ¬_¬

by **ihadababyitsaboy** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:31 pm

-If the government isn't indorsing 1 religion (or 2, rather) like it says it isn't, then same-sex marriages should be legalized by now.- There are more than just religious concerns to deal with on this issue, and several of those have been mentioned in this thread.

by **Ari-Anna** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:49 pm

I want a molygomist marriage...(I hope that is right) five or six husbands...all rich...all good looking....and all adoring me....and all giving their money to ME..... Do I need a law for this??? Note to self: start petition letter to congress...

by **Magpie** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:31 pm

Your post doesn't make any sense. From what I've read, gay men are not faithful to their partners. My point is that reading that gay men are not faithful to their partners carries about as much weight as saying from what I've seen heterosexual people aren't faithful to their partners. It's a generalization of an entire group of people that has nothing to do with anything. Some gay men sleep around just as some straight people sleep around. What does Jerry Springer have to do with this!!!! That Jerry Springer provides many examples of heterosexual couples being unfaithful. It is also a show biased against faithful couples because they don't provide conflict. Based on watching Jerry Springer (as opposed to reading articles claiming that gay men can't be faithful) you've argued that heterosexual couples shouldn't get married. Bottom line: being homosexual does not mean that you can not be faithful. Being unfaithful does not mean you can not be married. Of course faithfulness is an intergral of marriage. It is irrational to state anything else. Are you suggesting that there are no marriages where a partner is unfaithful? Your post really disturbs me, and I've seem this kind of reply many times. Whenever someone makes a remark that does not support the gay point of view, people don't attempt to make a meaningful reply. Instead, they attack the person and not their argument. In this case when I states a fact that you don't like, I become a mud-slinger. That says a lot about you and nothing about me. My post was very meaningful and spoke directly to the issue (and it rather "disturbs me" that you feel that doesn't "make sense" ). You said "gay men are not faithful to their partners." Claiming that gay men are unfaithful is mud-slinging (making malicious charges and otherwise attempting to discredit). I have not attacked you in the least but your argument. And you didn't take the time to read the link I posted. I did. I don't understand what these two men who own a boat has to do with anything. This is a serious issue, and you should discuss it in a serious manner. Oh, I do consider it a serious issue, which is why I pointed your argument made no sense whatsoever. I don't see how claiming gay men are all unfaithful takes the issue seriously at all. Your argument as presented is this: gay marriage is wrong because gay men are not faithful and you must be faithful to your partner to be married. I am countering this by saying first of all that to say that all gay men are unfaithful by definition is simply a lie, and second that to claim all straight men and women are faithful is also a lie. Yet straight people are allowed to get married, so obviously the guarantee of faithfulness is not required for them to get married. So why are you making it a requirement for gay people? -m

by **SpaceBallsTheScreenName** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:43 pm

I think the question is based on a faulty premis... Before we can ask the question of "is there a non-religious reson for banning gay marriages" we must first ask ourselves "is there a non-religous reason for marriage?" Is there a reason, outside of religion, to have a wedding and a marriage as opposed to a contract of a civil union? If it is a civil union, then there is no reason to restrict it to anyone. If it is a marraige, then it is, by definition, a religious institution, and therefore is it any wonder that religious values and ideals prevail? Being religious, I find it hard to resolve within me the view that civil "marriage" has nothing to do with religious marriage and should therefore be open to whomever, and the view that I hold that says marriage of same sex couples which implies a sexual union as well as a union in all other aspects, is abhorrent and should not be allowed. For myself, if gay civil unions are allowed, I will not fight it, but I will not actively support bringing them about. I would say let the government enact a civil contractural union between whichever two poeple wish it, and save "marriage" as a religious institution and a separate thing entirely. Religious people can then obtain a civil union by the government, as well as a religious marriage if they choose.

by **Telrúnya** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:09 pm

Well, by that note, shouldn't same-sex marriages be legalized so it wouldn't be "abhorrant" to you and they could have sex inside the marriage union?

by **Malgilwen** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:18 pm

What ever happaned to seperation of church and state? Can anyone give a reason why being gay is wrong without using religion? Before you all say, 'Oh, they can't have kids.' then keep in mind that lots of couples don't have kids. Does that make any two people who love each other and don't have children wrong?

by **SpaceBallsTheScreenName** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:00 pm

Well, by that note, shouldn't same-sex marriages be legalized so it wouldn't be "abhorrant" to you and they could have sex inside the marriage union? I think you misunderstood what I meant. For myself, I find the idea of people of the same gender engaging in sex, and therefore a marriage which implies that type of union would be taking place, abhorrent. However, I also realize that that is my *religious* view, and should not necessarily have a bearing on civil law. As I said, it is a conflict within myself that is hard to find a resolution to since my religious feelings would ban same-gender sex, but my belief in freedom of religion would prevent me from enforcing that view to those who do not hold them. But my initial point stands. Does "marriage" historically even exist outside the confines of a religion? I would say that marriage is necessarily a religious institution and therefore religious morals will govern any discussion of it. That is why I believe that the government should enact civil unions that are a contractural. Leave the marriages to the religions and create a non-religious institution of civil union.

by **Malgilwen** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:06 pm

What if the gays wantng to be married happan to be of a certain religion? Would you denie them the right to be joined in marriage then? Being gay does not mean your an athiest.

by **SpaceBallsTheScreenName** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:18 pm

That's up to the particular religion then, isnt it?

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien - The One Ring

Nonreligious reasons for banning same sex marriages?

Who is online