The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XIII
- Thread starter Mathilda
- Start date
- Status
Quackers
The Frog
USA once, Canada once.
Europe the rest....mainly France.
Europe the rest....mainly France.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
I never left Britain.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
What's a good reason to oppose gay marriage without invoking religion or appeals to nature?
There isn't one.
Mango Elephant
Deity
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Mobby says otherwise. Too bad he never says what that reason is.
No one else has either. It's all "god says it's bad", or "it's a perversion of nature", or, if they are being actually honest, "i hate freedom for people who aren't like me".
chegel
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 246
I do not think there is a good reason.
However gay marriage is in not promoting procreation and so rather a luxury than a necessity. Not that marriage was ever necessary for procreation but it is a social institution to promote it.
Not that I think there is a need to increase the human population nowadays...
However gay marriage is in not promoting procreation and so rather a luxury than a necessity. Not that marriage was ever necessary for procreation but it is a social institution to promote it.
Not that I think there is a need to increase the human population nowadays...
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Marriage has legal components that go beyond children, you know.
chegel
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 246
I know. Marriage must be attractive or else nobody would have a reason get married. This is the reason it is increasing births or at least I think it is; it gives advantages beyond procreation.
I am in favor of gay marriages, just trying to give a reason against them because you asked for it. And this is the only reason I can see because homosexuality is not against nature and I think religion should only matter personally.
I am in favor of gay marriages, just trying to give a reason against them because you asked for it. And this is the only reason I can see because homosexuality is not against nature and I think religion should only matter personally.
chegel
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 246
That is right and I think love and attraction in a marriage are luxuries too. Today marriage is a nice thing to do to declare eternal love andpassion. And so gays should have the possibility to marriage too because their love and passion is the same as that of straight people.
But the original social construction of marriage is rather a security for women for their children and theirselves and for men to have a legally accepted offspring.
My point is that marriage today is rather a fancy family celebration than an institution of social importance (at least in the western world) and so there is no need to oppose gay marriage.
But the original social construction of marriage is rather a security for women for their children and theirselves and for men to have a legally accepted offspring.
My point is that marriage today is rather a fancy family celebration than an institution of social importance (at least in the western world) and so there is no need to oppose gay marriage.
How about being opposed to marriage as a government sanctioned relationship at all?
I know that's not what you meant -- I expect you meant, oppose gay marriage, but support straight marriage -- but if you oppose government sanctioned marriage for anyone, then technically you do oppose gay marriage. (As well as straight marriage) And that's a position that can be defended fairly reasonably on secular grounds, too.
It applies, because you (Well, SS-18) didn't clearly specify the terms for your desired argument clearly enough. Saying it doesn't applies is like asking for an argument about not eating mammals, and then complaining when someone provides an argument against eating any meat whatsoever -- it does exactly what you asked, it just doesn't fit with your (fairly arbitrary) implied premise.
OK, so there is this specific sect of religious people who can't eat mammals. I ask for a single good reason.
Some other guy comes in with some reason that has nothing to do with the circumstances under which I posed the question.
That is what just happened here. That is why it needs not apply.
Some other guy comes in with some reason that has nothing to do with the circumstances under which I posed the question.
That is what just happened here. That is why it needs not apply.
Aside from the argument Elrohir gave - which I was going to do - there's the argument I've seen offered against bigamy; it's too much bloody paperwork.
Then specify the circumstances under which you're posing questions explicitly, so that you don't end up rejecting perfectly good arguments for what seem like arbitrary and later reasons.
But fine, if you insist: You could argue with some justification that marriage is a purely social construction, which is recognized by the government for reasons of social benefit. But since society at large does not believe in gay marriage (At the very least, it generally fails when it comes to a vote) government recognition of gay marriage is effectively a governmental imposition of unwanted cultural values, something which is arguably Not The Government's Job in a democracy. We generally think of governments as serving the people, not telling them that they should hold different values -- especially when it concerns the allocation of privileges, rather than fundamental human rights. (I actually do think that government recognized marriage is a privilege, not a fundamental human right -- although the equally strong counterpoint is that even if marriage isn't a right, equality and fair treatment are, which would count against the unfair denial of privileges just as much as rights)
I think that argument is kinda weak, but it's better than quite a few arguments that actually convince people, so you never know.
- Status