One thing I have noticed pretty much every time there is a post about gay marriage, pretty much all people against it bring up religious issues. Now, I am a religious person myself, but I whole heartedly believe that laws in the US should maintain separation of church and state. So, here is what I want with this thread. Talk about your stance on gay marriage purely from a legal standpoint, NOT your religious perspective. If you are against it, give a good reason that isn't religion. I made a statement a while back that pretty much any person/politician who does not think gay marriage should be legal bases that off religious reasons. I have never heard a remotely good argument against it without religious reasons. Lets see if there are any out there.

Just so you know, if your post talks about how you are religiously against it, you clearly did not read this post, and I will edit out your post. 

I guess I should have put my opinion on my own thread  

I believe that there is absolutely no reason from a political view to keep gay marriage illegal when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. As I stated earlier, I can't think of a politician who votes against gay marriage who doesn't mention religious beliefs. Lets face it. Marriage is not a sacred thing when it comes to legality in the eyes of the court/state. So that argument is null. Another 'argument' I have heard against it is that gay people don't have to get married. Those who push it so much just want the legal benefits of marriage. I'm not saying that wouldn't be true with some gay people, but how is that any different that the many heterosexuals who simply get married for some kind of benefit? I have met people who got married so one can get the other's health insurance. Why do they get to be married, why can't a committed gay couple who truly love each other? It's discrimination, yet so many people don't see this. Those who claim they don't discriminate and vote against gay marriage is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance. This is just an example of how not "all men are created equal" here.

I said before in a similar topic (Same one Oldschool41 is talking about) my views is pretty much the stereotypical view of what most people say: If it doesn't harm anyone else, bother anyone else, even involve anyone else, it should be allowed.



It isn't just my only opinion on it and I certainly don't think that being gay myself, that's pretty much my opinion on many things. There's other reasons of course, but you Rcarter2, have pretty much said them better than I could say so myself.


I think too many people vote on what they like; not what they believe is truly right. But that's just my personal opinion on the entire matter as a whole.

rcarter2 : Correct your right about legality in the eyes of the state. However a politician gets a lot of money from religious groups to make sure that gay marriage isn't legalized so there is a money issue as well regarding why a politician votes against gay marriage. But back on topic I think it their is another issue as well. According to Boy Scouts of America vs Dale, the Courts have ruled that private companies can "legally discrimminate" (that is my own words by the way) against gays since the Scouts are a private group. If the Court reverses and goes against Stare Decisis then we have another issue if gay marraige is legalize does it apply to private groups like Boy Scouts of America also? That is my guess what opponites would argue in the Supreme Court to vote against the UNION benefits for gay couples.

Oldschool41 : Yeah, I have heard that Boy Scouts thing too. I find that kind of ridiculous as well. "We can't allow gay marriage because then we gotta make Boy Scouts change their rules". *Eye roll*. haha.

rcarter2 : Yeah, but it does have a point since judges don't really want to go against Stare Decisis and with the Supreme Court being a conservative one (pending what happens with the Cheif Justice if he flipped) they might not reverse the decision.

Because god said it was bad, and obviously its far worse than any of his rules i ignore.
Wow, i couldnt even type that without smirking at the hypocrisy.
Its already apparent to people my view on it, iv stated it enough.
However in being unbiased myself and attempting to remain impartial, using only logic in order to conclude which side to support, i'd list the commen arguments i have heard.

Marriage opens the door for further legal rights, e.g adoption. A child should have a father and mother, absence of one and 2 of the other will confuse/damage them.
Personally, i think that kids are better off with a familly than an orphanage, and similarly there are plenty of single parents who do a perfectly good job.

Gays started aids, and cause sexual diseases
/ilnesses, allowing marriage incourages this.
Bull. There is no evidence for this. Aids is believed to have originated in africa, where even now gays are treated terribly. back then even worse. i fail to see how this could happen, especially since it apparently originated in apes.
If they spread aids then there must be a lot of bisexuals and then very loose hetrosexuals, meaning the blame is pretty evenly placed.

And there relationship dosent create new diseases... a lot of men and woman do the same things gays do, i havent heard any calls to ban that.

It damages social structure.
If youre so naive as to care about other peoples relationships then maybe, yes, but why should everyone suffer to apease your bias?

It has a negative mental aspect on gays.
What?
Surveys clearly show that in countrys were gays can marry they are happier, and there are less of them seeking medical help. That actually helps society, less ques, less bills, yay.

It corrupts children.
How many gays are there in the usa?
Apparently about 3.8% of the usa are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender.
If they corrupt theyre doing a pathetic job of it. The worlds over populated anyway, maybe being gay is natures way of population controlo,lol.

There is no proof being gay is a choice, if it is, theyre pretty clever because attaching nodes to your head shows your brain activity and to be able to subdue that for other genders and light it up like a christmas tree from those of the same gender, thats a level of inner control i lack in spades.
Ergo ow they will corrupt children i do not know, iv never seen a leaflet asking me to switch sexuality so i dont see that happening. Logically if we tolerate muslims, and show what they believe, it will corrupt childfren to islam too? Its not as if most schools even teach about homosexuals anyway, they just (occasionaly) stop mistreatment based on it, since when was toleration a form of corruption.
On top of that i dont think legalising gay marriage would be the death knell. Im not convinced i should become gay.
Gays can legally marry now.
Oh, in that case we have a deal.
????
rip logic, died post anthropocene age

As warmaker said, cant reproduce. The population really needs to stop soon anyway, i dont get how people moan about immigrants yet defend needing more children. More 'white' children more like.

The romans and greeks actually though a gay relationship proved your man hood and that it was a beautifull thing. its funny how we tout them as the first great civilisations yet ignore those parts.

not massively related to the point at hand but i think its interesting to see:
http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-gay-men-list-of-gay-men-throughout-history/famous-gay-and-lesbian

Thats all the usually crap arguments i can remember about why allowing gay marriage will destroy our civilisations. Much the same as when we opposed freedom for slaves or equality for women really, one day people will realise that current attitudes often amount to intolerance.

I am personally support gay marriage despite not being gay myself.
I believe that everyone, even homosexuals, should have the right to marry the person they love.

I'm religious you could say, if Gay/Lesbian want to spend their earthly lives together? Let them! as i do think marriage started as a Religious thing. Laws have made it that this step is needed in ownership and what not with all the legal documents you need in life that is solved when you get married. These couples don't have that so the fight for it and who is it going to hurt if they get married, really.

I support gay marriage, not civil UNIONs. Just give them marriage. Civil UNIONs don't allow shared insurance between the couple so if the spouse with a disease doesn't have insurance, it's really unfortunate. It's going to happen eventually anyway. People will keep fighting for it, the public will grow more and more open to the idea over time, and then it will happen. Might as well get on the bandwagon now instead of looking like an old hater in the future. 

NotJon : Thought I should add that the Supreme Court is taking up the same case that you had just mentioned in your post. Whatever direction the Supreme Court takes, will set precedent for future cases involving gay couples.

rcarter2 : I really like the fact that you are keeping your religious views out of your opinion on political issues and the sort. I agree completely with you that laws and things like that should not be based on religious views and standpoints. Not everyone in the world is of the same religion, I'm an atheist for example. But any who, that is not what you wanted to talk about. I believe that gay marriage should be legal and that no one whether they are for or against it should stand in the way of how two people feel about each other. A lot of the time, people who are of the two genders and are in love often stay together longer than a heterosexual couple. A lot of people also go on this whole, "well if you support gay marriage then you must be gay" first of all I am not gay, but do you realize how offensive that is to say to someone? What if that person actually is gay, then that comment went way to far and could hurt some ones feelings. It is ridiculous to me that some people in this world can be so intolerant. So what if someone is gay? It's not like everyone has to be gay, and it's not like they have to change their lifestyle to fit yours better. I think that if we legalize gay marriage in all 50 states then it will show that the US is one step closer to trying to obtain peace. I'm sorry I kind of went on a little rant with this, I'm just kind of big against intolerance.

rcarter2 : I consider myself to be semi-religious. (Prays every day several times a day and watches daily mass online daily.) Personally I don’t have a problem with Gay marriage. People should be able to do what they want in regard to who they marry. I take judge not lest ye be judged seriously and I just think that there is too much judgment in this world and too often you see a politician take a stance on an issue like this for the sole reason of potential political gain and not actual reasoning. Far as I’m concern there shouldn’t be a problem if gay people want to get married and yes you’re right there is suppose to be a separation of church and state, emphasis on the phrase “Suppose to.”

I really don’t like judging people and there are some who are far too quick to pass judgment without really knowing what their talking about half the time. In regard to this I think my philosophy that I try to live by kind of fits my feelings… Who is anyone to tell anyone else how to live? It’s all interpretation. I say this as a God fearing man.

The only real major issues with gay marriage is the effects it would have on an adopted child and who would get to keep their last name when they marry one another? I don't think it is right for a gay couple to adopt any child unless the child is gay or understands what the hell is going on.

Marriage to me is like your average contract agreement. It's not in place to say you love someone, its there to outline duties and responsibilities proving you love someone and protect assets in case one party fails to live up to the agreement. The most important asset in marriage in my opinion is a child and that is the only reason why you should even marry someone so that the child is protected in case something goes wrong. Without a child, you are just singing an emotional agreement with government saying you love someone with the only assets being materialistic items. Maybe that is a good thing cause it is worse when babies are involved.

Legal marriage is not necessarily about love, its mainly about money and assets. So if you are gay and want to get married so be it, it might be a good idea to protect your assets with a prenuptial agreement. You do NOT need government or legal documents saying you love someone however you do need them if you want to protect assets in case something goes terribly wrong.

I'm a religious person myself, but I never had anything against the homosexual marriage.

Particularly, I think that everybody should have the right to live the way they are, you can't force a butcher to become a soldier on the military, it's just like the sexuality, everybody have their own interests, and no one have the right to make accusations of what's wrong or right about the person, the person have to decide what is wrong or what is right for him.

Like my father said one day to me, even our OWN hands don't have the same finger marks, 1 same body, but differences on both sides, it's just like every single person in the world, NO ONE is identical to another, we have different ideas, different tastes, different interests and different goals, the same way works for sexuality interests, some people have similar interests, others do not, it is something that everyone should learn to respect, anyway, what kind of bad thing can a homosexual do for you? It's just another person in the world, of course as long as the person respect our preferences, we shall respect the person too.

Very excellent topic with you saying leave religion out of it! I personally am not against gay marriage because I believe that you can't help who you love. And quite honestly now days most people don't take marriage seriously. I think the gay community believes in the sanctity of marriage more then straight people do now in this day and age.  So why shouldn't they be able to enter into something that drunk people can in Vegas. They clearly value it more.

katie.rae : That actually is a pretty good point. There has always been the argument that strait couples have already devalued the sanctity of marriage and a gay couple who love each other wouldn't do that, but I have never heard the argument of gay couples striving for marriage shows that they would be more committed to it. It does make sense. Any strait couple can get married. But when you have a community who can't get married who are fighting so hard for that right would indicate that marriage means a lot to them, so you would likely see more commitment to that marriage.

My Stance:

1) From a historical perspective, marriage started as a legal contract that revolved around inheritance and property ownership. It has always been a legal arrangement, first and foremost. The connection with "sanctity" and religion steams from the governments of the old world also controlling the government (Rome, Medieval Europe, Imperial China, etc).

2) Drawing a parallel to the Civil Rights movement, separate is NOT equal. Civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage. Also, if you look at all of the arguments against interracial marriage before Loving v Virginia, you could substitute "mixed race" for "gay" and the signs would be the same.

3) As Katie pointed out, the term "sanctity of marriage" is a joke in a society where you have things like Brittany's Spears or Kim Kardashian's marriages, infidelity of our nation's leaders (I have lost track of how many people in the government have had affairs, not to mention the celebs and people that you just hear about on the street)

4) I think that gay couples should have the right to adopt. They can provide a loving home, and it isn't hard to explain to the child what all is going on once they are old enough to understand. I've met several people who were raised from birth by gay parents, and they are no different than those raised by a straight couple or single parent.

5) Homosexuality has long been documented in nature, so calling it "an abomination" is a load of bull. Is it nature's way of population control? Maybe, I cannot say for certain. Regardless, it's there.