Gay Marriage Debate (Teil Zwei)
 

I'd like to hear an honest argument, with decent laid out points, not relying on religion in the slightest, as to why Gay Marriage is a bad thing.

If someone can construct an argument, I will take you seriously, but until then, I'm just putting it down to religious intolerance or unexplained homophobia.

the very thought that you would want an argument that is non religous testifies to your ignorance. marriage is a religous rite. it is one of the sacraments. it IS religious. to argue that marriage is a totally secular institution is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

But, in an attempt to satisfy you, I'll give you a secular reason. TRADITION. every civilization that has ever existed has had some form of marriage, and it has always been between a man and a woman. I am not against gays having whatever adult relations they wish (tolerant, but not supportive of it) but to call it marriage offends me greatly.

if atheists can complain about god existing in the pledge of allegience, then i will complain about the very notion of two persons of the same gender getting married.

And traditionally women have stayed home and made babies but that went out the window.
Then take away the legal benefits so it doesn't benefit the married couple outside of church then it stays in the church.

The point is that with our separation of church and state, the church should not be able to grant legal benefits to some and deny them to others, so the two best solutions to ensure that its at least to some extent fair is to either grant homosexuals the right to marry or take away marriage benefits so it doesn't affect life outside the church.

Marriage is practiced everywhere. In every country, despite religious beliefs.
Legally, two gay people can go to a church, have a big party, and say they are married, what is illegal is for two people of the same sex to be married legally. So no, this is not a religous issue.
That is, easily, the crappiest argument for or against anything ever. Just because we've been doing something doesn't mean we should continue.

All right, I concede the point that perhaps tradition isn't the best of arguments. But marriage IS a religious practice. If we were to legalize civil unions or whatever, then that would solve the problem of marriage benefits. But that doesn't make it MARRIAGE. Actually, I would like to see civil unions very much. It would reduce problems such as the spread of HIV due to sleeping around.

Not me. Separate but equal didn't work last time.

Umm...how?

With something official (such as marriage or civil unions) some people are more inclined to try and make it work. If the relationship works, there won't be breaking up and moving on (increasing risk of getting infected).

A few years ago, there was a study that said that couples who live together before getting married are more likely to get divorced. My guess is that by having civil unions, those gays that get unionized (or however it would be said) before having sexual relations are also less likely to get "divorced".

Here's two problems with what you are saying:
1) No one, anywhere, will want to get "civilly unionized", They want to get married.
2) The gay people who get married are all ready married in every sense except legally. They don’t just fuck around because they can’t use the word.

Oh yeah, and:
3)it's segregation, which is wrong.

Yes the point is that by not calling it all the same thing, you lose the essence of equality. In my opinion the best idea (if we want to keep marriage) is to call both hetero and homosexual civil unions then allow "marriage" to be the same as something like baptism where it really doesn't have legal impact but is still a church only thing.

It'd be nice to get more people opposed to gay marriage in here I'd like more than one viewpoint so we can have a debate instead of a dogpile.