Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

S/O Non-Religious Reasons Against Same Sex Marriage

Posted by   + Show Post
Since the US is not a theocracy & the US Constitution has the Establishment Clause I don't care about religious reasons to have laws against or bans on SSM.

I am wondering if anyone here is against SSM for purely non-religious reasons, & if so, would be willing to share those reasons.

I am for either legalizing SSM or getting rid of US marriage for all couples & the US only recognizing civil unions for both straight & gay couples. I strongly support the US Constitution, including the Establishment Clause, & I don't think that religion should be used to infringe on the rights of our citizens.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Feb. 5, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Replies (201-210):
Billiejeens
by Gold Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM

 

40 out of the 50 states agree with her.

Awww

Quoting chloedee:

Make that three of us.

Quoting Bookwormy:

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a logical argument. Thus far, at least two of us think you have failed to meet this burden.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 By all means, if you think so, explain how it is illogical. And tell me why platonic partners deserve less rights than gay couples.


Quoting Bookwormy:

That's illogical.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 Which is why legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns.  There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners.



Quoting Bookwormy:

I procreated intentionally in a SS relationship. It can't happen accidently, but it happens intentionally all the time.


 


 

 


 

Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Since GLB is not included in federal non-discrimination laws, as a nation we do NOT say that gays & lesbians are equal. We don't have to be hired even if we are more qualified, we can be fired solely based on sexual orientation, we can legally be harrassed & called dyke, homo, fagot, gaywod, etc with no recourse, we can be refused service at McDonalds, we can be refused access to our dying partner's bedside, we can be refused housing based on who we love, & no one seems to care that GLBT teens are bullied & killing themselves. So we are seperate & unequal. We have to be equal before Brown V Brd of Ed can apply.


Quoting frogbender:

Considering that gay couples who have children must actually plan to have these children (either through IVF or adoption), the whole promotion of child-rearing goes out the window. Couples that really want children generally do a wonderful job of raising their children, including providing healthy environments for their children. Many straight couples who have children by accident (because it is much easier for a straight couple to have children by accident for obvious reasons) don't necessarily provide healthy environs for children.

Also, by not providing equal treatment of gays, we are causing some factions in the U.S. to treat them as sub-human. That's rather sad. Saying you can have the rights but cannot get married is the same as saying you are equal, but only just so equal. Separate but equal. I thought we were over this kind of nonsense in the U.S. (That's satire, because I know better.) Trying to get people to get over their prejudices and indoctrination is like trying to herd cats.

So no, there is no good reason for this that is not religious.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
chloedee
by Bronze Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:15 AM
2 moms liked this

And a large majority of young people support gay marriage, so we'll see what the future brings. Particularly as the older generation who are against it die off.

Awwwww

Quoting Billiejeens:


40 out of the 50 states agree with her.

Awww

Quoting chloedee:

Make that three of us.

Quoting Bookwormy:

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a logical argument. Thus far, at least two of us think you have failed to meet this burden.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 By all means, if you think so, explain how it is illogical. And tell me why platonic partners deserve less rights than gay couples.


Quoting Bookwormy:

That's illogical.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 Which is why legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns.  There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners.



Quoting Bookwormy:

I procreated intentionally in a SS relationship. It can't happen accidently, but it happens intentionally all the time.


 








Billiejeens
by Gold Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM

 

Well that's not very nice.

That would be like me saying if we had simply not interfered with nature and let HIV run it's course, this would be mostly a moot point by now - That would be a mean thing to say.

Quoting chloedee:

And a large majority of young people support gay marriage, so we'll see what the future brings. Particularly as the older generation who are against it die off.

Awwwww

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

40 out of the 50 states agree with her.

Awww

Quoting chloedee:

Make that three of us.

Quoting Bookwormy:

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a logical argument. Thus far, at least two of us think you have failed to meet this burden.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 By all means, if you think so, explain how it is illogical. And tell me why platonic partners deserve less rights than gay couples.


Quoting Bookwormy:

That's illogical.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 Which is why legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns.  There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners.



Quoting Bookwormy:

I procreated intentionally in a SS relationship. It can't happen accidently, but it happens intentionally all the time.


 


 

 

 

 

 

 


 

frogbender
by Captain Underpants on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:20 AM
1 mom liked this


I should have expanded on that. Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to a portion of the public who say let LGBT have the same rights as a married couple, but don't allow them to get married. Looking at it now, I see that it would be easy to misinterpret to think that I was under the illusion that the LGBT portion of the population is treated equally. 

Quoting Bookwormy:

Since GLB is not included in federal non-discrimination laws, as a nation we do NOT say that gays & lesbians are equal. We don't have to be hired even if we are more qualified, we can be fired solely based on sexual orientation, we can legally be harrassed & called dyke, homo, fagot, gaywod, etc with no recourse, we can be refused service at McDonalds, we can be refused access to our dying partner's bedside, we can be refused housing based on who we love, & no one seems to care that GLBT teens are bullied & killing themselves. So we are seperate & unequal. We have to be equal before Brown V Brd of Ed can apply.


Quoting frogbender:

Considering that gay couples who have children must actually plan to have these children (either through IVF or adoption), the whole promotion of child-rearing goes out the window. Couples that really want children generally do a wonderful job of raising their children, including providing healthy environments for their children. Many straight couples who have children by accident (because it is much easier for a straight couple to have children by accident for obvious reasons) don't necessarily provide healthy environs for children.

Also, by not providing equal treatment of gays, we are causing some factions in the U.S. to treat them as sub-human. That's rather sad. Saying you can have the rights but cannot get married is the same as saying you are equal, but only just so equal. Separate but equal. I thought we were over this kind of nonsense in the U.S. (That's satire, because I know better.) Trying to get people to get over their prejudices and indoctrination is like trying to herd cats.

So no, there is no good reason for this that is not religious.




NWP
by guerrilla girl on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM
3 moms liked this

Yep...Personally I find looking to the future exciting. I love that in general, young people are more inclusive and care less about race and sexual orientation.

Quoting chloedee:

And a large majority of young people support gay marriage, so we'll see what the future brings. Particularly as the older generation who are against it die off.

Awwwww

North West Passage

chloedee
by Bronze Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM
1 mom liked this

It would be not at all like saying that, but somehow being nice doesn't seem like your main concern.

The truth of my statement remains. The younger generation overwhelming supports equal marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is literally dying.

Quoting Billiejeens:


Well that's not very nice.

That would be like me saying if we had simply not interfered with nature and let HIV run it's course, this would be mostly a moot point by now - That would be a mean thing to say.

Quoting chloedee:

And a large majority of young people support gay marriage, so we'll see what the future brings. Particularly as the older generation who are against it die off.

Awwwww

Quoting Billiejeens:


40 out of the 50 states agree with her.

Awww

Quoting chloedee:

Make that three of us.

Quoting Bookwormy:

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a logical argument. Thus far, at least two of us think you have failed to meet this burden.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 By all means, if you think so, explain how it is illogical. And tell me why platonic partners deserve less rights than gay couples.


Quoting Bookwormy:

That's illogical.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 Which is why legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns.  There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners.



Quoting Bookwormy:

I procreated intentionally in a SS relationship. It can't happen accidently, but it happens intentionally all the time.


 












lokilover
by Bronze Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 12:37 PM



Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting lokilover:

I was thinking about what I had said earlier, and I did some searching and found this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=hAfvbwAACAAJ.

I think that this is probably the only good non-religious argument against Gay Marriage that you will find. Even then, I don't think the authors would be opposed to it being legal.

 No, the chief general argument is that equality-for-all cannot be obtained through marriage, that it's merely a way of "othering" people and that the advantages given to marrieds vs nonmarrieds should be dismantled:

"When it comes to gay marriage, the times, they are a-confusing. For instance, we recently overhead some people extolling the virtues of marriage, and how it allowed them to finally join in family gatherings as respectable married people, instead of skulking in as shamefully unmarried partners. They reminisced about the joys of being able to walk up to coworkers and introduce their husbands, the sparkle of their wedding rings legitimizing their socially sanctioned and forever-to-be unions.

by Conrad and Castonguay (2007)

"You might wonder: Were we somewhere near the extreme right-wing group Focus on the Family? Perhaps we were taking a tour of the Jerry Falwell museum, which houses his wife’s wedding dress?

No. Those words came from the mouths of gays arguing that gay marriage is necessary for the well being of the world. In fact, we hear rumors that rainbows appear every day in all the states where gay marriage is legal; that the children of gay married couples are healthier, wiser, kinder; that they can and do beat up the nasty illegitimate spawn of those who dare to remain unmarried; and that the cats of married gay men regularly crap nuggets of gold.

Gay marriage apes hetero privilege and allows everyone to forget that marriage ought not to be the guarantor of rights like health care. In their constant invoking of the “right” to gay marriage, mainstream gays and lesbians express a confused tangle of wishes and desires. They claim to contest the Right’s conservative ideology yet insist that they are more moral and hence more deserving than sluts like us. They claim that they simply want the famous 1000+ benefits but all of these, like the right to claim protection in cases of domestic violence, can be made available to non-marital relationships.

We wish that the GM crowd would simply cop to it: Their vision of marriage is the same as that of the Right, and far from creating FULL EQUALITY NOW! as so many insist (in all caps and exclamation marks, no less) gay marriage increases economic inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the basics like health care and economic rights."

http://www.againstequality.org/about/marriage/

(pic part of article)

What you're saying is true (for at least one author of the book), but I still don't think they would be opposed to it. I just think they wouldn't advocate for it and don't think it should be one of the major battles of the LGBT movement.


Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 1:16 PM
But many do think whether the couple stays together impacts the outcome of the child's success. In this study even the lesbian moms who broke up had children who's kids were more successful.

I don't think having infertile fathers, which is why heterosexuals use artificial insemination, would have made the study more valid. You have failed to prove the distinction between male infertile couples & and ttc heterosexual couples. Only having intentional pregnancies in the control group is important IMO. Again, you have failed to prove your logic.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 Hmm, then the controls should be straight couples who use artificial insemination, because you'll very likely find statistical differences between outcomes within straight couples who artificially inseminate or who concieve through intercourse, even if it's all intentional. 


I was not referring to planning as it regards the outcome of the couple, but rather the outcome of the child.


Quoting Bookwormy:

The lesbians didn't use IVF, just insemination. The control only needed to have straight couples who intended to reproduce. They did this so that they weren't using kids from formerly straight relationships. I don't know whether they did or not. Even the children who's moms broke up faired better than the kids of straight parents. All the planning in the world doesn't keep a couple happily together.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 I've referred to this study in some of my own posts in the past. I think a very good reason for the results is that in the case of the study, the parents were older and more mature than average, and only had children deliberately and through planning.  To test this, the study should be compared to the results of children born to hetero parents through invitro. I would predict the results to be similar.



Quoting Bookwormy:



http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html



Their research demonstrates that children parented by lesbians do better than those parented by heterosexuals in several areas & as well in others. The only issue that wasn't as good was that when they were 10yo they dealt with homophobia in the 1980's. By their older adolescent years, however, they were better adjusted & over that.



This research demonstrates that the biggest problem children raised by lesbians have are homophobes & not their mother or mothers. Read this article for an understanding.



Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers



((snip))



 



 



 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM
1 mom liked this
Since lesbians are much less effected by HIV than heterosexuals or gay men, & GLB keep being born no matter how many of us are killed in hate crimes or by disease, we never die out. As I recall, most research into HIV was done when heterosexuals started dying from it in high numbers.

Conservatives do seem to be dying out. Goodbye Retirement Party!

I strongly suggest, however, not feedibg the TROLL. It thives off of attention.


Quoting chloedee:

It would be not at all like saying that, but somehow being nice doesn't seem like your main concern.

The truth of my statement remains. The younger generation overwhelming supports equal marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is literally dying.


Quoting Billiejeens:



Well that's not very nice.


That would be like me saying if we had simply not interfered with nature and let HIV run it's course, this would be mostly a moot point by now - That would be a mean thing to say.


Quoting chloedee:


And a large majority of young people support gay marriage, so we'll see what the future brings. Particularly as the older generation who are against it die off.


Awwwww


Quoting Billiejeens:




40 out of the 50 states agree with her.


Awww


Quoting chloedee:


Make that three of us.


Quoting Bookwormy:

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a logical argument. Thus far, at least two of us think you have failed to meet this burden.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 By all means, if you think so, explain how it is illogical. And tell me why platonic partners deserve less rights than gay couples.



Quoting Bookwormy:

That's illogical.




Quoting Meadowchik:



 Which is why legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns.  There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners.




Quoting Bookwormy:

I procreated intentionally in a SS relationship. It can't happen accidently, but it happens intentionally all the time.



 






















Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN