The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 12-11-2011 @ 07:06 AM by Dark Ghost

reply to post by Garfee

But by becoming athletes these individuals would be benefiting the goals of the state, for which the funding was intended, and this is why it makes logical sense to fund them.

reply posted on 12-11-2011 @ 07:15 AM by Garfee

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Your argument holds weight but then consider the right to equality and that if my taxes can be spent on wars I think there should be enough to cover me getting married to my partner.

reply posted on 16-11-2011 @ 08:38 AM by arpgme

This is discrimination, even if gay marriage doesn't benefit the state because they can't have children, so what?

Does this mean that we should ban old marriage and marriages for people that choose to not have sex or that are infertile and cannot have children? Ridiculous.

Gay people are NOT second class citizens. They should have the same rights as everyone else to get married.

reply posted on 17-11-2011 @ 04:07 AM by Dark Ghost

reply to post by Garfee

I agree that money should not be spent on unnecessary wars and should rather be directed towards making the average life of every Australian more prosperous. But I disagree that this issue is about equality. I don't see the logic behind the state funding same-sex couples that cannot procreate independently.

reply posted on 17-11-2011 @ 04:16 AM by Dark Ghost

reply to post by arpgme

It's not discrimination. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman as they can procreate and start a family - the building blocks of a society.

As long as there is potential for procreation, marriage should be funded by the state. If there is no potential (yes that includes infertile heterosexual couples) then there is no logical reason for the state to fund marriage.

Gay people are not second class citizens - but they do not have the right to undermine the definition of a word that has existed for thousands of years. And gay people do have the same rights as everybody else - it is just that their sexual orientation prevents them from meeting the legal and social definitions of marriage.

reply posted on 17-11-2011 @ 05:14 AM by Garfee

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Excuse me? I am funding the state, the state does not fund me.

reply posted on 17-11-2011 @ 05:23 AM by Dark Ghost

reply to post by Garfee

I meant fund your marriage, not you.

reply posted on 17-11-2011 @ 06:06 AM by Garfee

reply to post by Dark Ghost

How does the state fund my marriage? I'm the one that pays for the license. I then still pay taxes to the state, as does my partner.

The only difference would be a few more people would be happier in the world. How awesome would that be?

reply posted on 20-11-2011 @ 03:23 PM by arpgme

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by arpgme

As long as there is potential for procreation, marriage should be funded by the state. If there is no potential (yes that includes infertile heterosexual couples) then there is no logical reason for the state to fund marriage.

Well, good luck with that. I'm not worried. You actually wanna go backwards by not even allowing infertiles to state funded marriage. No one is gonna be that stupid when we made so much progress as a society, you'll just sound as bad as the racists do.

Peace!

reply posted on 20-11-2011 @ 03:58 PM by technical difficulties

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I guess the basis of his argument can be summed up from his first statement:

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

So, if a marriage doesn't benefit the state, they shouldn't allow it? Yeah, that's why we should get married, to benefit the state. How did Kim Kardasian's or Brittany Spears' marriage benefit the state?

To follow Mr. Kolasinksi's argument to its logical conclusion, we should just have the state assign our spouses to us, for the maximum benefit of the state.

That, and he also states the cliche "A Child Needs A Mother And Father".
www.cbsnews.com...

There's more articles out there stating as to why he's wrong.

Once again, Opponents Of Gay Marriage have failed to provide a valid argument supporting their irrational position.

reply posted on 20-11-2011 @ 04:37 PM by Mcupobob

I couldn't even get into that article once it started mentioning propagating. I mean in less every man is secretively gay and the only reason we marry women is because gay marriage is illegal. Then that argument holds no water what so ever.

reply posted on 20-11-2011 @ 08:22 PM by Dark Ghost

reply to post by arpgme

You seem to support paid benefits for married couples. Can you explain why Marriage benefits should be provided to couples based on the fact alone that they are married?

---------------------------------------

reply to post by technical difficulties

The article itself has some shortcomings, but there are some plausible secular arguments against Gay Marriage in there. You cannot dismiss an entire article because it raises points you do not like or agree with.

reply posted on 20-11-2011 @ 08:28 PM by silent thunder

My only real complaint about Gay Marriage is the way it seems to have been railroaded through based on the rights of gays as individuals. All well and good, but there has been ZERO debate on the wider social implications of changing the basic definition of marriage. The institution of marriage is one of mankind's most ancient social structures; to change it will certainly have knock-on effects in many areas, from childrearing to old age. I would have liked to see a serious examination and debate about these issues, but any attempt to do so is thwarted and the issue is framed only terms of "rights" versus "hate."

It may very well be that the outcome of such a serious debate would have been "changing the marriage structure in this way will have no impact on society." But even if so, I would have liked the debate to have been held rather than having everyone pressured into vote a certain way based on politcially-correct shaming rhetoric about "hate."

reply posted on 20-11-2011 @ 10:14 PM by Turq1

Good to see secular and religious people in bed together, at least on this issue.