Is there a non-religious reason as to why same sex unions...

[Paul]

...Should not be allowed?

Because every argument against it seems to stem from the Christian religion.

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

The PM, president or whatever doesn't like it?

 

[jvd]

I honestly don't care .

But there needs to be a change of terms .

A civil union should not = a marriage. A marriage in the roman catholic nay even the Christian religion as a whole has been around longer than there was an america .

A civil union should be one thing and then the relegions marriage should be another .


Seperation of state and church. Unless my little cousin is allowed to pray to god in class . If there is a melding of state and chuch then i see no problem.

 

[MfA]

Given that marriage was around before Christianity too I guess that means the term should be denied use by both government and the church.

 

[jvd]

Given that marriage was around before Christianity too I guess that means the term should be denied use by both government and the church.

I dunno . I think once your over a thousand years old you get rights to somethings you've been using that long .

 

[Althornin]

I honestly don't care .

But there needs to be a change of terms .

A civil union should not = a marriage. A marriage in the roman catholic nay even the Christian religion as a whole has been around longer than there was an america .

A civil union should be one thing and then the relegions marriage should be another .


Seperation of state and church. Unless my little cousin is allowed to pray to god in class . If there is a melding of state and chuch then i see no problem.

this is the most tangled mish-mash i've seen yet on the subject.
If you think the christian religion "invented" marriage......
And if not, then wtf are you talking about?
Also, nice way to spout more religious propaganda in a thread specifically stating "NON religious reasons".

 

[jvd]

Also, nice way to spout more religious propaganda in a thread specifically stating "NON religious reasons".

First off I said i had no problem with it as I don't believe in crap . Second of all He didn't say don't state relgious reason as to why there shouldn't be same sex marriages .

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

...He didn't say don't state relgious reason as to why there shouldn't be same sex marriages.

Of course he didn't. Although he/she did state:

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

In other words, you are not answering Paul's question.

 

[jvd]

Well there is a reason . ITs because being gay / lesbian is wrong and should not be acceptable .

Of course by saying that i will most likely be called some names .

 

[V3]

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

Nope, its purely religious thing.

 

[MfA]

Well there is a reason . ITs because being gay / lesbian is wrong and should not be acceptable .

Depends ... are you positing it as your opinion which you acknowledge can be wrong, or as a truth passed down from God?

 

[jvd]

Well there is a reason . ITs because being gay / lesbian is wrong and should not be acceptable .

Depends ... are you positing it as your opinion which you acknowledge can be wrong, or as a truth passed down from God?

Not my opinon . I don't care waht they do. Its thier life .

But there are those who feel that it is wrong and they have a right to thier opinion and if they are voters and there are enough of them they will be heard .

 

[Althornin]

Well there is a reason . ITs because being gay / lesbian is wrong and should not be acceptable .

Depends ... are you positing it as your opinion which you acknowledge can be wrong, or as a truth passed down from God?

Not my opinon . I don't care waht they do. Its thier life .

But there are those who feel that it is wrong and they have a right to thier opinion and if they are voters and there are enough of them they will be heard .

Well, if youd otn care, then why do you think its wrong?
Obviously you DO care, or you wouldnt have an opinion on it.

 

[digitalwanderer]

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money, corporations don't want to have to pay benefits on same sex spouses.

Bottom line: it would cost corporate america money, make it not so.

 

[epicstruggle]

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

Nope, its purely religious thing.

I buy the religious argument more than the non-religious one. But the non-religious one can be stated as follow:
-against nature. you could not have a 100% gay society. Hence it does not fit into the "survival of the fittest" theme.
-Society is better off, when families (traditional ones) are supported and others shunned.

later
epic

 

[V3]

I buy the religious argument more than the non-religious one. But the non-religious one can be stated as follow:
-against nature. you could not have a 100% gay society. Hence it does not fit into the "survival of the fittest" theme.
-Society is better off, when families (traditional ones) are supported and others shunned.

Aww, I don't want to get into that Since it will bring "Nature part 3". So I'll just said its religious thing. Its because God said so. Its good enough for me.

 

[notAFanB]

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

I would suggest that the departure from what is considered normalcy to be the primary factor.

Secondly social conditioning (low level).

-against nature. you could not have a 100% gay society. Hence it does not fit into the "survival of the fittest" theme.

although this has been discussed to death on these boards, yes an 100% gay society would bring some serious issues wrt to reproduction.

However I fail to see how this is not adhereing to the survival of the fittest theme of evolution. care to elaborate?

 

[epicstruggle]

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

I would suggest that the departure from what is considered normalcy to be the primary factor.

Secondly social conditioning (low level).

-against nature. you could not have a 100% gay society. Hence it does not fit into the "survival of the fittest" theme.

although this has been discussed to death on these boards, yes an 100% gay society would bring some serious issues wrt to reproduction.

However I fail to see how this is not adhereing to the survival of the fittest theme of evolution. care to elaborate?

Because it would die out!!!!

later,
epic

 

[notAFanB]

Because it would die out!!!!

even within the limited scop of my current understanding of how reprduction works I can come up with a couple of solutions to the problem:

1. change the structure of the family unit further to allow for Male/female 'partnerships'.

2. technology.

 

[kyleb]

Is there ANY non-religious reason?

sure, homophobia.