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

[London Geezer]

Is there a cycle or something on these boards? every so often a thread on gay-lesbian-wrong-against-nature-religion-bestiality-gay-gene comes up... Is there a timer or something? How many times do we have to clash because of this argument and uselessly repeat things all over again. Uselessly because some people just don't get it, as many times as you repeat your point.

Anyway, religious bigotry originated what is now a pretty widespread homophobia. Today one can be homophobic without any religious reasons. No one was homophobic before Cristianism was born. Actually, all kinds of "unacceptable" sexual behaviours were widely accepted before the birth of the Church. Even those that ARE wrong (peadophilia).

 

[Fred]

AFAIK, there are really only 3 arguments against it

1) Against moral norms that a majority of voters approve off. Note: Rascism was also espoused by a majority. But its still a valid argument nonetheless in a democracy, the courts do possess a force that will protect the minority however, whereas both executive and legislative typically follow the majority, at least in principle.

2) That it will be expensive to institute, since married couples typically benefit from financial incentives

3) Slippery slope argument. If gays are allowed, why not polygamy? Why not incenstual unions? Etc

Argument 1 can be argued against invoking morality and ethics (we are human too, ergo we should be able to choose any civil bond thats available under the constitution. Otherwise its discrimation). That line applies for 2 as well.

Number 3, i've usually seen argued away by saying that such unions are not whats being discussed. So that argument shouldn't apply.

Personally, I still think #3 is the biggest logical pitfall. Either do away with marriage incentives altogether and let anything fly as a civil union, or go by the will of the majority.

 

[London Geezer]

What is the question made by the original poster?

-Why are same sex civil unions (marriage) seen as wrong?

or

-Why is Homosexuality seen as wrong?


Not like we haven't been though both arguments over and over again...
I think i'll now create a new thread on the War on Iraq. Just to refresh out memory.

 

[notAFanB]

Neither London-boy, Paul was really asking if there are reasons which are Non-affiliated with religion and conclude that homosexuality is 'wrong'.

there have been a couple exposed already but I think that is it.

 

[London Geezer]

Neither London-boy, Paul was really asking if there are reasons which are Non-affiliated with religion and conclude that homosexuality is 'wrong'.

there have been a couple exposed already but I think that is it.

Yeah what i was highlighting was the distinction between homosexual UNIONS and Homosexuality in itself. That's what i didn't get from the original question.

 

[Humus]

I think there's a good solution that can be made that satisfies everyone, or at least most people. It seems most people can accept the that gay people can live their lifes the way they want, and accept gay unions with the same benefits, at least as long as they don't call it "marriage". Then of course, some gay people want it to be called marriage for them too. The solution of course it to just use the term "union" on the legal side of things, both for same and opposite sex unions. Then it's up to everyone to decide what to call their union. Complete separation of the church and state. The state only recognizes "unions", and then it's up to churches and couples etc. to decide what they call their union and all fuzz around it.

 

[Sxotty]

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

Wow he got down to the heart of the issue quite quickly, american politics described in one line.

 

[RussSchultz]

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

Wow he got down to the heart of the issue quite quickly, american politics described in one line.

I really think the strong negative feelings on the topic have absolutely nothing to do with corporate America.

 

[digitalwanderer]

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

Wow he got down to the heart of the issue quite quickly, american politics described in one line.

I really think the strong negative feelings on the topic have absolutely nothing to do with corporate America.

Nothing to do with the feelings, no; with the facts, yes. 8)

 

[RussSchultz]

I guess if you keep saying so, it might become true.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I guess if you keep saying so, it might become true.

Mebbe if you stay in denial about it, it won't.

You might be right that the reason for the public sentiment against it having nothing to do with money, but the political reasons against it sure as heck do!

 

[Legion]

I guess if you keep saying so, it might become true.

Homosexuals would cost corporate america money ergo corporate america opposes homosexual unions...right.

 

[Legion]

I guess if you keep saying so, it might become true.

Mebbe if you stay in denial about it, it won't.

You might be right that the reason for the public sentiment against it having nothing to do with money, but the political reasons against it sure as heck do!

Maybe if were insane enough to believe corporate america opposes homosexuality because they will some how lose money on it he might likewise become a democrat as well...

 

[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 .

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

I never said i thought it was wrong ?

This thread asked if there were any reason why . igave one . It doesn't have to be my reason for it. But it is a reason

 

[RussSchultz]

No, I can see how it might cost corporations to provide benefits to spouses (though, if you think about it, it would generally cost a corporation less if it covered a worker and a spouse than it would 2 workers. At least my company, anyways)

The problem I have is making the leap in logic that somehow this is the reason that the topic is a political hot potato.

Its a hot potato because a "large" portion of the populace genuinely doesn't agree with it, and another vocal portion of the populace genuinely does agree with it.

 

[Legion]

Russ any they couldn't make gay parents apart of their market?

 

[Legion]

My question in reference to the topic is "what exactly is marriage if not a showing of couple bonding"? How do long term relationships differ from marriage outside of benefits etc? Would promotting gay marriages some how corrupt marriage as a whole? I'd have to say the common place marital instilibity we see to do has little to do with marriage itself and more to do with the couples. Suggesting gay relationships are some how more unstable seems fallacious to me...after all i which Jerry Springer so i know!

Now adoption is a different matter entirely...most of the research i have seen suggesting homosexuals are more likely to malest children seem more like propaganda. I can't possibly imagine a gay house hold is more dangerous then a single parent household consisting of a single mother.

 

[RussSchultz]

Russ any they couldn't make gay parents apart of their market?

As try as I might, I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[Legion]

Russ any they couldn't make gay parents apart of their market?

As try as I might, I don't understand what you're asking.

It has been suggested companies will loose money on gay marriages and i was stating i feel they'd be assimilated into the market.

I am not quite sure what the suggestion corporations will loose money on homosexual marriages encompases.

 

[digitalwanderer]

No, I can see how it might cost corporations to provide benefits to spouses (though, if you think about it, it would generally cost a corporation less if it covered a worker and a spouse than it would 2 workers. At least my company, anyways)

Yes, but you're going under the assumption that both would be working at the same company...what if that isn't the case or one isn't working at all?