In the threads about homosexual marriage all the bigots of this forum keep dodging th emost important question there is to do with this issue and that is why.
Please, only post in this thread if you are against homosexual marriage and you're argument isn't God says so or, personally I find it wrong/wierd/gross etc.
Also, the whoel voting majority thing isn't relevant because I'm not talking about specific places that either do or don't have it. But why should it be an issue that is even worthy of voting for from a specifically legal (ya know, the only one tha matters in this case) point of view
Anyway, your not going to get a 'why' answer you looking for. Most of these people who disagree with 'yes to homosexual marriage' are useing the 'religion card'.
They only agree with things they find comftrable, and things they don't feel comftable with are supposed to be wrong.
I mean you could get an answer, but in most cases all you would recive is; "Because god wanted it like that" or "That's wrong, god didn't want that, there is a reason it's man & women" etc....
I think we should focus on the goal of the OP, which seems to be to provide an argument against gay marriage and that "you're argument isn't God says so or, personally I find it wrong/wierd/gross etc."
The most predominant argument against homosexuality that does not involve religion is probably one dealing with our purpose. All species are on this earth in order to procreate. By allowing gays to marry, we are ignoring this primary function of life. So, is this a good argument against gay marriage? Why or why not?
So, is this a good argument against gay marriage? Why or why not?
No. Mainly because homosexuality will always exist- it's a recessive gene found in VERY many families, and as long as at least two people still carry that recessive gene, homosexuality still exists. Not letting them marry because they can't procreate has no purpose- and it would be hypocritical, considering the heterosexual couples who marry and never have children.
All species are on this earth in order to procreate. By allowing gays to marry, we are ignoring this primary function of life. So, is this a good argument against gay marriage? Why or why not?
By this logic it would also mean that any relationships not designed to procreate are negative. That's really not true when you look at how relationships change us. Friends, family, ETC, although not designed for procreation, they have an important standing for us. Procreation may be a base function of life, but its also a base function of life to try and protect offspring and promote the benefit of the species. This may just be a natural course that helps deal with overpopulation, as procreation becomes much more intentional instead of accidental with homosexuality, as an offspring can't be produced between a homosexual couple, but the possibility of procreation is still there, like using sperm banks. They're examples of homosexuality in animals as well, I believe bulls become homosexual in captivity. It may be a part of animals that turn to homosexuality because even if they did procreate, it wouldn't have a positive effect on the species. This may be completely wrong, but its a decent theory I think.
Those are both really good refutations of my initial argument, so what does this mean? Clearly my line of argumentation isn't going to work. So does that mean there simply are no good secular arguments against homosexuality? And if we can't give a good secular argument against it, does that mean it should be socially acceptable, just not acceptable in a religious context?
And if we can't give a good secular argument against it, does that mean it should be socially acceptable, just not acceptable in a religious context?
I can't say much about the religious aspect, but as for social I think it should be accepted. Homosexuality shouldn't be looked down upon, its just a different way of life. There will always be the people who are homophobic or simply hate people who are gay, but at the very least we should try to accept people. Society today is based on accepting people...we have campaigns trying to raise awareness about mental conditions, and acceptance of people of different race or religion is practicably the basis of many of our ideals. Sexual orientation is no different, and people should be allowed free reign to chose what makes them happy in life. I can say that religion is free to not accept homosexuality as its part of their ideals, but I don't think that religion should have a hold on people who don't believe in their beliefs. It really comes back to separation of church and state, and the arguments against homosexuality that are non-religious often are pretty weak and created out of fear more than a logical decision.
