« I almost don't know what to say | Main | Composer Challenge »

November 14, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.




That's the million dollar question isn't it? Gays aren't really fighting for the religious marriage, cause they already have it. Its the legal aspects that come with it that everybody wants. Which begs the question of why churches are so involved in the debate in a country that celebrates the separation of church and state.

Of course thats over-simplifying. But to me, the closer you look at the issue, the more absurd the objections are.

Ben TS

Well, I don't really think they're are any. Conservatives' main "non-religious" argument is that it isn't the will of the people, but even a modicum of logic negates that one.

Maybe you could make the case that the redefinition of marriage would open the door to redefining other legal statuses. So, because marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, it could lead to non-profits claiming they should be able to make money.

Yeah, I know it's weak, but's it's all I got.

Joshua James

Homophobia isn't strictly a religious phenom (though Homophobia is definitely more institutionalized in many organized religions) but the most common argument I've heard from non-religious folk against gay marriage (and gayness in general) is that it's not "natural", a line I've used in a script or two, it's not "biological".

Which isn't the case, of course. Homosexuality actually exists in many other species in nature, so it is natural (and since homosexuality cannot be artificially produced, I don't really see how it's never been natural).

the only other argument I've heard is that if we let gays marry, they're gonna wanna adopt and that it'd be too hard to on kids to have gay parents (which is ridiculous, I think it's a lot harder on kids to be raised poor and abused in a trailer park with no health care than it is to have two gay parents who love them) but again, I've never seen the logic of that position.

Bottom line, of course, is that I don't think there's a logic to the anti-gay marriage position at all, be it religious or otherwise.

Ben TS

You might actually argue that gay adoption is psychologically healthier. Although I admit I can't cite evidence, I'd speculate that the motivations for your average gay parent to adopt are more conducive to healthy child-rearing than the motivations of your average heterosexual parent, where cultural pressures are more commonly a factor. But I'm just guessing.


People use the slippery slope argument a lot -- if we do this, soon people will be able to marry multiple partners, or a pet, or a chair. Slippery slope is almost always specious, and especially so here. I'm sure in the 19th century people said "Well, if I have to free my slaves, won't I soon have to free my mule and my ..." etc.

I heard someone on the radio here saying he voted Yes on 8 because he didn't want his kids to see same-sex couples holding hands. Boy is HE going to be shocked how little this does to stop that.

The whole "we must protect the children" argument was prominent in all the Pro-8 ads out here, that if we legalize Gay Marriage we'll have to teach children about it. My response, of course is, "So? I plan to teach my kids about it, anyway." But since we conflate gay love with DIRTY SEX, it's horribly wrong to introduce that into children's lives. Of course, kids have a basic understanding of love and romance that has nothing to do with sex, and introducing same sex couples into that understanding would have nothing to do with that so ...

Man, old people suck.


I expect if pushed it would be the expansion of state and federal benefits now extended only to married couples.


There basically is no non-religious argument. Not that secular folks can't be irrationally bigoted, but they have no centuries-old, multi-billion-dollar organizations backing their bigotry, pumping millions of dollars into passing a proposition. If there's no god, then no one made us the way gay or straight. And if no one made us gay or straight, giving gay people the right to marry offends no supreme being, violates no tenet of no faith. I dare say life here on Earth would be simpler and at least seem more fair were it not for the disorienting fog of religion.

Ethan Stanislawski

I think the "natural" argument is the big one. For many straight people, they initially learn of homosexuality as something strange or gross. If you're in a culture that corrects that, that's one thing. But I think that people who are programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex—and who see the vast majority of people agreeing with them—can't wrap their head around it.

I also think most of the problems outside the U.S. are cultural rather than religious. I think the most fitting concept was Ahmadinejad's comment about "we simply don't have that in Iran." If your definition of sexuality is anything outside the Western biological definition, it's hard to even understand homosexuality as a concept. At least evangelical Christians in the U.S. have to encounter the question, even if they repress and deny it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker