I’m an atheist and I’m straight but I’ve been trying to figure out the reasons for not allowing gay marriage or civil unions. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, so I don’t think it would be fair for politicians to ban gay marriage based on a few verses in the bible, so I would like to know, what are the possible negative affects of gay marriage that are not religious related?
The gay lifestyle is defined by the behavior. Behavior which the medical community has overwhelmingly proven to be unhealthy. The Centers for Disease Control and The Sexually Transmitted Disease Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association go into graphic detail of the deleterious effects of sodomy, fisting etc. It is one of the most efficient ways to spread disease. For the government to sanction and condone that behavior through allowing gay marriage is foolish and irresponsibe.
I am hard-pressed to come up with any negative effects that are not religion-based. Most of the corporations I’ve worked for had identical benefits for domestic partners of the same sex as they did for opposite-sex spouses. The married tax base broadens a bit, which is actually a fiscal benefit in this country.
The only substantial difference I can think of is that it should be easier for same-sex spouses to adopt children born within the union so that they can care for the children more effectively in terms of childcare credits and FMLA time. The negative effects of that are minimal, and the child can be better cared-for by both parents.
Edit: Last I heard, there was no shortage of live births in this country. One more non-reproductive couple (assuming there are no children born or adopted into the family) is not going to have much effect on the country’s birthrate in the lifetime of anyone able to read this today.
Some of the negative affects of Gay marriage? There are a surprising amount if you dig around a little bit. A survey found that over 50% of Gay men had Aids or HIV. And almost 57% of them had HPV. In Sweden, which legalized gay marriage recently, the divorce rate has been rising in recent years. No one wants AIDs to start being an even larger problem than it is now, and besides, doctors and professionals have said
that gay marriage does not deliver the same effects as normal marriage.
Nope, I don’t. Marriage is a biblical institution though, and that fact has been lost in civil unions available to most Western countries who allow freedom of religion. The bible is very, very clear on marriage being between a man and a woman (makes you wonder what life was like back then huh? LOL considering how unclear it can be on other matters in society) and therefore as a religious or sacramental marriage — yes, should be as bible states. My biggest argument comes in that churches should never be FORCED to marry same sex couples. Division of Church and State again, just another perspective. However, you asked if I have a non-religious argument, the answer is no. People who love each other SHOULD be bound to each other. ESPECIALLY if they have children.
Keep in mind I ain’t against it, but…
Just apply the old philosophical principle: what if everybody did it? We’d have no more people left, would we? It’s a bad idea from the point of view of producing more members of society. Allowing this may well shrink our overall population. Evolution selects for the people who breed the most, and gay people are decidedly low on that list.
On the other hand, as long as only 5% are doing it, it shouldn’t really have a big effect. It would make that 5% happier and more productive members of society. And hey, they probably aren’t reproducing anyway, given that they’re going to be gay whether the law says they can marry or not.
That’s the direction I tend to take the non-religious line of thinking, anyway.
The negative effect of any marriage (gay or not) is that the couple is then burdened with the marriage tax penalty. The US government thinks that 2 can live cheaper together than apart, and taxes married people to a higher extent than if they were single.
actually, it would probably bankrupt the beleaguered social security system in the U.S. providing death benefits to the surviving spouse…which is truly one of the main reasons the government is against it…under the guise of ":morality” and ":popular majority":
and to those people who are talking about ":giving life":
why don’t we ban any straight marriage where sterility is a factor, or when women are past menopause? GET REAL!
It is not the religious aspect that is being defended by politicians…it is the state of marriage being that of a man and a woman. It is the foundation of a moral society and when this is removed from a society…it is its down fall as the past has shown.
I’d just like to respond to the ":gay people can’t create a child": statements…
So, people who are infertile or who choose not to have children shouldn’t be able to get married?
Wow. How… compassionate. And nonsensical.
I’m not against gay marriage, too. But family like this can’t give a child to the world. And even if they adopt one, what will happen whit the child? Who will be the father and who will be the mother?