Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[East of Eden]

That is your opinion. In the same way a vote against polygamy is a vote against freedom.

No, it is not an opinion. Gay marriage is something people can and want to do. To make them not able to do it is taking away a freedom. That's a fact, not an opinion.

We limit freedom all the time, as in the case when people want to do heroin or marry more than one wife. All laws are an imposition of somebody's morality.

Your point?

No reason to be scared.

[East of Eden]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

I reject your premise is that by being faithful to their beliefs, theists are somehow instituting a state religion. Are theists who think their faith impels them to support gay marriage also wrong, or just the other kind?

Everybody brings their worldview into the voting booth.

I agree, anyone can bring their worldview into the voting booth. However, when that worldview results in policies that infringe on the rights of others, those policies should be overthrown, whether the majority likes it or not.

All laws infringe on somebody, so what?

To institute a policy against gay marriage when that policy has no legitimate secular purpose that can even remotely stand up to the measure of equal protection under the law, then that policy should be thrown out, no matter how many people vote for it and no matter what reasons they had for voting for it.

As I've said before, it is none of your business what motivates someone to cast their vote.

If a religious liberal votes for gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, should that be thrown out?

[jmvizanko]

We limit freedom all the time, as in the case when people want to do heroin or marry more than one wife. All laws are an imposition of somebody's morality.

Yes we limit freedom all of the time, but the question is when we should be allowed to do so. Not all laws are an imposition of somebody's morality. Nobody thinks cold blooded murder should be legal except for maybe a few psychopaths out there. And the reason why, is you can present a logical argument for why murder is wrong and evil, without appealing to your or the majority's morality. And I think a good line is if it harms somebody other than the person commiting the action. Heroin is on the line, because the only direct person harmed is the one doing the heroin, although perhaps their family is harmed indirectly by their habit.

But somebody marrying somebody of the same sex or multiple people does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that harms you are anyone else. So why should we ban it just because it offends your morality? The whole point is that we shouldn't be making laws that appeal to this or that morality, we should be making laws that protect people from harm only, and that are derived from logical arguments that support how they harm people. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others."

If we started making laws based on the majority morality, what if the US eventually became a predominantly Muslim populated country? Would you argue that you should have less rights as a Christian in the US just because that's what Muslims like to do in their countries?

[East of Eden]

We limit freedom all the time, as in the case when people want to do heroin or marry more than one wife. All laws are an imposition of somebody's morality.

Yes we limit freedom all of the time, but the question is when we should be allowed to do so. Not all laws are an imposition of somebody's morality. Nobody thinks cold blooded murder should be legal except for maybe a few psychopaths out there. And the reason why, is you can present a logical argument for why murder is wrong and evil, without appealing to your or the majority's morality. And I think a good line is if it harms somebody other than the person commiting the action. Heroin is on the line, because the only direct person harmed is the one doing the heroin, although perhaps their family is harmed indirectly by their habit.

But somebody marrying somebody of the same sex or multiple people does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that harms you are anyone else. So why should we ban it just because it offends your morality? The whole point is that we shouldn't be making laws that appeal to this or that morality, we should be making laws that protect people from harm only, and that are derived from logical arguments that support how they harm people. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others."

The government has an interest in stable families, and I would argue a child needs a mother and father. With the promiscuity (and disease) rates among gays, it almost makes the idea of marriage meaningless.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

If we started making laws based on the majority morality, what if the US eventually became a predominantly Muslim populated country? Would you argue that you should have less rights as a Christian in the US just because that's what Muslims like to do in their countries?

That would be against our Constitution.

[Autodidact]

The government has an interest in stable families, and I would argue a child needs a mother and father. With the promiscuity (and disease) rates among gays, it almost makes the idea of marriage meaningless.

If you would argue it, go ahead. Argue it. Make your case that children are better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. Cite your research. Find the research that compares the two categories and finds that children do better in a heterosexual than a homosexual family.

Now show that lesbians are promiscuous, especially married lesbians. Married to each other, that is.

Now show that allowing two lesbian mothers of children to marry each other will somehow harm those children, while allowing heterosexual parents of children to marry helps them. Go for it.

Try not to lie, as that would not help your case.

[Autodidact]

Your source appears to be a liar. He states:

Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.

This is false. Lesbians are at lower risk for HIV and other STDs than heterosexual women.

To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). [CDC]
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm

The majority of female adult and adolescents living with an HIV diagnosis in 2008 were infected with the virus through heterosexual contact (73%). Most of the remaining females were infected through injecting drug use.

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
One of the riskiest sexual activities a lesbian can engage in is sex with a man.

[East of Eden]

The government has an interest in stable families, and I would argue a child needs a mother and father. With the promiscuity (and disease) rates among gays, it almost makes the idea of marriage meaningless.

If you would argue it, go ahead. Argue it. Make your case that children are better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. Cite your research. Find the research that compares the two categories and finds that children do better in a heterosexual than a homosexual family.

There are lots of studies showing kids need a mother and father, do you know of any showing kids do just as well with two fathers or two mothers? Gays are inherently more promiscous, have more STDs (and live 20 years less in the case of men), and need more psyciatric treatment. No kid would sign up for such a weird experiment, but I guess advancing the gay agenda trumps kids, huh?

Now show that lesbians are promiscuous, especially married lesbians. Married to each other, that is.

Already done, although they aren't as promiscous as male gays.

Now show that allowing two lesbian mothers of children to marry each other will somehow harm those children, while allowing heterosexual parents of children to marry helps them. Go for it.

Try not to lie, as that would not help your case.

Nice cheap shot.

[East of Eden]

delete

[East of Eden]

Your source appears to be a liar.

No he isn't. Facts you don't like aren't 'lies'.

"Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion's share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63

Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.64 Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.66 The study "demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports."67

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.68 Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.69In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.71

In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as "crabs," genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.72 Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.73 "

He states:
"Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals." This is false. Lesbians are at lower risk for HIV and other STDs than heterosexual women.

To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). [CDC]
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm
"The majority of female adult and adolescents living with an HIV diagnosis in 2008 were infected with the virus through heterosexual contact (73%). Most of the remaining females were infected through injecting drug use."http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
One of the riskiest sexual activities a lesbian can engage in is sex with a man.

Yes, with a gay man.

[jmvizanko]

The government has an interest in stable families, and I would argue a child needs a mother and father.

Sure the government probably has an economic interest in stable families, but why should it have the role of controlling / encouraging them? Stable families happen because people strive to create stable families on their own. And you would need to expand on that argument that a child needs a mother and father, because you can look up many examples of people that grew up with two same sex parents and turned out successful and well adjusted people.

With the promiscuity (and disease) rates among gays, it almost makes the idea of marriage meaningless.

Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists, so how about we ban Christian marriage and just let atheists get married?

And as has already been mentioned, lesbians have a lower STD rate. So perhaps we should make only lesbian marriage legal.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

That would be against our Constitution.

And that's stopped the government before? Plus its amendable.

The point is that we shouldn't let the majority morality rule the country, because it can be quite tyrannical to the freedom of minorities. You have the advantage that your morality is the majority, and seem to have no problem with imposing it on the rest of us, because you think its the only version of "right." But if you were on the other side, perhaps you would see why we should be as pro freedom as possible, with the only logical line being not allowing actions that hurt anyone other than the consenting practitioners. Its called live and let live.