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]

99percent, two quick questions for you:

How does two men or two women getting married affect your life? How will it impact your standard of living?

How does two men or two women getting married affect anyone's life other than their own?

How does maintaining traditional marriage impact your life? Should marriage be whatever someone says it should be?

By "traditional marriage" you mean denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

There is no constitutional right for people with same-sex feelings to marry. Even Elena Kagan says that. If people eventually vote to allow it, that's another matter. So far these referendums have lost every time.

Actually, what we're advocating is maintaining and extending traditional marriage to same sex couples. How does it impact my life? I'm glad you asked. There are children whose mothers must return to work rather than stay home and care for them, because they cannot get health insurance under their working parents health insurance. There are elderly widows who cannot collect social security survivor benefits, because they were denied the right to marry. There are husbands and wives of service members who are denied all the rights accorded to such spouses, because the military does not recognize their marriage. There are children languishing in foster care because caring families are denied the right to adopt them. There are couples torn apart by geography, because they cannot sponsor their spouses to immigrate. There are people who die alone, because the hospital denies the right to visit to their spouses.

I really doubt hospitals care who visits a patient. Civil unions would probably cure the above.

There are literally over 1000 ways this affects actual human beings, purely based on prejudice with no rational justification.

We disagree, marriage is between a man and a woman. As the Church of Ireland just put it in a statement:

‘The Church of Ireland affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching that marriage is in its purpose a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’

[NVIIIX1]

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'm an anti-statist living outside the United States but currently a citizen of the United States. What I mean by anti-statist is basically: "I get to tell the government what they can do, not the other way around."

My non-religious argument is that the concept of marriage as a function of a man and woman is the most efficient and most effective model for building societies.

It is primarily the Father's prerogative to mold and shape the offspring of his loins, either through leading by example--thus inspiring this his children. And/or he may lead by disciplining the rebellious child up to and including the act of killing. Through-out history, all civilizations have used Capital Punishment. That idea is modeled by the father who would then abdicate his job and assign it to the office of an executioner. That abdication is itself inferior.

Two men in a marriage raising children would mean that the dominate male might be hampered or neglected by his partner's disposition considering that there might be one or even no biological father in the mix.

My primary concern as a father raising children is to develop the necessary skills for disciplining or even killing of my children should they need it. My wife is a complimentary counter part. Her job would be to ensure that my motives are right and that my act if punishment is just. She has a say in the matter because she bore the children. If I were homosexual and my marriage partner tried to interfere, the biological mother would still have more of a say than my husband. Inefficiency and confusion would make it an inferior and absurd model.

[Autodidact]

99percent, two quick questions for you:

How does two men or two women getting married affect your life? How will it impact your standard of living?

How does two men or two women getting married affect anyone's life other than their own?

How does maintaining traditional marriage impact your life? Should marriage be whatever someone says it should be?

By "traditional marriage" you mean denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

There is no constitutional right for people with same-sex feelings to marry. Even Elena Kagan says that. If people eventually vote to allow it, that's another matter. So far these referendums have lost every time.

That remains to be seen, but is not responsive to what I said. When you say, "defend traditional marriage," what you mean is, "not allow same-sex marriage." Why not just say so?

Actually, what we're advocating is maintaining and extending traditional marriage to same sex couples. How does it impact my life? I'm glad you asked. There are children whose mothers must return to work rather than stay home and care for them, because they cannot get health insurance under their working parents health insurance. There are elderly widows who cannot collect social security survivor benefits, because they were denied the right to marry. There are husbands and wives of service members who are denied all the rights accorded to such spouses, because the military does not recognize their marriage. There are children languishing in foster care because caring families are denied the right to adopt them. There are couples torn apart by geography, because they cannot sponsor their spouses to immigrate. There are people who die alone, because the hospital denies the right to visit to their spouses.

I really doubt hospitals care who visits a patient. Civil unions would probably cure the above.

You're wrong. Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Langbehn

There are literally over 1000 ways this affects actual human beings, purely based on prejudice with no rational justification.

We disagree, marriage is between a man and a woman. As the Church of Ireland just put it in a statement:

Yes, we know you disagree. Now, did you have an argument as to why it is fair to deny these rights to others, based on your own religious beliefs?

‘The Church of Ireland affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching that marriage is in its purpose a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’

the Church of Ireland should get its own house in order, and stop functioning as a criminal enterprise devoted to child abuse, before it tries to impose its own peculiar ideas about human relationships on others.

[East of Eden]

99percent, two quick questions for you:

How does two men or two women getting married affect your life? How will it impact your standard of living?

How does two men or two women getting married affect anyone's life other than their own?

How does maintaining traditional marriage impact your life? Should marriage be whatever someone says it should be?

By "traditional marriage" you mean denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

There is no constitutional right for people with same-sex feelings to marry. Even Elena Kagan says that. If people eventually vote to allow it, that's another matter. So far these referendums have lost every time.

That remains to be seen, but is not responsive to what I said. When you say, "defend traditional marriage," what you mean is, "not allow same-sex marriage." Why not just say so?

Actually, what we're advocating is maintaining and extending traditional marriage to same sex couples. How does it impact my life? I'm glad you asked. There are children whose mothers must return to work rather than stay home and care for them, because they cannot get health insurance under their working parents health insurance. There are elderly widows who cannot collect social security survivor benefits, because they were denied the right to marry. There are husbands and wives of service members who are denied all the rights accorded to such spouses, because the military does not recognize their marriage. There are children languishing in foster care because caring families are denied the right to adopt them. There are couples torn apart by geography, because they cannot sponsor their spouses to immigrate. There are people who die alone, because the hospital denies the right to visit to their spouses.

I really doubt hospitals care who visits a patient. Civil unions would probably cure the above.

You're wrong. Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Langbehn

I'm sure there is a solution for this short of having two people of the same sex marry.

Yes, we know you disagree. Now, did you have an argument as to why it is fair to deny these rights to others, based on your own religious beliefs?

It's none of your business what the motivation for my vote is.

the Church of Ireland should get its own house in order, and stop functioning as a criminal enterprise devoted to child abuse, before it tries to impose its own peculiar ideas about human relationships on others.

Before venting your hate calling people criminals, get your facts straight. The Church of Ireland is Anglican, not Roman Catholic.

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

[Goat]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

[East of Eden]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

[Autodidact]

I really doubt hospitals care who visits a patient. Civil unions would probably cure the above.

You're wrong. Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Langbehn[/quote]

I'm sure there is a solution for this short of having two people of the same sex marry.

I'm sure someone who cared about the truth would admit their factual error right about now.

Yes, we know you disagree. Now, did you have an argument as to why it is fair to deny these rights to others, based on your own religious beliefs?

It's none of your business what the motivation for my vote is.

You know that this is a debate forum, right? So, apparently, no, you have no argument. Good to know.

the Church of Ireland should get its own house in order, and stop functioning as a criminal enterprise devoted to child abuse, before it tries to impose its own peculiar ideas about human relationships on others.

Before venting your hate calling people criminals, get your facts straight. The Church of Ireland is Anglican, not Roman Catholic.

My mistake. What relevance to they have to our conversation here?

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.[/quote]
Why might the perpetrators be mostly male? Can you think of any reason? Do you find homosexual pedophilia for some reason worse than heterosexual pedophilia? Because to me they're equally bad. Do you disagree?

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Once again, you are factually mistaken. This is simply not the case. Just ask if you want cites; I'm happy to provide them.

[Autodidact]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

No, this is false. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male heterosexuals. The only link is between maleness and pedophilia. Therefore, apparently, in your logic, men should not be allowed to marry? Or why did you bring it up? By the way, are you perhaps male?

[100%atheist]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

This is just untrue.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html

[Goat]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

You do keep on promoting misinformation. The vast number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relations (the same percentage that are heterosexual in the non-pedophole population.).