Can anyone give me a secular reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal?

[FathomFear]

If being homosexual is against a core tenant or belief of Religion Y, then why force them to conduct the ceremony? You may find the religion to be bigoted because they won't perform the ceremony... but really why would you want their 'blessing' anyway?

In Canada, no church is forced to do anything. Same-sex marriage has been legal for about 10 years in my province, and I would wager that about half of the local churches don't perform same-sex weddings. The percentage keeps getting higher as churches change their tune, but no one is forced to do anything. I think that's one of the biggest misconceptions some of the more conservative states have. They think that if it's legalized on the state level that suddenly churches will be forced to change their practices. That just isn't true.

[Poodles]

When did that happen? I didn't read the news today so I guess it's possible. Gay marriage and abortion are 100% religious issues, yet they take up quite a bit of the governments time on federal, state and local levels.

If we truly had a separation of church and state, candidates wouldn't be allowed to spend public money trying to get elected, we might find ourselves electing people that actually want "hope" and "change". Religious lobbyists groups wouldn't have any say in policy/bribing and shit might actually get changed that matters. Like the 20+ glaring problems that the majority of the people actually care about/need.

We've had it since day one of this country...

The fact that our government is corrupt is another thread entirely...

[Cthulhu 2020]

A pigeon beating you at chess just makes you look sad.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...pigeon%20chess

[Jero]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...pigeon%20chess

I knew what you meant the first time. Yes, you can't make up your own insults, you have to use one that you can link to. So I decided to just make a joke at your expense. Really, it is easy to see that you were the pigeon the whole time.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So you stand by that something that is not permitted by law isn't illegal?

Again, that's one hell of a loop hole that people should have been using all along.

[Jero]

So you stand by that something that is not permitted by law isn't illegal?

Again, that's one hell of a loop hole that people should have been using all along.

No, I stand by what I have been saying this whole time. Gay marriage is permitted by law. The lack of benefits does not make it illegal. There is no loophole, it just is and has always been the way it is. I don't know what state you live in, but I live in California. Gays have been getting married here for a long time. Long before domestic partnerships, long before Prop 8, and long before Prop 8 was challenged in court and lost. Regardless of the government benefits associated with it were granted, gays were getting married because it was not illegal. What people are fighting for is equality and benefits, not legality. In my mind, there is a right way and a wrong way to get to equality, but that is not what we are debating here. We are debating the current legality of gay marriage, and in that, there is no question no matter what any of you believe.

[smelltheglove]

No, I stand by what I have been saying this whole time. Gay marriage is permitted by law. The lack of benefits does not make it illegal. There is no loophole, it just is and has always been the way it is. I don't know what state you live in, but I live in California. Gays have been getting married here for a long time. Long before domestic partnerships, long before Prop 8, and long before Prop 8 was challenged in court and lost. Regardless of the government benefits associated with it were granted, gays were getting married because it was not illegal. What people are fighting for is equality and benefits, not legality. In my mind, there is a right way and a wrong way to get to equality, but that is not what we are debating here. We are debating the current legality of gay marriage, and in that, there is no question no matter what any of you believe.

does the law consider them married? then it's not a legal process, it's just people saying shit. i just declared myself king of the US. is it legal or have any legal standing or status? i suppose you can consider your own pet definition for "legal" as the be-all end-all, but that definition begins and ends with YOU

[Cthulhu 2020]

At this point you're pretty much just arguing to save face on a bogus claim you know was bogus.

[Jero]

The definition I am using is the actual definition of illegal. The same one many of you are using. I am arguing because I am right and you are wrong. I have no delusions that you know this though because I don't give you that much credit.

[smelltheglove]

The definition I am using is the actual definition of illegal. The same one many of you are using. I am arguing because I am right and you are wrong. I have no delusions that you know this though because I don't give you that much credit.

so... performing a personal ceremony that has no legal meaning is not illegal. well no shit. that has not a goddamned thing to do with the legality of gay marriage. you really arent clever for finding that particular "loophole" and arguing it to the point of idiocy, but hey, go on feeling all smart and superior. i prefer honesty, but i dont give you that much credit

[Dezerte]

The definition I am using is the actual definition of illegal. The same one many of you are using. I am arguing because I am right and you are wrong. I have no delusions that you know this though because I don't give you that much credit.

Using your argument, proclaiming yourself to be the ruler of USA is just as legal. You'll start running into problems when you want to use your proclaimed status in a legal fashion (i.e. demanding a free limousine ride, because you're the ruler). If this is what you're really arguing, then yes, you are right. But I'd also then think you are being obtuse on purpose and just wanting to argue to "win".

[Jero]

At this point you're pretty much just arguing to save face on a bogus claim you know was bogus.

Who am I trying to save face for? I don’t care what you think of me. I have made my point over and over again, nothing bogus about it.

so... performing a personal ceremony that has no legal meaning is not illegal. well no shit. that has not a goddamned thing to do with the legality of gay marriage. you really arent clever for finding that particular "loophole" and arguing it to the point of idiocy, but hey, go on feeling all smart and superior. i prefer honesty, but i dont give you that much credit

Wow, someone has a temper. Does someone need a timeout? Well, regardless of your temper tantrum, thanks for agreeing with me. However, it has everything to do with its legality. Gay marriage is legal, and as I have said many times before, the lack of benefits associated with it does not make it illegal. I am not trying to be clever, and I didn’t claim to have found a loophole. In fact, I said it wasn’t a loophole at all. I guess it is arguing to the point of idiocy that I don’t just agree with you right? I am the one arguing for honesty, unlike you, and it has nothing to do with feeling smart or superior.

Using your argument, proclaiming yourself to be the ruler of USA is just as legal. You'll start running into problems when you want to use your proclaimed status in a legal fashion (i.e. demanding a free limousine ride, because you're the ruler). If this is what you're really arguing, then yes, you are right. But I'd also then think you are being obtuse on purpose and just wanting to argue to "win".

It is indeed perfectly legal to proclaim yourself ruler of the USA. However, using the arguments of others you seem to be siding with; then it is illegal because there is no benefit to it. It doesn’t really make sense, if they could bring themselves to really think about it. It seems you have though, so you kind of agree with me. How could I be obtuse on purpose and still be trying to “win” an argument? I have come right out and made my point over and over again. People want the point to be something other than it is, because the point has a point that they don’t want to accept. It is fine, there is no “winning” these things, especially not here.

[Velaniz]

Do you think incest is just like the relationships you have? You would be with your relatives if they agreed?

Not for me. Probably not for you either. But there are people for whom that is the case. The nature of relationships isn't so black and white, nor universal among human beings. No two kinds of love will probably ever be the exact same, given the several factors that go into influencing such a thing. If someone feels like they want to be with their sibling, "Ew, I wouldn't want to be with MY sibling," isn't any kind of proper argument against that.

[Deleted]

cos god created adam and eve, NOT adam and steve nowt against gayers in anyway but why so much fuss about gay marriage does not compute with me.

Infracted. Discussing religion is not allowed here

[Dezerte]

cos god created adam and eve, NOT adam and steve nowt against gayers in anyway but why so much fuss about gay marriage does not compute with me.

Oh dear...