What are some secular arguments against gay marriage?

What are some secular arguments against gay marriage?

Other urls found in this thread:

statista.com/statistics/676902/child-abuse-victimization-by-sexual-orientation-canada/
youtube.com/watch?v=jjPQ_jVlEnQ
dailysignal.com/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/
hindawi.com/journals/drt/2016/2410392/
rightwingwatch.org/post/new-research-further-debunks-regnerus-study-on-gay-parenting/
whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
archive.is/C7DJF
youtu.be/ir8BO4-7DkM
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-parent-families-july-2014.pdf
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/
gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
sheknows.com/love-and-sex/articles/1133556/gay-married-couples-better-health
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/19/aids-diagnosis-down/12887823/
theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/22/fall-in-hiv-among-gay-men-could-spell-end-for-britains-epidemic-say-experts
theguardian
archive.is/FwahI
sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/autism-rates-are-it-really-rise
huffingtonpost.com/kyle-simon/is-there-a-link-between-autism-and-gender-dysphoria_b_3896317.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

I guess just the most simple that it really goes against logic. In that human beings need to mate with the opposite sex to survive. It offers no benefit to the human civilization other than people self proclaiming themselves to have a weird sexual attraction. And more so lately a culture that fixates really on forcing this stuff down peoples throats. Idk how old you were in the 90s or 2000s but back then anti gay marriage was considered the norm and the most liberal position was usually oh well let them be and things like pedos were never accepted at all. You probably would've gotten your face bashed in for even bringing up the idea of letting some sicko who molested a young little girl so idk. Really i guess the secular argument is that its Literally the biggest virtue signal ever. Seriously the biggest virtue signal i've ever seen.

So when people make the argument for the slippery slope i generally can agree and see where they're coming from. Even if i was in support of the lgbtqppit culture i'd still say yes the slippery slope is a thing cause gay rights didn't magically appear it happened over years of chipping away. I think there was a recent article about how three lesbians in Columbia had a three way marriage. A three way marriage!? Wtf see so yea i personal don't get it.

>resorting to pedophilia as a straw man

Only to play along - marriage as an institution began to ensure men cared for their offspring, preventing men from wandering and leaving the financial care of the child to the state. Marriage also promoted population growth so that the king could have more soldiers, more farm works, more tax payers, etc. Gay marriage fulfills none of those things. And there are no issues of child legitimacy with gays as well.

Is that the only point you took from that? Nice selective argument you got there.

it's an evolutionary dead-end

I don't really have a problem with gays professing their love and deciding to stay faithful to each other for life, my issue comes down to everything that seems to surround it and it's political implications.

So are condoms

That was actually 3 gay guys who had a three way

We shouldn't have to bear second class kids because you can't deal with your feeling around a word. I want to be married when I adopt or have surrogate kids and not have to fuss with a second-partner adoption.

Please get off this fucking liberal hell hole cucked planet :*(

>Really i guess the secular argument is that its Literally the biggest virtue signal ever

Ya missed his main thesis

simple: Gay marriage wasn't illegal even before the supreme court or even any states legalized it. Nobody was stopping fags from holding a ceremony and saying "Hey guys, we are husbands now." What we WERE stopping them from is receiving government marriage benefits, such as tax relief.

Here's the root of the argument: Why do governments give handouts to people getting married? So they can have babies and raise them in a good environment. Are fags doing that? I didn't think so.

TL/DR
Legalization of gay marriage is just a way for fags to get gibsmedats

...

What is surrogacy and adoption?

Do infertile couples have their tax benefits revoked?

Homosexuality is degenerate

How about the fact that it is a fertility rite symbolic of a man and woman's ability to reproduce. Why should a bunch of degenerate cocksuckers with arsehole fetishes appropriate and change the meaning of a thousands of year old tradition?

They do not. Remember the second part of it, and raise them in a good environment. Infertile couples can raise the kids of dead parents or degenerate single mothers so they don't grow up to become criminals.

Fags shouldn't be part of this because they are statistically horrible parents and do things like pic related.

>statistically horrible parents

destroys social stability

Can you find me a single study saying that they are poor parents when they are allowed to marry before having kids?

Netherlands has had gay marriage for over 15 years and they are doing just fine.

Surrogate is the genetic mix of a man and woman two men CANNOT create life! And why should two men even be allowed to raise someone else's kid? Also why should they revive tax benifits to do so?

Nobody said two men could create life.

They paid for it.

Because everyone who is raising kids gets tax benefits. We don't have a tiered system prizing biological kids over surrogacy and adoption.

In Australia it's still illegal for faggots to marry and we are doing great

The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for a woman to bear and raise children.

Fags have nothing to do with that.

No babies, no family

statista.com/statistics/676902/child-abuse-victimization-by-sexual-orientation-canada/
first thing that came up

I'm secular and while I'm not against gay marriage, I do think it's retarded to want to have a traditional marriage with a church and a priest and all that. Why get married in a manner that represents an ideology that says you're an abomination that should be killed?

That will likely change soon. It happened in a matter of a few weeks in Germany and a few months in Malta. You are next on the list.

What does that have to do with married gay couples raising kids?

I fully support churches being able to refuse marrying gay couples. A priest has NEVER been forced to perform a same-sex marriage.

Fags shouldn't be able to raise kids because they can't naturally make them
Definitely shouldn't be government funded to do it

Everyone has the same equal right to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

>Why get married in a manner that represents an ideology that says you're an abomination that should be killed?

Not everyone is a biblical literalist.

Government is not funding surrogacy or adoption.

Marriage is and always has been for man and woman.

If fags want something similar, they should find a new name. And married fags shouldn't have the same privileges (tax breaks etc.) as married people. Faggots are mentally ill and cannot give birth to new children, but new children (taxpayers) is exactly what the state wishes to incentivize by granting tax breaks for married couples.

none

one could argue there's gays due to gays usually being forced to marry to evade getting the shit kicked out of them or killed. they'll phase themselves out of the genepool eventually

that's the most redpilled approach

>sure, get pegged all you like
>400 years later people read about men pegging each other and hooting\hollaring about accepting it
>well we accepted it
>now they're gone by their own choosing
i don't even think that's cynical or messed up, nor do i hate gay people. but if you(OP) don't like them, that in my opinion should be your mindset but who the fuck am i to tell you what to think

>due to gays usually being forced to marry to evade getting the shit kicked out of them or killed.
I mean at any time before our century in other parts of the world other than US

youtube.com/watch?v=jjPQ_jVlEnQ

Here's some more interesting secular information about faggots

Being gay is a mental illness by definition. The high correlation between homosexuality and mental disorders like depression, anxiety, bipolar, etc. is not due to coincidence or the "bulling of their community" as they would have you believe (the majority of them have dozens of supportive outlets).

Basically by allowing gay marriage you are breeding society to have mental illnesses.

oops, that one showed that gayness is caused by being raped as a kid, heres a better one
dailysignal.com/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/

here's another one
hindawi.com/journals/drt/2016/2410392/

happy now degenerate fag?

Well honestly I like to say that it causes unneccesary societal division, as in Australia they already have access to civil unions, and allowing gays to "marry" just causes more trouble than its worth with those who do't like it

>What are some secular arguments against gay marriage?
It's fucking gay.

and i actually mean that without a smidge of prejudice, i think all the racism and prejudice here waters down some of the dank opinions and redpills here (while conceding justification of such is debatable, doesn't mean i have to agree if it is justified, i'm a christian leaning agnostic and try to have integrity even as user)

>whoever shared this webm today mmm yes thx

No none of this is about gay married couples. And the Regnerus study classified people as gay parents when they weren't even:

But in scrutinizing Regnerus’ data, Cheng and Powell determined that of the 236 respondents whom Regnerus had identified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father, one-tenth had never even lived with the parent in question and an additional one-sixth hadn’t lived with that parent for more than one year. Still more had provided inconsistent or unreliable responses to survey questions, throwing their reliability into doubt. That means, Powell says, that over one-third of the 236 people whom Regnerus classified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father “should absolutely not have ever been considered by Regnerus in this study.”

rightwingwatch.org/post/new-research-further-debunks-regnerus-study-on-gay-parenting/

>hindawi.com/journals/drt/2016/2410392/
That guy is literally a Catholic priest who mainly has a job of making studies the Church can use in court cases against gays.

Remove all marriage laws for equality

>Making a character attack on the creator to try to disprove the evidence. Fuck off

Are you saying it isn't possible to manipulate survey data to make gays look bad? We know that Regnerus did it why should I expect this guy has motivations any different?

I mean you have Regnerus and Sullins on the one hand, and then you have mainstream science:

whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Homosexuality is bad for society.
Tolerating homosexual marriage allows the behavior to perpetuate.

Homosexuality is NOT "just a different preference". It is an adverse condition/ mental illness that causes self-destructive, antisocial behavior.

Is it really just "normal" behavior?

I love you guys but I do think it's an advanced form of promiscuity. All my friends who are gay tell me that there was a time "when I thought I was straight."

As for the child molestation stuff, early sexualisation of children makes them more promiscuous

archive.is/C7DJF

But just because some studies support this finding doesn't mean it's true. In fact, many, many more studies reached opposite conclusions. "Research ... has developed a scholarly consensus that shows that children raised by same-sex couples are at no important disadvantage," wrote Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld in an email. "There is a noisy fringe of academics who claim that children raised by same-sex couples are in disastrous peril," a viewpoint which "has little or no credibility within academia."

From an academic perspective, there are a number of flaws in the design of Sullins's research. To his credit, he used a large sample of data compiled by the CDC to test his hypothesis, looking at kids who were living with same-sex parents at the time of various surveys taken between 1997 and 2013. But "what Sullins's paper does not show is that these children were actually raised by the same-sex couple," wrote Rosenfeld in an email.

Reading the paper, it's impossible to say whether the kids in question spent most of their lives with heterosexual parents who then got divorced, for example, or a single parent who had multiple partners over time. This family history matters: "We have decades of research showing that family instability and divorce takes a toll on children," Rosenfeld wrote. Because of this constraint, he said, the paper cannot speak to the way being raised by same-sex parents affects the well-being of children. In an email, Sullins disputed this criticism, pointing to other widely accepted studies on emotional well-being and family structure that rely on the same data.

But there are other objections. In an interview, Abbie Goldberg, a psychology professor at Clark University, pointed out that the situation of gay couples in America has changed a lot since 1997, when social acceptance of homosexuality was significantly lower; kids surveyed at that time were probably more likely to have had a gay parent who divorced his or her opposite-sex partner. Scholars must pay to be published in the journal which accepted Sullins's paper, the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, which is run by a for-profit company and not affiliated with any academic society. And although the paper ostensibly went through an "open-access" peer-review process, as University of Maryland professor Philip Cohen pointed out in a blog post, that process is pretty thin.

Having babies is contributing to keeping society going. Financial/etc marriage benefits should be for this reason only. Gays cannot have children, so they can not contribute to keeping society going, so they should not receive benefits.

youtu.be/ir8BO4-7DkM

Surrogacy and adoption. Would you rather the kids be raised in orphanages?

yes, LGBTs fuck up kids

Are we just being "close-minded"?

Gross.

Is this child some sort of.... "bigot"?

Are Christians really the problem?

I ask with a neutral tone - would you be satisfied with any study by any respected institution that concluded children do better with a straight couple than a gay couple, all things being equal? I'm happy to disregard any flawed study. But I'm curious whether there'd ever be a study that you wouldn't dismiss as flawed. I'm not asking whether there are such studies. I'm asking would you ever accept one that concluded such

Why are there STILL gay pride parades... didn't they get completely equal rights already?

I'm gay and I agree with this. Our fight for civil rights has grown greedy and now seeks special privlages that we don't deserve.

Ask them "If people can be born homosexual, can people be born pedophiles?"

Watch them switch up the rules over and over.

Where do we draw the line? Pozzing?
I mean....who are we to tell these fine people how to live?

Absolutely if it compared married gay couples to married straight couples. Most research I find against gays is published by Christians to try to squash gay rights in courts. If I had a study by a University or a legitimate secular source I think it could absolutely inform the argument.

The problem is none of the Christians publishing anti-gay research are looking for ways to improve the prospects of kids raised by gays (which will happen regardless of gay marriage legality). They are trying to delegitimize gays as family people when I think the gay community needs and benefits from the civilizing embrace of marriage and families.

If we are forced to marry heterosexuals I think that is overall worse for the children and of course research cannot cover closeted gay parents who only have gay sex in secret and are outwardly heterosexual. I think research against gays just tries to poke us with a stick back in the direction of the closet when what matters is the best outcome for children and equal child-rearing rights.

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-parent-families-july-2014.pdf

Marriage as a legal contract was meant to relieve families from tax charges.
People who don't plan to have kids should not marry. That goes for most gay couples

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/

gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

sheknows.com/love-and-sex/articles/1133556/gay-married-couples-better-health

The study, published in The Gerontologist, involved researchers surveying over 1,800 LGBTQ adults (of all genders) over 50 in the U.S. They found that gay people in a relationship, whether married or in a long-term partnership, showed better health than single people. But people who were married did even better socially and financially than unmarried long-term couples.

The fact that marriage in general is retarded.

What part of what I said is contradicted In the articles?
Change the tax relief and other benefits from married to with children.
How one of the parts in a divorce is entitled to compensation if his/her job was not to grow kids at home?

Until artificial wombs get sufficiently advanced

This is true for male fags, but lesbians can accomplish this if 1 is the preggo femme and the other is the breadwinner.

Surprise surprise, having responsibilities makes you responsible

>Homosexuality is bad for society.
In what sense? In your pic, these things mostly only affect fags themselves, not broader society.
>Tolerating homosexual marriage allows the behavior to perpetuate.
How? Do you also think violent video games cause violence?

Well, namely that the percentage of gays who have children is increasing as a result of the adoption of gay marriage as federal policy.

Infertile couples do not lose tax benefits so the benefit of marriage is about their being 2 people, not kids involved.

faggots need to fucking die. at least they're killing themselves off

It's an oxymoron

it's gay, only faggots do it and it's infested with aidsbugs.

This 100%. You have more patients than me to get this far user. Thank you.

you don't have to get married. marriage is a religious ceremony that you deserve no part of. you've destroyed the sanctity of marriage you fucking fag

Marriage existed prior to Christianity and has had a civil option for decades. If marriage was solely a religious ceremony then Christians should have made sure you could only qualify if you had it in a religious space. That wasn't the policy prior to the advent of gay rights, so you can't claim that now.

t. hiv faget

True, adoption is still a bit of an issue though I think. I know this straight married couple that wanted to adopt but couldn't because the guys brother was a pozzed homo.

>white gays
>hiv

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/19/aids-diagnosis-down/12887823/

LOS ANGELES — There is some good news in the fight against AIDS: The rate of diagnosis for HIV infections has fallen in the United States by a third over the past decade, a study finds.

The report, released Saturday by the Journal of the American Medical Association, can be seen as a sign that the AIDS crisis, which first hit the U.S. in large numbers in the 1980s, is starting to subside.

Coates says most of the young men getting infected are African-American. "Access remains a problem," he says. "Even with the Affordable Care Act, this is a population not used to having access to care. We need to make sure health services are available."

theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/22/fall-in-hiv-among-gay-men-could-spell-end-for-britains-epidemic-say-experts

In the year beginning October 2015, HIV diagnoses fell by 32% compared with October 2014 to September 2015 among men who have sex with men (MSM) attending five of the biggest London sexual health clinics.

Archive or screenshot please

>theguardian com/society/2017/jun/22/fall-in-hiv-among-gay-men-could-spell-end-for-britains-epidemic-say-experts
archive.is/FwahI

They wouldn't let them adopt because the brother had HIV?

>do violent videogames cause violence

I would generally agree with your reasoning; however, there is a spike in trans cases suddenly popping up, just as the left takes on trans as it's newest pet. It's not a coincidence. It's unusual to go from 1 in 200,000 to 1 in 2000 in just a few years. And, yes, I'm aware that trans and gay are different.

Guess they didn't want to risk him having a creepy uncle with HIV. Be a shame for the kid to get pozzed so I kinda understand. Anyway, this makes me think it would be hard for gays that are active in the gay community to adopt a kid, since they probably know people with HIV aswell.

>Made of DNA with pre-coded layout on how to make more of yourself

>Ignore your building blocks and put dicks up your butt

sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/autism-rates-are-it-really-rise

huffingtonpost.com/kyle-simon/is-there-a-link-between-autism-and-gender-dysphoria_b_3896317.html

A study conducted by a team of British scientists in 2012 found that of a pool of individuals not diagnosed on the autism spectrum, female-to-male (FTM) transgender people have higher rates of autistic features than do male-to-female (MTF) transgender people or cisgender males and females. Another study, which looked at children and adolescents admitted to a gender identity clinic in the Netherlands, found that almost 8 percent of subjects were also diagnosed with ASD. That figure is nearly four times higher than the rate of ASD in the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Turkish researcher N. M. Mukaddes suggests that this number may even be low, citing the fact that individuals with lower levels of language may be unable to communicate their feelings of dissatisfaction with their assigned gender.

A core theory of autism is that it is an exaggeration of the typically male characteristic of systemizing with a low level of empathizing, considered a female characteristic. Called the extreme male brain (EMB) theory of autism, this theory developed from a body of research that found that males typically exhibit higher performance on tasks designed to test systemization, and lower performance on tasks measuring empathy. The British researcher who originally published this theory, Simon Baron-Cohen, applied it to individuals on the autism spectrum, observing that individuals with ASD generally perform even higher on systemization tasks than do neurotypical males, hence the term “extreme male brain.” As bizarre as these findings may sound, they have been supported by several other studies looking at sex and ASD.

I find your story hard to believe that an adoption agency in the Netherlands would refuse to permit a heterosexual couple to adopt because one of them has a brother who is HIV positive.

One could argue it was the same with autism, more attention/awareness means more people hear about it and realise they have it. I personally think porn-addiction plays a major role.

They told my aunt that is why the adoption fell through. Maybe they lied, but I don't see why they would.