|
I can generate a non-religious based arguement against gay marriage.
Personally, while it contains good points, I don't find it convincing.
"Society views it as useful to encourage the production of children from within the society, for whatever reason. (this is an unproven assumption)
Society thus liscences something called 'marriage' to encourage males and females to live close together, and possibly mate.
It isn't restricted to those who can have children, because the overhead required to check if people can have children isn't worth it. Not to mention the invasion of privacy issues.
Man/man marriages and Female/female marriages, however, require very little invasion of privacy to determine that they cannot have children with each other. The government has the right to know your sex."
Now, like I said, I don't find that arguement convincing.
Btw, nobody has suggested that the government will force churches to marry homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. Marriage can be done in a purely civil, non-religous, ceremony. The question is, can non-male/female pairs engage in an exclusive "sharing of selfhood"? (which is what marriage seems to be, legally: under english common law, for example, you can no more be forced to testify against your spouce than you can be forced to testify against yourself. The property sharing/etc seems to also follow this pattern.)
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
|