That so? Do you have a source for that (the bible or what your pastor says doesn't count)? You may want to read through this. You'll find marriage is not as unchanging as you seem to thing.
True, legally marriage is just about the government recognising the married parties financially function as one, largely for tax reasons. Love, commitment and the rest of that is up to the individual.
*Facepalm*
Well here's the thing, if you want something banned, you have to prove it's inherently harmful. No, "I like my own definition of marriage" doesn't count, neither does your rather asinine slippery slope argument regarding paedos and drug dealers. No, you need a logically sound and well reasoned argument to demonstrate it's inherently harmful to society. Can you do that? If not, why should it be banned?
*Facepalm* Ever heard of a fellow named Alfred Kinsey? That's just a starting point for you, there's plenty more where that came from.

Brilliant. I love it how you say that you're going to set aside cultural and religious roots to talk about law and politics, but then instead proceed to produce a series of cultural and religious arguments.

1. Marriage is what the law says it is. Different cultures and different civilisations have different forms of marriage. Some monogamous, some polygamous. All defined by the laws of the particular country / civilisation.

2. Because marriage requires consent, and quite rightly, the developed parts of the world deem children under a certain age incapable to consent to certain things.

3. That's like saying: "We have freedom of religion. Anyone can have a religion, as long as it's Christianity."

4. Except that bringing together two persons for the purpose of procreation is not the fundamental purpose of marriage. What about countries that allow polygamous marriages? But hey, maybe we should start annulling childless marriages as well. Those damned failures.

5. No comment.

6. Looking at your first "point", isn't the "law" irrelevant for the purposes of this argument? Oh and by the, the constitution is a legal entity.


Now, put aside your religious and cultural prejudices and actually tell us some legal / political grounds as to why two homosexual people shouldn't be able to marry.

Just so it doesn't seem like I've dropped off a cliff - I think I'm going to stop posting to this thread. For one, Hesusio and FraterPerdurabo are making very clear, concise and reasoned arguments, I don't think I need to add anything to them. Another - I can see this just getting frustrating. I've had many an online argument with religious fundamentalists about gay marriage, homosexuality in general, atheism, all sorts. It goes nowhere and results in raised blood pressure and I'd rather that be caused by my cholesterol.

And personal arguements! That means no "BUT IT'S TRADITION IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY EVEN THOUGH GREEK DUDES WERE BUTT FUCKIN MILLENIA AGO HERP DERP" arguements either. You need to prove it causes harm.

Legal marriage is what the law says it is. Marriage does not have to be about reproduction. Marriage is about entering into a semi-permanent union with someone, that's all. There are heterosexual couples who do not reproduce and their marriages are no less valid. The culture and traditions around it became irrelevant the second it became a legal construct.

No harm.

Pedophilia is harmful. Remember that post I made about laws being made to protect people from harm? Comparing a consentual homosexual relationship to pedophilia is ridiculous and invalidates this arguement.

Polygamy is a trickier issue. Gay marriage is about wanting the same rights; e.g., if your partner falls into a coma, and it's up to you to make a decision it shouldn't matter what gender you are. Changing the gender of one partner doesn't change that dynamic. Adding another one does; how do you split this responsibility across two people? Who gets first dibs? Are the wives tiered? Do they all get equal benefits? There are a lot of practical issues that need to be consideredn there.

But not with homosexuality. No harm, baby! Awww yeah! Incest can be harmful because you're playing Russian roulette with offspring. By comparison, first cousins can reproduce fairly safely and cousin marriage is legal in many places because it seems to cause negligible harm.

I've already covered polygamy.

No harm here either. Maybe it's taking a nap with all those WMDs? Pedophilia is harmful. Drug abuse is harmful. Those are illegal because they directly harm the people involved. Homosexuality does not.

Whether you like it or not, the purpose of marriage has changed. It is not what you think it is. Whether hetero or homo, many people want to get marriage just for the financial/legal/health benefits. If you want to argue that marriage should not deviate from cultural norms you cannot simultaneously argue that it should be a legal entity. You can't legislate culture.

No harm! 4-hit combo! Disagreeing with scientific research doesn't make it invalid and even if it is a "choice" that doesn't matter at all. But let me point out that there are significant neurophysiological differences between the brains of homosexual and hetero males, and evidence suggests that this is due to organizing and activating effects of the endocrine system during and after development.

M-M-M-M-ONSTER KILL KILL KILL kill. . . wait was that 5 kills? Ahh, appealing to the majority.

If everyone decided to ban religion would that be alright? Whether or not people want gay marriage is irrelevant. You need to prove it causes harm, which you haven't.

If you have any [NON RELIGIOUS NON-PERSONAL ARGUMENTS (e.g. not appealing to tradition or the majority and demonstrating that gay marriage would be harmful and not just that you dislike it) feel free to post them. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

Edit: formatting

Uh oh, you're on to us, we just pretend to be into dudes so we can get your women.

Is it something like this?

I live in League City, close to Dickinson, Galveston, and Houston.
Dickinson is full of openly gay teens and adults (Seriously, I am not safe there...it's a long story), La Marque has exactly 5 transgender citizens and 2 drag queens that are harassed constantly (and I'm friends with one of them), and Houston, well, you know....
Texas is horrible for the gay community.
If only we were, you know, more open minded.
See above.

I don't deny that a spectrum of attitudes exist in Texas.

What I'd like to point out that is after working in several states in the US, Texas, in comparison, is transparently on the conservative side of politics. I cannot imagine a gay marriage bill arriving the state legislature, no matter how open the lgbt subculture. They're too busy killing education through spending cuts.

Oh man, reminds me of the Texas Board of Education textbook fiasco.

Having worked from cities on the NM to LA border, I just don't see it. TX has open-minded people, but does not have an open-minded majority.

EDIT: sexual preference aside, in TX more than any other I've felt much more black sheep as a stated atheist.

It's astounding that in 2011 this argument needs to happen.

And I use argument in the most base sense, since it's one side just being exceptionally retarded and trying to deny people from getting on with shit.

I am a Christian. I have beliefs about sex and sin (and I am definitely a sinner). I do not want religion in government. Even my own. I do not care about any other marriage besides my own. Just wanted everyone to know that we religious types can still be reasonable.

Can I get an Amen?

No family is the same. I'm sorry there is people in the world who can discourage those different families convincing others it's in good faith. Holding a sentiment to deprive people of their family is a more shameful indulgence than any between two grown people.......or more LOL - But bringing up lifestyle "choice" like its fishing or bowling is a reference to promiscuity which is plain insulting but also considerably underestimates the importance of what they voted for- How are you to be taken seriously?

Well, you are in the Bible Belt. What do you expect, open arms?

Open arms? No, I expect to be lynched, or at the least fired from my job if they can ever find someone equally-suited.

If laws shouldn't be based on religious belief, what should they be based on? Personal experience? Majority rules? A couple of really old judges sit on a panel and debate what's actually legal/ethical, using their code of morals and ethics (grounded in their religious and personal beliefs)? I don't see how using basing an opinion on religious belief is any less valid than doing so on logic. At some point an individual has to make a logical choice whether or not they want to believe in a religion and try to follow it. Whether or not they represent themselves or their religion well is another matter entirely, but calling it invalid because their personal opinion is based upon religion instead of something else or what someone deems logical hardly seems fair.

How is passing a law based on personal belief any different than passing one based on religious belief? And if you can't pass a law based on either, how the heck would anything get accomplished?

As far as harm goes there is no substantial evidence one way or another to support that gay marriage will cause irreversible damage. Evidence will only present itself after two or three generations existing and living with gay marriage and by then it will be too late or everyone will scratch their chins and think, "Huh, what was all that fuss about 30 years ago? Things are awesome!". One side thinks it will do no harm and the other sees that only bad will come of it. Whether you base it on personal or religious belief it doesn't matter, reality is there is no concrete proof for either side, you just have to pick which side of the fence you stand on.

As for a non-religious, non-personal argument as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed I don't think there would be a discussion one way or the other if that is the stipulation.

Gay marriage will become a constitutional amendment within the next couple of years since DADT (don't ask don't tell) has been repealed in the US Military. Currently it is in the processed of being revoked and within the next several months military members will be able to openly serve as homosexuals and even be married. The way it is currently written, however, still stands on the 'seperate isn't equal'. For example a homosexual couple won't be given preferential placement at the same base while a heterosexual couple will. There are a few other stipulations that will be determined illegal or unethical and it will then be changed within another year.

In addition a branch of the federal government is recognizing same sex marriage, so what if a gay couple from New York ends up getting stationed in Texas, or two female service members decide to get married in Georgia? Can the states now still refuse to recognize their marriage and the benefits associated with it since they've been forcibly displaced by the military? Will they only be legal on base and become unwed soon as they step off the military installation? If the state has to recognize their union because they're military why should that mean another gay non-military couple in that state doesn't get the same right?

President Obama made a very calculated decision to repeal DADT in the second half of his first term and will reap the benefits very shortly. By the time the 2012 Presidential Election rolls around he'll be able to use the platform of "I don't agree with same sex marriage but repealed it, re-elect me!". Everyone will forget all the other blunders he's made and call him a hero.

Oh, and don't forget he fragged Osama bin Laden. Interesting they both happened in the same year.

Well, promise me if you are lynched, and IF hell exists, save me a spot.