Premise 1: People should use knowledge derived from objective observation of the world and subsequent reasoning based upon those observations, when determining social policy.
Premise 2: There are no objective observations that can be derived from the world that would suggest gays should be denied the right to marry, and there is evidence that suggests it would even be beneficial to society to allow gays to marry.
Conclusion: There should be gay marriage.
The evidence I present is that studies have shown that children raised in same sex households demonstrate no better or worse development than those raised in heterosexual homes. Something good to know considering the number of children in need of adoption in our country. Also many of the same emotional and physical benefits found in heterosexual marriage have been shown to extend to the individuals in same sex marriages in countries that allow same sex marriage. Meaning that same sex couples who can marry will probably lead longer, more meaningful lives. Being married also decreases the potential for spreading STDs such as HIV.
A few more benefits married people have are...
Higher household incomes
Save more of their income
Live longer because they engage in less risky behaviors
Children are better off financially and emotionally
Derive greater satisfaction from sex
And there isn't any reason to believe any of that wouldn't be true in same sex marriages.
Homosexuality has also proven to be quite natural, as it is observed in over 400 species in the animal kingdom, including our closest genetic relative, the bonobo. That is not to say that morality should be dictated by nature, but rather that there is evidence that homosexuality is a part of the natural world and serves some yet to be distinguished evolutionary purpose.
I await to see how you argue against my shaky arguments.
If you want to talk about priorities, I have always found it funny that the religious right is so focused on how allowing gays to marry, who account for approximately 5% of the population, would lead to the destruction of marriage and traditional family, but have never dedicated anywhere near as much resources and time to fighting divorce. Now call me a layman, but doesn't divorce literally destroy marriage?In terms of marriage; we have already seen the destructive influence of excessive individualism in terms of the breakdown of the family as the basic unit of society; and a divorce rate of almost 50%, among other factors.
What has lead to our 50% divorce rate and decline in traditional families, is the institution of no fault divorce. No fault divorce has lead to approximately a 40% increase from the 1950's, which was before it was initiated. It wouldn't be hard. Covenant marriages, which are marriages which give up no fault divorce and require mandatory counseling before divorce, could be initiated as an option across the country. But are religious groups fighting for that in an effort to "protect the traditional definition of marriage"? No, because the "traditional definition of marriage" has implicitly been altered to mean, "a marriage between one man and one women, unless they decide to get divorced, in which case they can marry as many people of the opposite sex as they want as long as they only marry one of them at a time."
If that wasn't the true "traditional definition of marriage" there would be more outcry when celebrity women marry celebrity men for a day and then divorce them. Of course, I'm sure you knew how Jesus and the Bible treated the concept of serial monogamy. It was mentioned a hell of a lot more than the 6 little verses on homosexuality.
When it comes to traditional families, the number of "fatherless" or "motherless" homes created as a result of serial monogamy could never even come close to being approached by gay marriages even though they are inherently "fatherless" or "motherless".
On that note, since we came to one of my favorite Christian arguments against gay marriage, a fun little video.
YouTube - Kinderen voor Kinderen song - Two Fathers
Kinda hard to watch a kid sing about his family in that way and think that just because it is different that it is inferior.
The way your argument comes off is...gay marriage is going to lead other people to divorce because the idea is allegedly built on shaky assumptions.Granting gay marriage would certainly be another step in that direction, since its justification is directly built upon its assumptions. Would it lead directly to animal-human marriages? [Sarcasm]Well I guess anything is possible.[/Sarcasm]
Also when it comes to the slippery slope argument, it goes the other way too. If we let the religious right discriminate against certain groups, then who is next? Women? People of different faiths? Liberals? [/Sarcasm]
The great irony is that there are intelligent people who still choose to overgeneralize by saying things like, "[insert group] are all so [insert some derogatory trait] that they don't see things my way."The great irony is that gays are so staunch about getting married at a time when the institution of marriage itself is becoming more and more meaningless.
That is what this entire thread has been. One big logical fallacy of begging the question. You argue that you don't know what basis there is for fighting for gay marriage, therefore there must not be one. But you didn't start this thread to ask for reasons for why there should be gay marriage, rather you started it to tell people that since you couldn't conceive of one, they should all STFU. Since you come from a Christian paradigm, it is clearly difficult for you to understand the injustice of denying one group of people the same rights as everyone else via unreasonable discrimination. After all, the Christian religion has historically been used to advocate slavery and the subjugation of women. The fact that it is now being used to justify denying gays the right to marry is simply history repeating itself.Which begs the question as to why its advocates are so adamant about this.
When it comes to fundamentalist Christians, if you are advocating only following the Bible and reasoning based on the Bible, then of course you wouldn't understand a point of view that is separate from the Bible.
But I assure you I am quite adamant about this for all the reasons I stated above and more. Gay marriage will be beneficial to society. It will not lead to the same kind of decay as no fault divorce. Fighting no fault divorce would be a far better use of time and resources in the quest to preserve the tradition of marriage and traditional families than fighting to keep gays from having the right to be married.