None whatsoever unless they have a really bad band organised for the reception. The chances of that are very slight though. That would be my main concern.
None. There is no argument a secular and non against gay marriage. People need to grow up.
Shouldn't it be their choice to pass on or not pass on their genes? Also, if a woman marries another woman...she can still get pregnant...
TL;DR not exactly a "good" argument....probably the best one so far...
People can successfully pass on genes without being married, so I don't believe gay marriage bears any effect on that.
If the only argument that can be found is about procreation, and procreation can be done without marriage, this still inevitably down the line falls into a theological argument. Why?
- because religious belief states that we should be married first in order to procreate. Physiologically, we are still able to make babies as unwed lesbian mothers. It has been brought up that if marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then infertile couples, post-menopausal women, and couples that choose not to have children should not allowed to be married either. Clearly, this is not the sole purpose of marriage.
Again, playing devil's advocate here, but gay-marriage opponents would go beyond just procreation, and say that gay marriage goes against the traditional family structure, so the kids would be lacking proper mother/father figures, which, they would argue, will have negative effects on their development.
But it's still bullshit.
When you call it homophobia, that is in most circles in our culture what you might call a conversation stopper. However, I would like the truth. I'd like proof that one is better than the other. If homosexual families last longer, raise healthier and less at-risk kids than heterosexual families, heck, then let's start pushing homosexual families.
But nobody seems to want to do the research to find out the truth. Instead people blindly bet their children that their arrangement is good.
Also, it's not always homoPHOBIA (a fear of gays). Some people simply hate gays. That is called "homomisia."
we are still able to make babies as unwed lesbian mothers
Speak for yourself....No matter how unwed and/or lesbian I am I will never be a mother :P
Other than the issue above, I agree completely.
Haha, I don't really want to have a child, myself. Which is also why I included couples that choose not to have children in my argument :)
I would say there is more secular whining against same-sex marriage than actual arguments.
What I think is more common than arguments against same-sex marriage is arguments against marriage itself, or at least government regulated marriage. Personally, I don't think it's up to the state to define my family unit. There are contractual aspects of any union that would require some oversight and limitations (as with pretty much any contract), but as for the frilly vows and titles aspect, I don't think it should be regulated. It's nothing to me if people want to call their union a marriage, a tlhogh, or even a pancake stomp. Actually, I kind of like that last one. "I just got pancake stomped to my boyfriend of seven years today! Can't wait to syrup the union at the hotel room tonight."
Ha, I love that! I hope the ceremony involves actual stomping on pancakes?
Marriage is both a religious and a secular institution. Its purposes are twofold: first, reproduction of both the masses as exploitable workers and the elites so as to keep wealth and power in the circles where they are; and second, as a means of tying people closer to religious faith, since it is considered sinful both to beget children outside of a merital relationship, and to part from a spouse.
Now, if marriage be by definition about love, then it follows that everyone ought to be allowed to marry with no restrictions as to the beloved’s sex. If we want equality in general, then there ought to be either marriage between two people of either sex, or there ought to be no marriage whatsoever.