"10 Non-Religious Reasons to Keep Marriage Traditional" Or: same old shit sammich, different mayo
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ten_non-religious_reasons_to_keep_marriage_traditional.htmlI'll let you read the article, for the finer points of the argument, here are each of the talking points in bold, and my refutations, in italics.
Haters gonna hate. Now lets refute each of this author's arguments:
1. To reproduce, nature favors heterosexuality, not homosexuality.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. Overall, "nature" favors asexual cell division as a method of reproduction.
2. Nature teaches us to build the family unit and honor gender differences.
Whose to say that gay couple with children would be any less cohesive than a hetero family unit? Also, offspring from sexual unions are not always fertile males and females. And who do you think you are forcing those binary traditional gender roles on others?
3. The essence of marriage is intelligible -- it makes the most sense.
What makes the most sense to me is that my LGBT friends should enjoy the same rights and protections under the law that I have. To be able to love, and marry who they damn well please. Furthermore, the "essence of marriage is the unique act of heterosexual sex"... BS. Some of the most well known oppoennts of gay marriage have been known to enjoy heterosexual sex outside of their marriages.
4. Childless heterosexual married couples reinforce marriage, not redefine it.
This argument states is that it is impossible for gay couples to conceive children, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, adoption, there are many ways for LGBT couples to have children.
5. Traditional marriage is strong, as is.
This argument is laughable. I can count on one hand the friends I have who came from two-parent homes growing up. To be honest, it was just sort of an expectation among people my age that parents would be separated.
6. Some certainties should not be rejected or fundamentally transformed.
"Will radical, iconoclastic leftists get their way again, as they seek to destroy another beautiful, stable and honored tradition?"
This point is rambling, self-important nonsense that basically amounts to "straight marriage was here first". Its the logic of a 3 year old refusing to share his toys, expressed using ten-dollar words.
7. History and democracy matter.
Touche'
8. Preserving traditional marriage is a virtue, not "homophobia" or bigotry.
I agree, now tell me how allowing gays to marry affects your "traditional" male/female marriage in any way. Why not allow gays to enjoy the same traditions of marriage that you do?
9. Upholding standards against other redefinitions is necessary.
{"Revisionists often ask, "How does gay marriage hurt my marriage?" That misses the point. It could also be asked, "How would polygamy or even incestuous marriage hurt your marriage?" (We should not yet worry about a woman who platonically married a dolphin).
Your individual marriage doesn't matter in the debate"}
The tired old "man on dog" argument. The author tells people that the fact that their individual marriages won't be harmed is unimportant but its the (of course, undefined) "essence" of marriage".
10. Unmarried civil union is a fair and reasonable compromise.
This is in fact, not true. As a minister ordained by the Universal Life Church Monastery of Seattle Washington (a religious institution which recognizes same sex marriages) I should be able to offer my congregation the same "marriage" services as other congregations. My congregation is not getting equal protection under the law, and neither am I as their minister.
Any church that recognizes same sex marriage should be able to perform the ceremonies and have the marriages recognized. Failure to do this shows favoritism of one church over another and thus violates both the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the first amendment.
To make a long story short, the author took the usual anti gay-marriage arguments and replaced the religion with patriarchy. Same old shit sandwich, different kind of mayonnaise.
= new reply since forum marked as read
it would be so simple really to solve this.
Federal law that allows for civil unions for men and men, men and women, and women and women. All states covered. All financial, insurance, tax, and inheritance benefits are covered...period. Any one in a civil union can have children (so can those outside of one as we don't want to leave anyone out) and adopt, etc. without bias towards religion, orientation, etc.
Then if the couple so chooses, they can have a spiritual marriage. Atheists can opt out without feeling like they must be forced to attend a church yet may still be 'married'. Otherwise, go to your synagogue, church, Buddhist Temple, pagan circle, whatever, and have yourself a wonderful faith-based ceremony with your family and friends in attendance. Call yourselves husband and husband, husband and wife, partners, whatever. If a church says, sorry, we do not want to marry a homosexual couple, big deal. They get to remain as traditional as they want, and the couple simply finds an Episcopal church or whatever that has zero problems with marrying them.
Render unto Caesar...render unto God. It is the 21st century. Let's be truly progressive and democratic in the United States. Something like this provides all of the societal benefits and completely separates it from the religious question. Separation of church and state as it should be. Until something like this happens, I do not see this issue resolved easily. SCOTUS will likely throw it back to the states and invalidate DOMA. We will continue to see the muddying of civil rights with financial rights with religious rights. It is a mess and people who love each other like my sister and her long term partner are the ones suffering. 
I sincerely hope that SCOTUS gives her and all homosexuals the right to marriage, and I sadly do not expect given the make-up of the court and the arguments we have heard thus far.
*Edit* As I penned this, Xyzse stated much what I did here and I agree with them quite a bit.
with a heart. When I see beings suffering, I look for the simplest solution not the most complex.
This whole situation seems needlessly complicated.
Yes, likely within a generation or two marriage equality will happen. I wish that we humans could be brave enough and smart enough sometimes to solve things more quickly rather than waiting for time to fix them.
It is saddening and frustrating.
Thank you. 
"We must protect the sanctity of CIVIL UNIONS!!!111!!"
Seriously, haters gonna hate. 
