Are there any relevant secular reasons to support gay marriage?

[iNow]

I'm pretty sure this thread is about reasons to name them the same. Are there any?

 

Huh?

This thread is about relevant secular reasons to support it. The name we call it is a separate issue as best I can tell.

[insane_alien]

The name we call it is a separate issue as best I can tell.

 

and completely irrelevant too.

 

a rose by any other name and all that.

[Mr Skeptic]

This thread is about relevant secular reasons to support it.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the concept of gay marriage include both gay rights and that they be called marriage? Consider also proper interpretation technique: the OP has stated that in his country, gays already have the same rights and he thought they did here too, and that in general it is a change from the status quo that requires a reason. Of course we could also wait and ask him.

 

Anyhow, it could be argued that the above reasons are reasons to support gay rights but not necessarily gay marriage, just like us having hair, being warm-blooded, and lactating is not necessarily evidence of being primates.

 

The name we call it is a separate issue as best I can tell.

 

If it is, I could start a new thread on that topic instead.

[Severian]

Huh?

This thread is about relevant secular reasons to support it. The name we call it is a separate issue as best I can tell.

 

I would say it is about both. I am certainly aware that there are members of the gay and lesbian community campaigning for the name marriage, and are not happy without it. So it is certainly an issue for them.

 

However, I am probably more interested in reasons why we should let gay people have any sort of legal union recognised by the state.

[padren]

I would say it is about both. I am certainly aware that there are members of the gay and lesbian community campaigning for the name marriage, and are not happy without it. So it is certainly an issue for them.

 

However, I am probably more interested in reasons why we should let gay people have any sort of legal union recognised by the state.

 

Would you care to comment on the reasons I posted in support of both? You didn't respond back when I asked for a summary of agreements/disagreements so far.

[john5746]

However, I am probably more interested in reasons why we should let gay people have any sort of legal union recognised by the state.

 

I would say the same reasons we have marriages recognized by the state - to support the family unit, which is the foundation of a society. Supporting incest on the other hand would probably undermine stable families.

[bascule]

Would you be happy with civil unions if they really did offer the same rights? (I must admit, I thought they did in the US, probably because they do in my country.)

 

Yes. That is not the case in America right now.

 

I'd also be happy if they separated "marriage" from any sort of legal definition, with civil unions being the only legal entity recognized by the state.

[bascule]

In response to some of these other threads floating about, specifically in the case of incestuous marriages they have many of these rights already, because they're family. They don't have to worry about hospital visits, for example.