A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

[hazmat]

What hazmat has to show is that SSM is identical to homosexual marriage, since he wants both to be recognised and treated identically

homosexual marriage would be ssm…

 

[razredge]

Oops, yeah I meant to type ‘heterosexual’ marriage.

 

[hazmat]

thats a no, razredge. asians and blacks are not identical; that doesnt mean i have to show that theyre identical to say the state must treat them equally. like ive said before, if only people who produced offspring could marry, the discussion would be very different. but producing offspring is not a requirement, so its not a good excuse for gay marriage bans by the state. your church can do whatever it wants, but the state doesnt have that luxury.

 

[Weareyoung]

thats a no, razredge. asians and blacks are not identical; that doesnt mean i have to show that theyre identical to say the state must treat them equally. like ive said before, if only people who produced offspring could marry, the discussion would be very different. but producing offspring is not a requirement, so its not a good excuse for gay marriage bans by the state. your church can do whatever it wants, but the state doesnt have that luxury.

No. This isn’t an issue about treating someone equally or not. It’s about people being forced by the government to treat two very different relationships equally (which means in the same exact, identical way). Do people have the right to believe that same sex “Romantic”/sexual relationships can be unethical…?

Most people who support SS”M” will say, that “if the couple is committed, they should be left alone.” But what they want is not for the couple to be left alone. They want the state to sanction their relationship and call it a “marriage”. As I’ve said before, there is no reason for the state to sanction a personal relationship and call it “marriage” unless there is potential for it to have societal benefit. I don’t think I need to argue that SS”M” has no societal benefit besides maybe the two who are involved. It’s pretty self-evident. I think in the best situation government has no right to sanction ANY marriage. Whenever you throw government into the mix, you ALWAYS involve other people. But we do sanction actual marriage because of the benefits that it gives society. Having children is not always a “requirement” of marriage, but it has been understood for a long time that natural reproduction must be possible in principle for it to be a marriage. My parents were both pretty much infertile before I was born. This does not make a marriage invalid because in real marriage reproduction is always possible in principle. They were still able to have me naturally. The principle of having reproduction between two individuals of the same sex is always an impossibility. Until this changes naturally (which it never will)…there are no societal benefits from it. To say reproduction has nothing to do with marriage would be the result of a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage. It doesn’t make sense that same sex couples want to “adopt” kids while denying that children have anything to do with marriage. They want to “have their cake and eat it too.” This whole situation is a mess and it shouldn’t be an issue!

I’m sorry. Something is either a civil right or it is not. It can’t be a civil right in one context and not in another. If it’s a civil right we’d have to add this to our education system and we would not be allowed to make ethical distinctions between this and heterosexual marriage because they would be called the same thing and we’d be obligated to treat them “equally” and both as “ethical”. (which I think is pretty much indoctrination). And then it really calls into question whether the Churches (or any institution that objects) have a right to not perform and/or recognize these “marriages” based on the fact that two people’s genders are not compatible. Martin Luther King Jr. said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The general interpretation of these words today is that you should be judged by your ACTIONS and not by your race.

“Content of your character” or your actions include the sexual decisions you make. I personally think he would be very insulted by the homosexual advocates that equate civil rights with their advocacy.

The only luxury the State has is to somehow benefit its people. And no Judge or Legislature will ever be able to say correctly that the relationship between two men is a “marriage,” (especially against the will of the people, as we’ve seen in California which is a really liberal state.) Because it is not a Civil Right any Judge who forces a state to recognize this stuff is forcing his opinions to be accepted by the people of that state. (Abortion is legal as the result of a the Supreme Court decision, but government still cannot legally fund it)

To say that a Church can do whatever it wants would not be entirely true. Isn’t it true that if a Church endorses a candidate for President or makes certain political stances, it ceases to get tax exempt status? (I think the following point has been made before) Imagine if the Catholic Church said people couldn’t marry based on their race. The state would probably force them to let them marry, because there is no reason to disallow people to not marry based on their race (unless you are a white supremacist or something, which is universally wrong.) The Church still has to comply with rationality and general ethics. It is not the same issue with SS”M”.
“Marriage equality” activists have no real argument, because of the fact that they want to involve the government.

Do you really think you understand what you’d be advocating for, if you advocate for same sex “marriage” to be sanctioned by the government? Please think about the consequences and ramifications of your actions that might not be apparent immediately. Please think before you make up your mind.

 

[hazmat]

if they can force people to treat heterosexual couples like theyre special, then why wouldnt they force people to treat homosexual couples like theyre special too? if the scotus forces states to allow gay marriage its because theyre upholding the constitution. you cant just put everything to a vote; our country doesnt work that way. i heard about a pastor who refused to marry an interracial couple not too long ago–i dont know what happened to him, if anything.

 

[Weareyoung]

if they can force people to treat heterosexual couples like theyre special, then why wouldnt they force people to treat homosexual couples like theyre special too? if the scotus forces states to allow gay marriage its because theyre upholding the constitution. you cant just put everything to a vote; our country doesnt work that way. i heard about a pastor who refused to marry an interracial couple not too long ago–i dont know what happened to him, if anything.

We don’t just treat heterosexual couples like they’re special! They are special. Can anyone deny that? If you refuse to admit that heterosexual couples are more special than homosexual couples, you refuse to admit that life is special.

When you demand “marriage rights” from the government you have to be able to benefit society. Otherwise it would be like stealing from the American people. And the only way for this to be possible is for reproduction to be possible (in principle). Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we can undermine the will of the people. I’ve already established that homosexual “marriage” can never be a Civil Right. Civil rights are not defined by a group of people who commit arguably (in my opinion) unethical actions. The government’s place is not to define marriage as anything other than what will benefit society. If it does not benefit society, the government has no business in it and it should be private (especially when so many disagree with it). It is impossible for the intention of homosexual couples to be to reproduce with each other, and the Constitution is not about giving people entitlements they never deserved or earned.

You might have a better argument if you tried to define private and consensual homosexual acts between adults as Civil Rights. But this is already legal. What you’re advocating for is to get other people’s money and forced acceptance for something they probably do not agree with. I do not think you understand how marriage and government and society interact.

 

[Darkbloom]

The debate over things like gay marriage is proof Western philosophy has come full circle.

Socrates is the beginning of Western philosophy. He rejected sophism, which essentially taught people how to make complex arguments to justify whatever they may want to argue for, whether or not it was true or moral. He made Truth and Wisdom his highest aim.

From the groundwork he laid, Western culture pushed on to great heights. But the force of comparatively recently philosophies such as nihilism and moral relativism have given people the notion that there should be no bounds on what they do. After all, you can come up with some argument that makes it okay to do whatever feels good, no matter how unnatural, no matter how manifestly depraved.

We’ve all become sophist again.

 

[hazmat]

We don’t just treat heterosexual couples like they’re special! They are special. Can anyone deny that? If you refuse to admit that heterosexual couples are more special than homosexual couples, you refuse to admit that life is special.

When you demand “marriage rights” from the government you have to be able to benefit society. Otherwise it would be like stealing from the American people. And the only way for this to be possible is for reproduction to be possible (in principle). Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we can undermine the will of the people. I’ve already established that homosexual “marriage” can never be a Civil Right. Civil rights are not defined by a group of people who commit arguably (in my opinion) unethical actions. The government’s place is not to define marriage as anything other than what will benefit society. If it does not benefit society, the government has no business in it and it should be private (especially when so many disagree with it). It is impossible for the intention of homosexual couples to be to reproduce with each other, and the Constitution is not about giving people entitlements they never deserved or earned.

You might have a better argument if you tried to define private and consensual homosexual acts between adults as Civil Rights. But this is already legal. What you’re advocating for is to get other people’s money and forced acceptance for something they probably do not agree with. I do not think you understand how marriage and government and society interact.

so let them be special on their own, independent of the state. otherwise, once the state starts treating citizens a certain way, then they need to ensure equality–thats the law. you may have claimed it cant be a civil right, but you didnt establish that. within a decade, youll likely be thinking scotus judges dont understand how they interact either. i look forward to it.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Friends,

Can someone point me in a direction to find studies or substantial arguments for the following…

gay couples do not provide stable families
gay couples can detrimentally affect children that they raise
gay couples are detrimental to society.

peace,
Phil

 

[kch86]

As it boils down most who argue against same sex marriage argue on religious ground. But with a church state separation paradigm in mind what non religious argument can you make against this issue?

What is the purpose of marriage? I think that is the question that needs to be asked.

In pre-Christian pagan societies that may have even been tolerant of homosexuality, we do not see much evidence for there being something like gay marriage. And why would that be?

I think what has slipped under the radar is the fact that heterosexual marriage has been subtly redefined to something else, and that’s why there’s confusion as to why homosexual couples should not be permitted to marry.

You will hear a lot of heterosexual couples saying that they “don’t need a piece of paper” to prove their love. That’s what marriage has been redefined to - a piece of paper that is proof of romantic feelings. That’s not what marriage is. That’s not what it was in pre-Christian societies either. It was a binding commitment to join two people from different families so as to form a new family unit that would provide a secure environment for any children that may arise from that union.

Our contraceptive mentality has really obscured the image of what marriage is supposed to be. The concept is now empty and people associate it simply with airy fairy romantic ideals of the 20th Century. By all means, romantic love can and should be a part of marriage, but that is not the basis for why it should be a formal institution.

The law to some extent confirms that - there really would be no point in having legal rules regulating something as vacant as a piece of paper that is a declaration of subjective feelings of affection. It’s much more than that. And it’s intricately related to the fact that a relationship between a man and a woman can give rise to new life and a new family. Two people who by definition cannot create new life, a new generation and a new family cannot be married. Even if we should call their relationship marriage and give it legal recognition, marriage it is not.

The pagans of old recognised this and it should be self-evident to the pagans of today. However, because of contraception, heterosexual relationships have become just as sterile as homosexual ones. Abortion has allowed inconvenient children that would be too demanding on the financial resources of a single person to be discarded so that there no longer is any need for a commitment between two people to create a stable family unit.

If homosexual relationships are to be given recognition by secular authorities in the form of civil partnerships such as here in the UK, the two should be governed by separate rules, because of the very different nature of the partnerships in question. But one should first ask, why do we need the law to enforce a piece of paper that is nothing but a declaration of mutual romantic feeling between two partners? That is all a homosexual partnership can be. Unfortunately, most heterosexuals too think that’s what marriage is. If that’s what we see it as, then there really is no difference. And that’s why we’re in this mess.

 

[Weareyoung]

so let them be special on their own, independent of the state. otherwise, once the state starts treating citizens a certain way, then they need to ensure equality–thats the law. you may have claimed it cant be a civil right, but you didnt establish that. within a decade, youll likely be thinking scotus judges dont understand how they interact either. i look forward to it.

You’re ignoring some important points.
The government cannot treat anyone differently. What it does is it sanctions something that is beneficial to society for the greater good. To say that we originate from anything other than heterosexual couples would be a monumental lie.
You cannot demand special rewards from government without actually doing something for society.

The government treats everyone equally while sanctioning heterosexual couples because to say that sanctioning both is fine would cause heterosexual couples to be treated unequally because they would provide more than homosexual couples do. To say that they deserve the same entitlements (as couples) would be a mistake, especially when a lot of those entitlements involve tax payer money. The only possible marriage systems relating to government that would be fair for both the people (society) and the couples would be

1. No sanctioning of marriage usually because the state does not value marriage or sees that it’s place is not to regulate marriage.

Or. 2. One that gives benefits to heterosexual couples alone because of the benefits they provide to society (Children).

Unfortunately a lot people fail to understand this concept and concepts in my previous posts.

Completely divorcing reproduction from marriage in a society is a bad idea. Government endorsing it is an even worse idea.

Also not a very good biological strategy.

The only argument you’re left with is that government should sanction no marriage. And I think I have a personal preference for this. And saying that government has no business sanctioning any marriage would be a valid argument in my opinion, if you want to go in that direction.

 

[hazmat]

like ive said, if only couples that actually produced offspring could marry, this would be a very different discussion. but thats not the case right now. states can abstain from granting certain rights (state’s rights), but once granted, things have to be equal among their citizens.

 

[Weareyoung]

like ive said, if only couples that actually produced offspring could marry, this would be a very different discussion. but thats not the case right now. states can abstain from granting certain rights (state’s rights), but once granted, things have to be equal among their citizens.

You fail to understand. Procreation is a necessary component of marriage when it is sanctioned by the state. But not in the way you think. Just because a heterosexual couple seems to be infertile or is actually permanently infertile is irrelevant. Is your parent’s marriage invalid if they think they’ll never have kids at the time (before they have you)? No state is to judge that a heterosexual couple will never be willing to have a child or not or whether they are infertile or not. The principle of the matter is that marriage is between a man and a woman and between a man and a woman the principle of procreation is always possible. It is between only two people of opposite sex. (Don’t argue: “So it’s possible between you and your mother.” There are different reasons for why this would be wrong. Do you personally think the state should sanction incest too? I didn’t think so.)

The state can make a distinction if the couple is of the same sex because in principle two men or two women cannot naturally have their own kids—ever and that is an absolute fact. So any state sanctioned “marriage” between the same sex would always be an intentional lie, an intentional fraud, and would be always cheating the people of the particular State because they get tax payer benefits and forced acceptance when they give nothing back. So your logic doesn’t make sense. If the principle of procreation is missing from a “marriage”, it is not an actual marriage according to the State (or at least the ones that generally believe in not coercing or cheating its people.) There are big distinctions between males and females with regards to reproduction. And males and females work together to procreate. Like I said before homosexual couples want to adopt or artificially inseminate, while claiming that procreation is never necessary for marriage. It just doesn’t make sense.

This shouldn’t be something that needs to be explained…

Apparently you don’t seem to value life. And we have very different mind sets. And ethics. I don’t see much further use in arguing with you.

But one question I would like to ask you: Do you also believe that government money should fund abortion?

 

[razredge]

thats a no, razredge. asians and blacks are not identical; that doesnt mean i have to show that theyre identical to say the state must treat them equally. like ive said before, if only people who produced offspring could marry, the discussion would be very different. but producing offspring is not a requirement, so its not a good excuse for gay marriage bans by the state. your church can do whatever it wants, but the state doesnt have that luxury.

The difference between asians and blacks is superficial rather than essential in nature.

There is a meaningful difference since ALL same sex relationships cannot produce offspring while heterosexual relationships can. The exceptions here and there merely prove the rule.

 

[RiverTam51]

First of all remember that what we are talking about is changing the definition of marriage to something other than a bond between one man and one woman. As it stands even people who have adopted a gay identity already have the right to get married they just don’t want to marry someone of the opposite gender. So this isn’t about rights. Those who identify as gay already have the right to get married. They want the definition changed so they can marry the same gender.

My main point isn’t about this particular quote, but really? When I get cancer, I don’t want the doctor to tell me that I am only allowed to be treated for my cold. Hospitals should do their best to treat all the diseases a person has; the state should try to recognize all the rights of people.

Now, the problem most people on both sides of the issue have is that a decision either way essentially requires the state to declare what sort of marriage God allows. To legalize gay marriage would go against the religion of the majority, and to illegalize it universally would be to declare values in accordance with a certain religion, which would defeat the purpose of not having an official religion.
So why force our government make a religious declaration at all? Obviously God does not approve of all the “marriages” that the government does, otherwise there would never be legal divorces. The government is not a religious institution and has no religious authority to declare ANY marriage valid or invalid. Instead, the government should stop declaring marriages altogether, and only approve a couple’s ability to live together. If the couple wants, they could then get married in a church that approves of the marriage, but the government should have no authority and no stake in this decision.
If we can agree that mutually consenting adults can live together, own property together, and visit each other in the hospital, why force the issue farther? Let’s let the government rule on our legal issues, and God decide what is moral.

 

[Weareyoung]

I want to make one very important point to the advocates of same sex “marriage” on this thread. (That would be you, hazmat) I do realize that this is a Catholic website. And you don’t have to be Catholic to be on this website. But you don’t have to be Catholic to oppose SS”M”. You don’t even have to be religious. This entire thread is called, “A non-religious argument against same sex “marriage.”” This thread is not called “a non-religious debate on same sex “marriage.” So if you don’t have a non-religious argument AGAINST same sex “marriage” you shouldn’t be posting here. I’m pretty sure the author of this thread is looking for support for his argument. (Although I could be wrong and he might want the opposite side, but it’s just a thought). So if you can’t provide support, your posts are irrelevant. That’s just my opinion. Also your arguments have no bearing, because you would have to prove it is a civil right first to force it on everyone. And you have done nothing to address my main points. Thank you.

 

[hazmat]

Procreation is a necessary component of marriage when it is sanctioned by the state.

false. procreating is not required. if it was, then things would be different–like i said. there is no good argument against the state allowing gay marriage. courts have already ruled against bans on gay marriage, despite the will of voters, and its because of the us constitution. keep pressing the matter, and eventually, every state will be forced to lift bans on gay marriage.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

driving/drinking age was brought up earlier in this thread, and i do not view it as a violation of equal protections. its not illegal to sell me alcohol, but it was when i was underage–thats how it is for every citizen. there would be a disparity if the state only let some 15 yr old citizens buy alcohol, or let some citizens get away with murder, etc.

to clarify, i do see it as sexist. whether the state protects ones right to marry a woman is dependent on ones sex (must be male). when discussing this, i dont even take sexual orientation into account because i see no need to.

Then I will have to ask, so what that it’s sexist (if that were indeed the case)? How does that make it wrong? Backing up though, what about the definition of marriage is sexist? And how are you defining sexist’? Saying there are some jobs that only a man can or is allowed to do, or vice-versa is sexist…but I fail to see how that related to marriage, unless you bring sexual orientation into it -and sexual orientation is the whole point at issue here, you can’t ignore it. . Marriage is not a private thing you do in your bedroom…it is a publicly recognized act and relationship endorsed by the State for the raising of a family (putting aside that more and more this understanding is honored in the breach than in the observance) -a socially beneficial role which it is in the rational interest of the State to support with certain tax benefits. What socially beneficial role is there in SSM? What rational interest is there for the State to privilege SSM

I apologize…but I just cannot seem to wrap myself around your position.

 

[Weareyoung]

false. procreating is not required. if it was, then things would be different–like i said. there is no good argument against the state allowing gay marriage. courts have already ruled against bans on gay marriage, despite the will of voters, and its because of the us constitution. keep pressing the matter, and eventually, every state will be forced to lift bans on gay marriage.

You’ve completely missed the point.

Of course procreation now has nothing to do with it according to you! You’re trying to change the definition of marriage to not necessitate the principle of procreation. As it exists in states where same sex marriage is banned, marriage is between a man and a woman. This means that in principle reproduction is always possible. You have no argument. The definition you want to change it to means that it shouldn’t necesitate procreation of any kind ever.
You are only basing your argument on what you think marriage should be. Not on what it is (at least in states where same sex “marriage” is banned). Do you understand where I’m coming from? Thus procreation (in principle) IS required and it makes this “different.”

And you failed to answer my question about whether you think abortion should be funded by the government. This question has relevance.

All you can do is continue to say that it’s a civil right, when you have no backing to prove it. Because the truth is that we can be judged by our actions. And sexual actions can occasionally be unethical.

To suddenly say that all consensual sexual actions are ethical would be a bad claim. I don’t think Martin Luther King Jr. would advocate for something like that. There’s a reason the government doesn’t directly fund abortion. That’s not a civil right either.

No matter what you say, this cannot be a court issue, because it is not a civil rights issue. And this will not win when put to popular vote. Because no matter how liberal the population is, they still know that this has negative ramifications and is completely unecessary for the good of society.

The principle of procreation is required for a state sanctioned marriage. Not necessarily procreation itself. You have to make a distinction. Without the principle of procreation no government would have any right to ever sanction marriage. Just because some pieces of what marriage is supposed to be are missing doesn’t mean we can take away the defining aspect.

How is marriage relevant between two people of the same sex? Especially when these benefits were designed for those who can have natural families. Ultimately equating homosexual “marriages” with heterosexual marriages would result in your entire sense of reality being pretty warped. Because we originate from heterosexual couples and to think that homosexual couples have more of a role (or even a similiar role) in society than heterosexual couples would be a lie.

The idea that marriage has nothing to do with procreation would necessarily be a lie.

“keep pressing the matter, and eventually, every state will be forced to lift bans on gay marriage. “

I’m sorry, but that claim is irrational. Threats like that will only hurt what you’re advocating for. Any bullying will only solidify my argument. Especially since this is a Catholic Website and the topic of this thread is “Argument against same sex marriage.”” So I don’t see what you’re really doing here…

 

[Weareyoung]

like ive said, if only couples that actually produced offspring could marry, this would be a very different discussion. but thats not the case right now. states can abstain from granting certain rights (state’s rights), but once granted, things have to be equal among their citizens.

States prohibit same sex couples from marrying based on the principle that they can never in any circumstances produce their own children.

States allow opposite sex couples to marry because of the fact that reproduction is always possible in principle between them.

Opposite sex couples are by definition the principle or (source) of reproduction.

It’s not an issue of “actually producing offspring.” It’s a matter of principle that allows the state to make distinctions between opposite sex and and same sex couples.

You cannot resort to the logic that since sometimes procreation is not happening, therefore it is not a marriage. If you are a human being, you can in principle eat food and digest it, whether you are doing it or not. A computer cannot only physically not eat an apple, but it cannot eat and digest it in principle. A computer can do things in principle that a human can’t do in principle. In principle a person can type on a computer, even if he is not typing. In principle a book can never under any circumstances type words on a computer. By definition two men cannot have kids with each other, ever in principle. Two sperm just won’t create an embryo.

Whether a couple is willing to have kids or is infertile is irrevlevant. As long as they are male and female reproduction between them is always possible in principle. You don’t seem to understand the distinction I’m trying to make.