A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

[AnglicanForMary]

equality under the law is per the constitution. thats why you guys have a hard time against gay marriage even if you get the votes. and when gay marriage is legal everywhere, you guys will probably still be left scratching your heads, indignant. citizens are persons born or naturalized in the usa; youd have to qualify members of other species as persons to make that case.

Respectfully, I am scratching my head, because once again, you are wrong. Gays and Lesbians already have the right to marry the person of their choice when that person is of the opposite gender because it is of the essence of marriage to involve two different genders… It is not discrimination to not allow to persons of the same gender to claim they are ‘married’ when they are not married. Look at it this way, SCOTUS has also said that foeticide (a.k.a. abortion) is a legal right, that does not make SCOTUS morally correct in their decision. And even if SCOTUS does rule in favor using the narrow principle of ‘civil rights’, it still does not make the relationship of LGBT a marriage,

Matrimony is a marriage of opposites, not of sames. I am sorry that you are willfully denying that. I suspect though, that you, I, and the rest of the membership here are just beating our heads against the wall because the only thing we’re doing is talking past each other. You do not accept that the definition of marriage is descriptive, or that the State has an overriding interest to ensure the continued existence of marriage as a male-female paring for the good of the family and of the good of children. The real problem, as I see it, is your desire and your drive to see what LGBT want as the same thing as marriage, when it cannot be the same thing, because. In this case, biology is the overriding feature, and a valid form of discrimination. What LGBTs want are legal protections for their chosen status., (inheritance laws, rights of survivorship, medical)

It will be interesting though to see what principles SCOTUS relies on in making their decision, since lawsuits must eventually reach it from both sides of the aisle: states which make it illegal, and states which explicit allow so-called same-sex marriage, so we are in a situation of conflict of laws, a same sex couple in California with a valid California “marriage license” will not be acknowledged as being married in Georgia, for instance. My question, is, if SCOTUS rejects the line of argument from ‘civil rights’ and ‘equal protection’ will you abide by that decision as showing the Law of the Land. Because, should the decision go the other way, I will accept that it represents the Law of the Land, wrong though it is, in the same manner that I respect that the legality of abortion on demand is the Law of the Land, without accepting that such should be the case, as such decisions of SCOTUS are immoral from the standpoint of the Christian ethical tradition…

So, let this be my last word on the subject. But, at least you have been consistent in your assertions, wrong though they are. There are not many people who can make that claim.

 

[hazmat]

im not concerned with what you consider moral, but with whether the government acts as dictated by the constitution. if it doesnt make a difference whether scotus legalizes it or not, then its a non issue–its not like theyd be forcing churches to conduct religious ceremonies for them. unlikely, but if the scotus were to decide against gay marriage, theyd be mistaken; i dont know of a case where ive disagreed with a ruling.

 

[Darkbloom]

The whole secular slant that demands non-religious arguments against same sex marriage (or abortion, pornography, etc) is a red herring. This strategy depends on an unstated premises, i.e. there is no God.

An analogy: If you went to an astronomer and asked him or her for a non-heliocentric explanation of lunar eclipses he or she would look at you as if you lost your nut, and rightly so. The heliocentric model of the solar system is correct. If you indulge others by suspending disbelief and pretending the sun revolves around the earth, you’re on a fool’s errand.

If you’re not willing to play ball with celestial bodies, neither should do so on a matter that involve Him who created those celestial bodies.

 

[John21652]

equality under the law is per the constitution. thats why you guys have a hard time against gay marriage even if you get the votes. and when gay marriage is legal everywhere, you guys will probably still be left scratching your heads, indignant. citizens are persons born or naturalized in the usa; youd have to qualify members of other species as persons to make that case.

If the Constitution granted equality to all, as you suggest, then there would be no way for governments to make and to enforce certain classes of laws for certain classes of people. You know that is the case, because certain classes of people can’t vote and certain classes of people can’t drive. Your argument is wrong.

You seem to take great delight in writing about “you guys” having a “hard time against gay marriage”, but that attitude proves nothing, adds nothing to your argument, which keeps failing and does little more than make you seem bigoted and gloating. Very unbecoming.

As for qualifying other species as persons for the sale of any constitutional recognition, or protection, well, that is already being done. Princeton University Professor of Ethics, Peter Singer has already made the philosophical case for animal personhood. The animal rightists have attemped one court case at getting animals accepted as persons and there is another being prared with the aim of getting dolphins recognised as persons on account of their intelligence. If that gets up, dogs, cats, chickens, cows, pigs and horses wont be far behind. If and when it is accepted everywhere, will you be scratching your head as an indignant citizen?

 

[Darkbloom]

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee a whit. It restrains the government from certain actions, including unjustified bias in the creation and execution of law.

 

[GWright]

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?

There are many non-religious arguments, but HIV is a particularly good one. “gay marriage” is something which seeks to normalise and affirm - and so encourage - homosexual activity.

If you look at health figures from across the developed world, we can see that homosexual males cause two thirds of all new cases of HIV.

I.e. Homosexuality is THE main vehicle for HIV proliferation in the developed world.

I have examined public health stats from places as diverse as the USA, Scotland and Australia and the 2/3 figure repeats very well. (its not always bang on, but rather some variation around that figure, depending on region). I can provide these stats, but do not have links to hand (im at work). They are easily found via google.

In major cities, gay men live with similar HIV infection rates as do the worst hit African nations. Funny how we never hear much about that on the news, eh?

So, homosexuality:

• is the major spreader of incurable STD in the developed world
• has a hugely disproportionate and negative effect on overall public health
• causes Governments to spend a hugely disproportionate amont of healthcare budgets on homosexuals (gay men alone account for 40% of the British NHS STD budget, yet they are only 0.5% of society).

That HIV has been ignored, while homosexuality has been increasingly normalised by politicians and the media is a disgrace.

Ultimately, you cannot normalise homosexuality, without also normalising HIV.

No discussion of this hidden threat is allowed on most secular news websites I have encountered. The UK’s Guardian actually banned me from their site, during a similar discussion there, when I posted a link to official NHS figures, showing the effect of homosexuality on Scottish public health. So, there is massive and aggressive censorship around this issue.

Things are continuing to get worse but western society is paralysed and cannot deal with it. Why? Because of the climate which has been created which means that any criticism whatsoever of gay people - no matter how accurate or deserved - is automatically labelled “homophobic” by gay activists.

I strongly believe we will get to a situation where so many gay men have HIV*, that society will change its view and instead of an incurable killer, HIV will be presented as something akin to having diabetes (for example).

(*the figures are truly horrifying. For the whole of the USA, 20% of gay men are estimated to have HIV. 1 in 5. However, only about half of these will be even aware they are infected - and so will continue to induldge in risky sex - due to the slow detection /realisation time.)

From a social perspective, theres literally nothing good about homosexuality.

 

[GWright]

You can also argue that marriage (man and woman) is completely distinct from any form of homosexual coupling. Activists present marriage as being equally valid, regardless of the gender of the participants, but this is not so.

Marriage​

• the fundamental building block of all human societies
• open to the possibility of creating new life
• has an important social role (creation and raising of children)
• is defined by the attraction of opposites, a key strength of the marriage
• is defined by the complimentary nature of opposties, a key strength of the marriage
• natural and is what is intended for human sexuality, in keeping with our understanding of biological science

“gay marriage”​

• has no social role whatsoever
• homosexuality is actively damaging to society, via its negative effect on public health (see my post above)
• cannot create new life
• lacks the attraction of opposites and so is essentially lop-sided
• lacks the complimentary nature of opposites and so is essentially lop-sided
• born of sexual deviation, it is not what is intended for human sexuality

There is no comparison whatsoever, its like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[hazmat]

darkbloom, thats a good point. however, if the astronaut had an ulterior motive, i can imagine he would try to accommodate a paradigm he disagrees with to advance his agenda.

john, you mention driving, voting… by classes of people who cant drive, im guessing you mean based on age. someone mentioned age requirements for alcohol earlier in this thread, and i already responded to that–its not inequality, as every citizen must be of appropriate age; its not something applied to only some citizens.

 

[Darkbloom]

darkbloom, thats a good point. however, if the astronaut had an ulterior motive, i can imagine he would try to accommodate a paradigm he disagrees with to advance his agenda.

Maybe, but that doesn’t make it wise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are many non-religious arguments, but HIV is a particularly good one. “gay marriage” is something which seeks to normalise and affirm - and so encourage - homosexual activity.

If HIV is the reason to oppose gay marriage then the same argument would support anti-sodomy laws. Are you also proposing the return of anti-sodomy laws?

If you look at health figures from across the developed world, we can see that homosexual males cause two thirds of all new cases of HIV.

That is because homosexual males are promiscuous. Gay marriage would, if anything, reduce the promiscuity among this group by applying social norms of monogamy where no such pressure exists now.

I have examined public health stats from places as diverse as the USA, Scotland and Australia and the 2/3 figure repeats very well. (its not always bang on, but rather some variation around that figure, depending on region). I can provide these stats, but do not have links to hand (im at work). They are easily found via google

Of course you are focussing exclusively on the developed world. In the developing world HIV is spread primarily through promiscuous heterosexual contact. It seems that promiscuity is the key factor, not homosexuality.

There are plenty of good non-religious arguments against SSM, but yours is not one of them.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

okay…so I’m backpedaling slightly, and am making an additional reply. While reading through various blogs and analyses of “equal protection” arguments concerning this thought struck me…is “same-sex marriage” necessarily the same thing as “gay marriage” and are we then chasing down a straw argument, since for the sake of argument assuming that SCOTUS accepts the “equal protection” argument that considers same sex marriage to be just as fundamental a right as marriage proper, two straight men could also demand to have a same sex marriage recognized IN ADDITION their existing marriage proper, and argue from the standpoint of “equal protection” (for that matter this is the same type of argument that occurred in the Episcopal Church when its General Convention began allowing “ordination of women” local option and trial liturgies for "blessing of same sex unions).

If that is a result that Hazmat is willing to accept -and I think, based on previous postings of his, that he would so accept this as a consistent application of ‘equal protection’- can we forsee a situation where somewhere down the line. a man engages in a civil/State granted same-sex marriage contract for the sake of property, and enters into a religious/Church granted marriage proper for the sake of raising his family?

Finally, then, I suppose if we look at things from the standpoint of “church” versus “state” and the so-called “wall of separation”, this could provide an opportunity for discussing whether churches should be in the position of being agents of the state for the purpose of contracting marriages…because if so, then lawsuits could be brought against ministers who refuse to so ‘marry’ same sex couples based on the argument that the refusal is a violation of the couple’s civil rights

Michael (ah, my actual name)

 

[AnglicanForMary]

sorry to come back in, but you did give me more things to think about. Thanks

anglicanformary, e.g., you can marry someone who is of the opposite sex and your same race. that can be equally applied by the state, but it would be viewed as racist. in the case of gay marriage, it is sex instead of race. to me, it has nothing to do with how you write the law/define the union, what your tradition/religion is, or what biological function you mean to promote–if the government is involved, it should not treat citizens differently.

“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But, the government does treat people differently, treats children differently from adults, criminals differently from non-offenders, legally mentally incompetent individuals from 'healthy" individuals, individuals with education and licenses to work in certain fields from those individuals who do not have said credentials. So you can not argue that the government cannot treat citizens differently, because it does.

Besides, I think it would be harder to prove it is ‘sexual discrimination’ because sex or rather sexual orientation is not a “suspect classification” under US law for purposes of judicial review, which means only a “rational basis” test can be used to determine discrimination. In terms of same sex marriage, the state has only to show a legitimate state interest and how discrimination in this case is related to that interest. This means that same sex marriage is looked at as a relationship and not as sexual orientation issue.

 

[hazmat]

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.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You still have not justified your redefinition of the right to marriage. You say it is two separate rights - the right to marry a woman and the right to marry a man - and you apply equal protection to both of these rights individually. This is a non-standard way of stating the right - twisted to benefit your claim. The universally understood description of this right is that it is the right of a couple - a man and a woman - to marry. You cannot have an individual right to marry unless you totally ignore the wishes of the other party in the marriage.

If you insist on treating the right to marriage as an individual right then you immediately run afoul of the equal protection clause because I want to marry Susan, but Susan only will agree to marry Joe. The law supports and enforces Susan’s decision, so I can’t marry her, but Joe can. So the law denies my right to marry Susan while granting that right to Joe. I can claim a violation of equal protection because Joe gets a right that I do not get. Never mind that Jill is willing to marry me. That’s not the same right (in your eyes).

I think the burden is on you to demonstrate why the definition of the right in question is as you say rather than as people have been saying for ages and ages.

 

[hazmat]

i dont think the definition matters here–the equal protection clause talks about “any person,” not “any couple.” you would have a point if the state allowed some individuals to marry others against their will, but they dont.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

i dont think the definition matters here–the equal protection clause talks about “any person,” not “any couple.” you would have a point if the state allowed some individuals to marry others against their will, but they dont.

By the same token, you would have a point if the state allowed some individuals to marry someone of the same sex, but they don’t.

 

[hazmat]

same sex = female if youre a female. the state allows some individuals to marry females.

by the same token, in the past, people couldve said, “you would have a point if the state allowed some individuals to marry outside of their race, but they dont.”

 

[Weareyoung]

Outside of a religious context we need to understand that advocates of same sex “marriage” and people who believe the truth that marriage is between a man and a woman have very different views of morality and very different visions of society.

Thus advocates of this stuff cannot claim that they are right because “it’s love” and use that as an argument because they are talking about a different definition of love than opponents of same sex “marriage.”

Advocates for same sex “marriage” will try to get you to believe that actions have no effect on other people and will try to convince individuals that sex can be whatever you want it to be. A huge example of this is Planned Parenthood. Believing that consenting sexual actions never have an effect on other people is a big mistake and believing the state sanctioning same sex “marriage” has no negative affect on society would be a gigantic and terrible mistake.

When you ask advocates of same sex “marriage” whether churches should be forced to sanction it, that’s usually where they stop talking to you.
They fail to distinguish people based on what their actions are and based on what they are tempted to do. They fail to distinguish that “Romantic” and sexual love are not the same love that wishes the best for other people. Love can be more than a feeling. And this is the love that holds actual marriages together.

Once we take away some aspect of marriage, it’s easier to take away the first big defining aspect which is that it’s between a man and a woman. When you devalue sex and marriage you devalue life. Morality is not relative or contingent on people’s opinions or whims but our perception of it can be.

One side of the argument wants to do whatever feels good and force everyone (even if they don’t agree) to sanction those actions; the other side wants to do what’s best for other people.

A wedding is not something you get into lightly. A wedding changes your relationship and makes it permanent. A wedding means that you give yourself completely to one person until death and will be faithful to them and are willing to have children. Anything else that calls itself “marriage” is a lie. The reason homosexual “marriage” is “okay” is because society doesn’t understand the importance of life (children) or the importance of being faithful and keeping your promises and especially sex. Marriage changes everything for a couple! And it matters in society!

Everyone makes unethical decisions occasionally. But there is a distinction between making mistakes and making something that is wrong your goal. For example, masturbating and looking at porn is not as bad a problem as doing these actions AND being open about it and encouraging others to do it, or worse actually making the porn. (And if you’re actually paying for the porn, that only makes things worse.) You cannot say that two males getting “married” is an actual marriage any more than you can say you can marry yourself. If it has no societal benefit, why does government have a right to sanction it? Stuff the government does involves other people!

Not everyone can be completely faithful and open to life in marriage 100% of the time. But very few people get married for the purpose of being unfaithful. In the same way homosexual “marriage” in my opinion can’t exist and it makes unethical actions its goal.

Government sanctions real marriage because it has a social and societal role. SS”M” does not. If real marriage did not have a social role and societal role, there would be absolutely no reason for government to sanction it. SS”M” is unethical and the state should not sanction something unethical, which really forces everyone to sanction it.

You don’t have to be religious to come to the conclusion that sex and marriage have meaning. Sex is how we all originate.

Homosexual advocacy groups often try to equate SS”M” to actual marriage. Are they really the same? Can two men or two women actually and naturally create a life?

Most Americans realize that we do occasionally fail in fidelity and respecting life. But do we really want to make infidelity and disrespect for life our goal?

 

[razredge]

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

 

[Weareyoung]

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

Doesn’t SSM mean “same sex marriage” and isn’t it the same meaning as homosexual “marriage?” Do you mean heterosexual marriage? I don’t understand.