A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

[oldbrit2009]

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.

You don’t seem to understand the distinction I’m trying to make.

Weareyoung, there are posters on here who don’t want to understand.

 

[hazmat]

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.

sexism is incompatible with equal protections. thats all. if it wasnt for equal protections, then thered be no discrepancy. heterosexuals who dont have children dont benefit society either, but theyre allowed to marry, picking n choosing who must actually meet the “requirements” like that isnt equal.

weareyoung, i didnt miss the point. your point is just no good. “Whether a couple is willing to have kids or is infertile is irrevlevant.” then having kids is irrelevant. congrats.

 

[kch86]

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.

If procreation has nothing to do with marriage, why do you suppose that the consummation of a marriage is legally necessary for it to have binding force? If consummation is not present, a legal annulment may be obtained, without needing to resort to a divorce.

It is also telling that the Civil Partnership Act in the UK did away with the consummation requirement for same sex couples.

 

[hazmat]

couples are not required to have children to marry. and the state doesnt just go around checking on couples whove married to make sure they consummate. at best, you can say gays may get an annulment whenever they want.

 

[vsedriver]

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 no one has been denied the right to marry based on sex. A gay man is still a MAN and male and therefore has the same right to marry as a straight man. Sexual orientation is not part of the definition of marriage.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

Don’t worry… PETA is working on it.

 

[kch86]

couples are not required to have children to marry. and the state doesnt just go around checking on couples whove married to make sure they consummate. at best, you can say gays may get an annulment whenever they want.

Here’s a question for you. Why should anyone get married? What is the point?

 

[exnihilo]

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…

We’ve all become sophist again.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. And this relates to Christianity. Christ rejected the legalism which had the same kind of problem. The legalists would construct elaborate systems to avoid breaking the strict letter of the law. Christ told us to obey the spirit of the law. He taught us to not justify our own sin through complex arguments. The spirit of marriage is the union of man and woman for the purpose they were created which is the creation of new life.

 

[GWright]

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?

That is your proposition, not mine - I do not want to muddy the clear waters of my main point.

Allowing gay marriage normalises homosexuality.

Normalising homosexuality encourages more homosexual acts to occur.

More homosexual acts lead to proliferation of HIV and other diseases in society.

That is because homosexual males are promiscuous.

Correct.

Gay marriage would, if anything, reduce the promiscuity among this group by applying social norms of monogamy where no such pressure exists now.

Incorret and - no offence - exceptionally naive.

Homosexual men are promiscuous full stop. The fact that they might be “married” is no barrier to this. Homosexuals reject heterosexual norms of sexuality and have their own.

The reason for homosexual promiscuity is that homosexual relationships are fundamentally not emotionally satisfying. This is why gay men instead misguidedly seek contentment (in vain)through lots of sex with multiple partners.

Gay relationships will be emotionally unsatisfying regarding of whether they are allowed to parody marriage or not, thus gay men will be promiscuous regardless.

Currently we have civil partnerships for gays in the UK. A few years back, a famous gay pop star here died of a drug overdose lying on a couch, whilst his “husband” was having sex with another man in the room next door. Pretty grotty, eh?

Homosexual concepts of sexuality and relationships are markedly removed from the norms of heterosexuality. It is a mistake to try to understand homosexual behaviour using heterosexual concepts.

It is widely accepted - even among gay activists like Dan Savage - that most gay male relationships which last usually contain some agreed provision for sex with third parties.

Ie gay men are not monogamous, regardless of relationship status, full stop.

Of course you are focussing exclusively on the developed world.

Yes - this gay marriage question relates directly to the developed world only (at least at present).

In the developing world HIV is spread primarily through promiscuous heterosexual contact.

I think rape is a major factor in africa, where it is common as muck. A lesuire activity even.

Heterosexual promiscuity - where it exists - is very different from homosexual promiscuity, as homosexuals obviously do not need to worry about pregnancy.

Many promiscuous gay many rarely bother with condoms, but you cannot say the same about heterosexuals (meaning heterosexual promiscuity is safer, in some sense, though still not proper)

Plus promiscuity is not the norm for heterosexuals, whereas it IS the norm for homosexuals. (though of course there are exceptions in both cases).

It seems that promiscuity is the key factor, not homosexuality.

I disagree and can easily prove it.

Both America and the UK are largely promiscuous societies. Sex outwith marriage is entirely seen as normal, for both sexualities, even with multiple partners over time.

Heterosexual people are overwhelmingly the majority in society - 99%. (In the UK anyway, according to the largest ever survey carried out).

Homosexuals are just 1.0%, meaning gay men are 0.5% (roughly).

If you were right, that the root cause was promiscuity, then should not the effects of promiscuity - STDs etc - not affect both hetero- and homosexuals in a representative fashion, according to their social numbers?

Ie, we would expect most HIV sufferers to be heterosexual. But they are not.

Rather, the disease is overwhelmingly concentrated amongst a tiny section of society - homosexual men.

If there is nothing specific to be concerned about over homosexuality, why are they grossly over-represented in the HIV figures?

Talking of the UK, why do 0.5% of British population cause 67% of new HIV cases?

You really have to address that point, if you want to be taken seriously. Its a real “elephant in the room”.

(I am not defending heterosexual promiscuity - it too causes ugly social problems, chiefly abortion. But HIV is largely a gay disease, make no mistake).

As for America - its estimated 1 in 5 gay men have HIV-AIDs, half of whom are unaware of the fact.

Very clearly there is a specific link/problem with homosexuality.

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

Yes it is, as shown by my refutal of your points above.

Sentiment, pity or political correctness has no place in a discussion about public health.

Prefering to ignore the real causes of HIV proliferation will only mean it continues to spread - which ultimately costs all of us.

 

[kch86]

Talking of the UK, why do 0.5% of British population cause 67% of new HIV cases?

It is also interesting to note that in cities in the UK, such as London, over 10% of the MSM (men who have sex with men, a medical definition independent of self-identification) population are infected with HIV. I believe the statistics are similar for many other major Western cities.

Gay marriage is also an unnatural, top-down, state-imposed institution that never arose naturally, that never existed before, and whose basis exists solely in modern political ideology and requires the power of the state behind it even to exist. I think that the further normalisation of homosexual behaviour and the consequences that entails is a good practical illustration that corroborates the many good philosophical reasons for why gay marriage should not exist in legislation.

If we removed all marriage legislation and the state no longer regulated the institution, heterosexual marriage would continue to exist and homosexual marriage would not.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

I would question that HIV is spread mostly through heterosexual contact anywhere. If you look at the CDC numbers in the US you will find that men who do not have sex with men basically dont get HIV. Women having sex with other women do not spread it. So the heterosexual’s who get it are almost entirely women who get it from men who have sex with men. The primary mode of transmission is basically men who have sex with men. There is no reason to believe this is not the case everywhere.

Regarding the developing world I question their HIV data altogether. HIV tests are expensive. There is no way all the cases reported in Africa are actually confirmed by tests and they’ll admit as much. This is just a statistical assumptions. Also HIV is a strange disease in that apparently there are different standards for determining whether someone has HIV such that you could be diagnosed with the disease in one country and not in another. It is a very political disease and there is a huge incentive to claim HIV is spread by heterosexuals and is rampant in Africa.

 

[vsedriver]

sexism is incompatible with equal protections. thats all. if it wasnt for equal protections, then thered be no discrepancy. heterosexuals who dont have children dont benefit society either, but theyre allowed to marry, picking n choosing who must actually meet the “requirements” like that isnt equal.

weareyoung, i didnt miss the point. your point is just no good. “Whether a couple is willing to have kids or is infertile is irrevlevant.” then having kids is irrelevant. congrats.

Heterosexuals who don’t have children are not the norm. Laws are made based on the norm not the abnormal.

A two gender marriage will always have the potential to produce children. A single gender ‘marriage’ can never produce children.

Only children will lose in this legal fight over marriage. In states where legal gay marriage exists churches have been forced to give up ministering to orphans. The state says both unions are equal yet gay marriage and adoption agencies can’t discriminate between the two. This intentionally robs children of their natural right to a mother and a father.

 

[Leontes]

The horses have left the gate and are into the first turn. It is time to move on to another topic.

 

[Weareyoung]

sexism is incompatible with equal protections. thats all. if it wasnt for equal protections, then thered be no discrepancy. heterosexuals who dont have children dont benefit society either, but theyre allowed to marry, picking n choosing who must actually meet the “requirements” like that isnt equal.

weareyoung, i didnt miss the point. your point is just no good. “Whether a couple is willing to have kids or is infertile is irrevlevant.” then having kids is irrelevant. congrats.

You would be right about that last point, but you still don’t understand. The act of actually having kids itself in a state sanctioned marriage is irrelevant to the definition of state sanctioned marriage. Your logic does nothing to prove your point to allow homosexual couples to “marry” and be state sanctioned. Even if deciding not to have kids in marriage was an “injustice” it would not justify homosexual “marriage.” One injustice does not necessitate another injustice. According to this logic homosexual State sanctioned “marriage” is still 100% of the time an “injustice” and a fraud (based on not benefiting society). Just because one person cheats or gets an unfair entitlement doesn’t mean that the state has to grant unfair entitlements to all. If it did (in some cases) the State would go bankrupt. If you followed this logic you would have to argue to do away with all State sanctioned marriage or police couples to make sure their marriage is “valid”. If people cheat and get 100% on a test in a university, the professor is not obligated and has no right to alter any of the student’s grades but the ones who cheated. Giving the people who completely failed 100% would be a second injustice. The truth is that most states define marriage based on the principle that it is between a man and a woman and not by presence of actual offspring. Marriage between man and woman would always continue anyway apart from the state, because opposite sex sexual relationships are necessary for survival. Homosexual “marriage” is in no way necessary for survival. In affirming opposite sex relationships the state is only affirming the truth and affirming humanity. Teaching that an opposite sex “marriage” and a same sex “marriage” are identical in any public education environment (which we will be legally obligated to do, if this is recognized based on the idea that it is a civil right) would necessarily be indoctrination.

Allowing an infertile couple to have a state sanctioned marriage is in no way an injustice, as long as they are opposite sex. If it is a man and a woman, it is still the same relationship that is necessary for survival in which the (key word) principle of procreation is always possible regardless of whether they actually have children.

Because state sanctioned marriage is a relationship between the couple and the State (which should be controlled and run by and for the people) the State has a right to put a restriction on the definition of state sanctioned marriage. State has a right to uphold the principle of marriage that defines it (as well as practical things like preventing the promotion of incest and restricting it based on age of consent, restricting based on a recent divorce. etc.). States that only sanction heterosexual couples sanction marriage because they uphold the principle that is beneficial to society, not because they are discriminating. To say that a couple is heterosexual means that reproduction between them is always possible in principle. So there is no difference between being a heterosexual couple and upholding the principle. Anything that is not a result of State upholding the defining principle of marriage (or preventing the promotion of incest or doing something similar etc.) would be discrimination. Homosexual “marriage” by definition does not uphold the principle of what heterosexual marriage is. Therefore society should not sanction it. It’s even worse when society is forced by judges.

Whenever homosexual “marriage” advocates use the fact that infertile couples are allowed to marry to justify state sanctioned homosexual “marriage” it gives you a clear picture that they do not understand.

If anything it would be an issue of what principles society wants to uphold. Not an issue of civil rights. Therefore citizens should never be forced to accept same sex “marriage” by judges.

Legalizing homosexual “marriages” would give you no legal grounds to differentiate it from actual marriage.

To change the definition of state sanctioned marriage you have to do away with the principle that marriage was sanctioned for in the first place. If you get rid of this principle there is absolutely no reason for marriage to be sanctioned by the state.

The argument that would support gay “marriage” only has ground if you have a warped sense of reality and fail to understand what a man is and what a woman is and how they relate to each other and somehow come to the conclusion that two men can possibly relate to each other in the same way. Why else would they keep pushing the term “marriage equality” on us? They want to make no distinctions. Making distinctions between these two relationships isn’t discrimination. It’s realizing the objective truth.

For the state to equate homosexual and heterosexual relationships would be a monumental offense against its people.