A secular case against gay marriage

[Eufrosnia]

Hi there,

I have heard a lot of debates and discussions on this topic and it finally lead me to sit down and think about it. So after much thought, I wrote two articles on this topic on my blog (my very first blog ) regarding this topic and I thought I will post them here for discussion.

Secular case against same sex marriage:-

truth-reason-faith.blogspot.ca/2013/02/secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage.html

Comparing Racism and Homosexuality

truth-reason-faith.blogspot.ca/2013/02/racism-homosexuality.html

 

[RevDon]

The argument posted suggests that allowing homosexual persons to have a permanent, faithful, supportive relationship endorsed by civil and religious society would threaten the existence of the human race because no one would procreate.
The best statistics estimate that 10% of the population is homosexual. It seems unlikely that permitting marriage will affect that statistic.
Another statistic that might be examined is the birthrate of caucasians in places like France or Germany. There heterosexuals have not reproduced sufficiently to maintain the native population.
Sorry, but this argument won’t work.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The argument posted suggests that allowing homosexual persons to have a permanent, faithful, supportive relationship endorsed by civil and religious society would threaten the existence of the human race because no one would procreate.
The best statistics estimate that 10% of the population is homosexual. It seems unlikely that permitting marriage will affect that statistic.
Another statistic that might be examined is the birthrate of caucasians in places like France or Germany. There heterosexuals have not reproduced sufficiently to maintain the native population.
Sorry, but this argument won’t work.

Actually, the argument hinges on the idea that allowing gay marriage promotes homosexual activity. If an activity is promoted, the 10% number may soon be 90%. Unless you have evidence to say that promoting an activity such as homosexual activity will not lead to its adoption at such a wide scale, then the 10% value will not be a counter-argument, yes?

As for the second part of your point, I think the common good argument can indeed be used against promoting contraception and distorted views of success because it creates a contraceptive mentality (which again becomes problematic for the common good).

I do intend to write an article extending the argument for these topics as well but that is for a later time.

On the topic of this argument, I think it stands quiet well unless you can say that promoting homosexual activity does not lead to an increase in the number of participants in that activity. As far as psychological studies go, any activity that is promoted is usually adopted. After all, this is the core principle behind advertising and such.

 

[filter2700]

It isn’t the actuality that homosexual behavior could cause depopulation that makes it unacceptable, rather its the very essence of what homosexual behavior promotes in itself: intentional infertility. Is it very likely, with the amount of homosexuals that there are, that our planet would stop producing humans? No, it isn’t, UNLESS homosexuality increases very rapidly. However, this does not change the principle of what homosexuality promotes. And those who engage in such behavior promote something which is overall destructive in its nature, they are making an active choice to be infertile!

Homosexual couples cannot create life, therefore they must rely upon heterosexual couples to “raise children” (what a great oxymoron, infertile homosexual couples trying to simulate a natural relationship, one they simultaneously find unattractive and even repulsive). This demonstrates the pure contradiction within the pro-homosexual-family-equality supporters logic: that homosexual behavior is pro-infertility and its destructiveness is intuitively known!

If 100 out of every 10,000,000 people self-mutilate their genitalia, are they going to cause the earth to depopulate? Very unlikely. Does this make their behavior anymore acceptable because its unlikely they will cause depopulation? I think not.

It always comes down to morality, right from wrong. Is it immoral to actively engage in homosexual behavior? I argue its actually self-evident homosexual behavior is wrong because it is destructive in its very nature, regardless of whether or not it will effect the entire population.

Overall I think you’re right, maybe focus more on the simple fact of what homosexuality represents (besides sin) in its essence and you’ll have one of many arguments to explain why homosexuality is immoral. Destructive behaviors are usually immoral in our society, for good reasons.

 

[JABA]

There absolutely is no justification for allowing gay marriage if you use the basis of the fixed facts from human biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology. No basis of religious doctrine is even needed for all people to see this.

Homosexual acts are nothing but the symptoms of mental disorder of sexual preference. Exactly in the same category as, incest, pedophilia, and beastiality and any other abnormal variation one can think of.

Besides. Those who support gay marriage, as they are open to abnormal sexual preferences and practices. They should also be open to other sexual orientations and relationships. Homosexuality is not the only sexual preference besides heterosexuality. This really shows the double standard and bigotry those who support gay marriage have.

Because of these facts, marriage can only logically exist in

1. Between a single male and single female of the same species(human)
2. Between a single male and single female of appropriate sexual and mental maturity
3. Between a single male and single female who are not directly related.

 

[Crescentinus]

Hi there,

I have heard a lot of debates and discussions on this topic and it finally lead me to sit down and think about it. So after much thought, I wrote two articles on this topic on my blog (my very first blog ) regarding this topic and I thought I will post them here for discussion.

Secular case against same sex marriage:-

truth-reason-faith.blogspot.ca/2013/02/secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage.html

Comparing Racism and Homosexuality

truth-reason-faith.blogspot.ca/2013/02/racism-homosexuality.html

 

[Eufrosnia]

It isn’t the actuality that homosexual behavior could cause depopulation that makes it unacceptable, rather its the very essence of what homosexual behavior promotes in itself: intentional infertility. Is it very likely, with the amount of homosexuals that there are, that our planet would stop producing humans? No, it isn’t, UNLESS homosexuality increases very rapidly. However, this does not change the principle of what homosexuality promotes. And those who engage in such behavior promote something which is overall destructive in its nature, they are making an active choice to be infertile!

Homosexual couples cannot create life, therefore they must rely upon heterosexual couples to “raise children” (what a great oxymoron, infertile homosexual couples trying to simulate a natural relationship, one they simultaneously find unattractive and even repulsive). This demonstrates the pure contradiction within the pro-homosexual-family-equality supporters logic: that homosexual behavior is pro-infertility and its destructiveness is intuitively known!

If 100 out of every 10,000,000 people self-mutilate their genitalia, are they going to cause the earth to depopulate? Very unlikely. Does this make their behavior anymore acceptable because its unlikely they will cause depopulation? I think not.

It always comes down to morality, right from wrong. Is it immoral to actively engage in homosexual behavior? I argue its actually self-evident homosexual behavior is wrong because it is destructive in its very nature, regardless of whether or not it will effect the entire population.

Overall I think you’re right, maybe focus more on the simple fact of what homosexuality represents (besides sin) in its essence and you’ll have one of many arguments to explain why homosexuality is immoral. Destructive behaviors are usually immoral in our society, for good reasons.

Reading your post, it dawned on me that I actually missed stating an important premise in an explicit way.

A) If an act when adopted by everyone is detrimental to the common good, promoting or allowing the act itself is contrary to common good.

It is based on this that I argue against the homosexual activity rather than actuality of a world full of only gay persons.

I also feel like the same argument using the line of argument against gay marriage perhaps can be used against promoting/allowing such things as genital mutilation, voluntarily causing sterility, contraception and even divorce etc.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Sorry, but this argument won’t work.

Actually, it does. The only reason heterosexual marriage is invested in by states is for pro-creation, not to make straight people feel good and homosexuals feel bad.

It’s about economics, not sexual pleasure.

 

[rossum]

Actually, the argument hinges on the idea that allowing gay marriage promotes homosexual activity. If an activity is promoted, the 10% number may soon be 90%. Unless you have evidence to say that promoting an activity such as homosexual activity will not lead to its adoption at such a wide scale, then the 10% value will not be a counter-argument, yes?

This is a weak argument. First, do you have statistics from European countries which have had same sex marriage for some time now to show that the incidence of homosexuality is increasing? If there is no increase then the danger you are pointing out is not real.

Second, your general argument applies to other human activities:

Actually, the argument hinges on the idea that allowing celibacy promotes non-sexual activity. If an activity is promoted, the 10% number may soon be 90%. Unless you have evidence to say that promoting an activity such as celibacy will not lead to its adoption at such a wide scale, then the 10% value will not be a counter-argument, yes?

If everyone were celibate, then the human race would die out. If everyone were homosexual then the human race would die out. If everyone were male then the human race would die out. If everyone were female then the human race would die out.

Those arguments fail because everyone isn’t.

rossum

 

[Eufrosnia]

This is a weak argument. First, do you have statistics from European countries which have had same sex marriage for some time now to show that the incidence of homosexuality is increasing? If there is no increase then the danger you are pointing out is not real.

Second, your general argument applies to other human activities:

Actually, the argument hinges on the idea that allowing celibacy promotes non-sexual activity. If an activity is promoted, the 10% number may soon be 90%. Unless you have evidence to say that promoting an activity such as celibacy will not lead to its adoption at such a wide scale, then the 10% value will not be a counter-argument, yes?

If everyone were celibate, then the human race would die out. If everyone were homosexual then the human race would die out. If everyone were male then the human race would die out. If everyone were female then the human race would die out.

Those arguments fail because everyone isn’t.

rossum

Ok I think it is important to understand that the argument does not care about the actuality of everyone suddenly becoming gay. Rather, it is only hinging on the actuality that if everyone WERE to perform homosexual activity, then it leads to the a problem in society and for humanity. That is not a statistical postulation but a fact. Homosexual activity is simply not procreative.

So the argument is appealing to the intuition that the allowing or promoting of any act that causes harm to the common good if accepted by all, is also contrary to the common good.

This argument does not apply to acts that are already clear to be necessary/required for the common good. So celibacy for the sake of avoiding things contrary to the common good, being female, being male do not qualify for this argument because they are already necessities or requirements for the common good.

 

[rossum]

This argument does not apply to acts that are already clear to be necessary/required for the common good. So celibacy for the sake of avoiding things contrary to the common good,

I do not accept your exclusion of celibacy here. If reproduction is for the “common good”, then celibacy is contrary to that common good. If celibacy is not contrary to the common good, then the lack of children from a homosexual relationship is also not contrary to the common good.

A celibate has the same number of children as a homosexual. Why are you creating a distinction between the two?

rossum

 

[atheistgirl]

So the argument is appealing to the intuition that the allowing or promoting of any act that causes harm to the common good if accepted by all, is also contrary to the common good.

Right, so allowing or promoting celibacy, if it were accepted by all, is contrary to the common good.

So celibacy should not be allowed

Sarah x

 

[Eufrosnia]

Right, so allowing or promoting celibacy, if it were accepted by all, is contrary to the common good.

So celibacy should not be allowed

Sarah x

An excellent objection.

To answer your objection, the only type of Celibacy that should be allowed would be that which seeks the common good.

So the mentality that one should remain single for the sake of pursuing a carefree life is a mentality that should be discouraged under this argument. But if one were to stay celebate because they wish to give their entire energy in service of the common good, that is commendable.

In this sense, a government can and should do everything it can to prevent a disordered view of celibacy for the sake of selfish goals (care free life, so that one can travel, one is free to just enjoy all the pleasures by themselves etc). In fact, such behavior is probably shunned naturally by many cultures for the same reason.

So your objection is invalid in this case since it speaks of an issue that must be defined rigorously with the intent as well. Depending on the intent, one type of celibacy qualifies for the argument and the conclusion is valid while the other type does not qualify for the argument because it is clear that it is done for the common good.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I do not accept your exclusion of celibacy here. If reproduction is for the “common good”, then celibacy is contrary to that common good. If celibacy is not contrary to the common good, then the lack of children from a homosexual relationship is also not contrary to the common good.

A celibate has the same number of children as a homosexual. Why are you creating a distinction between the two?

rossum

Celibacy can be for the sake of common good. A doctor can choose to remain celibate so that he can concentrate his energy on his work to save the lives of patients.

Your disagreement against the distinction is only valid if there are no actions that are inherently necessary or facilitating for the common good. I don’t think any reasonable person will say that it is the case.

The argument only applies for the acts which are unclear as being for the common good. So “celibacy for the sake of traveling throughout ones life” would indeed fall in to the category covered by the argument while “celibacy for the sake of contributing more completely as a surgeon to the common good” would not.

Notice that the big issue here in the first place is that people don’t want to think about the common good with respect to what they WANT to do. The argument I present is merely putting it back in the picture.

To answer your final question, we have two conclusions regarding celibacy and homosexuality because the argument and its conclusion I presented does not apply to the first while it applies to the second.

 

[rossum]

Celibacy can be for the sake of common good. A doctor can choose to remain celibate so that he can concentrate his energy on his work to save the lives of patients.

Same sex marriage can be for the sake of the common good. A doctor can concentrate better on her work if she does not have to worry about inheritance tax when she dies and her life partner inherits her house. See US v Windsor for a real case in point.

Your disagreement against the distinction is only valid if there are no actions that are inherently necessary or facilitating for the common good.

There are, “the pursuit of happiness”. I find it more pleasant to be with happy people than with miserable people. People who are forbidden to marry their chosen partner will tend to be miserable. People who can marry their chosen partner will tend to be happy. I find that general happiness is conducive to the common good.

rossum

 

[Eufrosnia]

Same sex marriage can be for the sake of the common good. A doctor can concentrate better on her work if she does not have to worry about inheritance tax when she dies and her life partner inherits her house. See US v Windsor for a real case in point.

Um… the fact that she does not need to worry about her inheritance is not common good. Also, she can just ask the other person to sign it off to her in a will. Really, I am not sure what you are trying to pull here. Are you trying to say that gay people want to get married for the sake of common good? They are just trying to satisfy their “orientation”, no?

All I see here is you are trying to play with semantics that “Gay people want to get married because they want to engage in gay activity. It is for the common good because being able to do what they want makes them happy and also makes them more productive”.

That is honestly not a reasonable argument, yes? You can pretty much justify anything you want using that line of reasoning simply on the merit that “I want it” .

Whatever gymnastics you want to pull, you end up having to go back again to evaluate homosexual activity. Why? Because there is a group of people that want it but wanting something is not the definition of common good. Whether we should grant it or not is what we need to decide according to the common good. Instead, you are trying to elevate “what we want” to become the common good.

There are, “the pursuit of happiness”. I find it more pleasant to be with happy people than with miserable people. People who are forbidden to marry their chosen partner will tend to be miserable. People who can marry their chosen partner will tend to be happy. I find that general happiness is conducive to the common good.

Yes, I can see that you are really trying hard now.

Your idea that we should make sure people are happy and happiness is the plumb line for common good is not something anyone will accept. Do you see why?

But what all will agree upon is that any act that threatens the survival of the human race or act against it is certainly wrong. So on that premise, same sex marriage is not acceptable.

The whole point here is that the state should foster an environment where people will desire things that are acceptable to the common good in order to be happy. NOT just satisfy everything people consider will make them happy. In fact, a desire would be considered disordered if it does prefer something that is against the common good.

I am sorry but you should see how much you are reaching now to try and justify your conviction that same sex marriage should be allowed. You are willing to raise “granting what ever makes you happy” to the level of what it means to act according to the common good. Now I don’t know if you truly believe that but not many will really consider that to be intuitive or worthy of acceptance. So on that point alone, your objection does not carry any weight.

 

[rossum]

Um… the fact that she does not need to worry about her inheritance is not common good.

Then the fact that your celibate doctor can concentrate better without distractions is also not the common good either. That leaves us both back where we started.

Also, she can just ask the other person to sign it off to her in a will.

You didn’t read the link I gave, did you? The case of US v Windsor is where the dead partner (they were legally married in Canada) left her house in her will, but the survivor was charged tax on the value of the estate because she was female, not male. A male surviving spouse would not have had to pay the tax. A $360,000 tax bill makes for a fair amount of distraction from other work.

That is honestly not a reasonable argument, yes?

It is a perfectly reasonable argument. People, gay and straight, get married for pleasure all the time. Any woman past the menopause who gets married is not doing so to have children. The same for people with various medical issues. Such marriages are legal, even without the possibility of children. Where is your objection to other marriages without the possibility of children. Are you advocating compulsory fertility tests before issuing a marriage licence?

Whatever gymnastics you want to pull, you end up having to go back again to evaluate homosexual activity. Why? Because there is a group of people that want it but wanting something is not the definition of common good.

Then we differ in our definitions of “common good”. I see the freedom to pursue happiness as a common good. Allowing same sex marriage will allow more people to pursue happiness. I do not see a problem.

You appear to be redefining “common good” to suit your argument of the moment.

Your idea that we should make sure people are happy and happiness is the plumb line for common good is not something anyone will accept.

That is not my idea. My idea is that we should allow the “pursuit of happiness”. There is no guarantee that the pursuit will be successful – some married couples are unhappy. What we should not do is to block that pursuit at the very start.

rossum

 

[Eufrosnia]

Then the fact that your celibate doctor can concentrate better without distractions is also not the common good either. That leaves us both back where we started.

No. Please understand the distinction. You are trying to justify something as common good by saying

1. I desire it
2. If I have it, I will be happy
3. If I am happy, I can work well

That is unacceptable. Why? Because what a person considers as happiness should be evaluated as distorted or not based on common view.

You didn’t read the link I gave, did you? The case of US v Windsor is where the dead partner (they were legally married in Canada) left her house in her will, but the survivor was charged tax on the value of the estate because she was female, not male. A male surviving spouse would not have had to pay the tax. A $360,000 tax bill makes for a fair amount of distraction from other work.

The issue here Rossum is that Canada even allowed it to be called a marriage in the first place. We are not talking about the ethics of what we must do in a society where gay marriage is accepted. We are talking about the ethics of first allowing gay marriage to begin with.

It is a perfectly reasonable argument. People, gay and straight, get married for pleasure all the time. Any woman past the menopause who gets married is not doing so to have children. The same for people with various medical issues. Such marriages are legal, even without the possibility of children. Where is your objection to other marriages without the possibility of children. Are you advocating compulsory fertility tests before issuing a marriage licence?

Please understand this simple fact Rossum. If the premises in my argument stand, the conclusion stands. You are trying to argue in some weird way by saying “Oh but if that is true, what about this” etc. You are making a slippery slope argument.

Also, please pay attention to the argument. What part of that argument makes infertile couples marrying a bad thing? That is still heterosexual activity.

As far as men and women getting married at a very late age, that is indeed perhaps something to be frowned upon. The issue here is that you already assume that the other thing is good but since this argument says its bad, then it must be invalid. That is not valid reasoning.

The “other thing” itself needs to be evaluated.

Then we differ in our definitions of “common good”. I see the freedom to pursue happiness as a common good. Allowing same sex marriage will allow more people to pursue happiness. I do not see a problem.

Freedom to pursue happiness is not a definition of common good that all will accept. However, the idea that

1. Any action if adopted by all that will lead to the destruction of the human race is contrary to the common good

is something everyone in general accepts.

So your argument fails because it requires one to accept a premise that is dubious to many. I can give many counter examples where pursuing individual happiness is not according to the common good and causes destruction.

You appear to be redefining “common good” to suit your argument of the moment.

No. I am just pointing out that your definition is not something that anyone in their right mind should accept. Pursuing individual happiness is not always compatible with common good.

That is not my idea. My idea is that we should allow the “pursuit of happiness”. There is no guarantee that the pursuit will be successful – some married couples are unhappy. What we should not do is to block that pursuit at the very start.

See, that doesn’t seem intuitively acceptable to anyone.

When I made the exception that there are some acts inherently done for the common good, the common good itself was not in dispute. Everyone would agree that the doctor who decides to work long hours to perform more surgeries and save lives is doing something FOR the common good in saving lives. BUT, the idea that being able to pursue ones happiness as common good is highly debatable.

After all, some desires for happiness such as pedophilia are disordered. The desire to have sex with a certain individual might be disordered if the other person does not approve. So whether you like it or not, life is full of situations where you must fore-go your pursuit of happiness or at least set a different goal for it in the name of safe guarding the common good.

So I really don’t know what you are getting at.

 

[RevDon]

Actually, the argument hinges on the idea that allowing gay marriage promotes homosexual activity. If an activity is promoted, the 10% number may soon be 90%. Unless you have evidence to say that promoting an activity such as homosexual activity will not lead to its adoption at such a wide scale, then the 10% value will not be a counter-argument, yes?/QUOTE/

The “I’m doing it because he’s doing it, because everybody is doing it” just doesn’t work. Is it likely that you would change your attraction to the opposite sex because somebody else prefers his/her own sex? The evidence is that preference / attraction is something programmed into the brain. Experimentation, especially in young people can be affected by environment, but not the kind of enduring relationship that leads to marriage.

God said, “It is not good for a person to be alone” and for most people, an intimate relationship promotes a moral life because it makes a person accountable to someone who is dear. To deny that permanent relationship promotes promiscuity.

Allowing gay marriage doesn’t promote homosexual activity–that is present with or without marriage; allowing gay marriage promotes marriage behavior.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The “I’m doing it because he’s doing it, because everybody is doing it” just doesn’t work. Is it likely that you would change your attraction to the opposite sex because somebody else prefers his/her own sex? The evidence is that preference / attraction is something programmed into the brain. Experimentation, especially in young people can be affected by environment, but not the kind of enduring relationship that leads to marriage.

God said, “It is not good for a person to be alone” and for most people, an intimate relationship promotes a moral life because it makes a person accountable to someone who is dear. To deny that permanent relationship promotes promiscuity.

Allowing gay marriage doesn’t promote homosexual activity–that is present with or without marriage; allowing gay marriage promotes marriage behavior.

But you are confusing the argument though. It does not hinge based on the idea that everyone will adopt it. It hinges on the fact that

1. if everyone were to adopt it, it will do harm to humanity.
2. Thus homosexual activity is against the common good
3. Therefore, since it is wrong to promote/accept things contrary to the common good, it is wrong to promote/accept homosexual activity

Whether or not people actually change their minds and will become gay is not really relevant to the success of the argument.