A secular case against gay marriage

[Eufrosnia]

I disagree. The public and overt expression of homosexual activity has been suppressed. What goes on in private behind closed doors is a different thing.

And that is fine. We are not talking about what goes on behind close doors. This is not a moral argument here but a secular argument regarding government policy.

So, you have determined that celibacy should be treated exactly the same as homosexuality. If everyone were celibate then the human race would die out, which is not conducive to the common good.

Please read the argument. There is a qualifier that it has to be an act that is not necessary for contributing to the common good. Celibacy in that sense is justified but I am yet to find the person who can claim that homosexual activity is a necessity for the common good.

Is celibacy “necessary for the common good”? No it is not.

Absolute fail. There are certain jobs where celibacy is the way to go in order best fulfill ones duty. Stop grasping at straws Rossum.

You are still catching celibacy with your broad definition.

I think in your mindset to justify homosexuality, anything might end up in the definition after some gymnastics. As far as I can see, celibacy is clearly out of that definition.

Actually, celibacy is a reasonable example. Some people are called to celibacy while most are not. Some people are homosexual while most are not. An even smaller number of people may switch from one to the other. You have still not found a definition that will do what you want.

I have. That is premise 1. It will help us both save time if you will actually read and understand the full implications of it.

1. Celibacy IF practiced by all causes problems for the society and human propagation.
2. Celibacy is not necessary for the common good.
3. Therefore , celibacy is contrary to the common good.
4. Therefore, celibacy must not be allowed or encouraged.

You still have some work to do fine tuning your argument.

As I said before, absolute fail.

There will always be people who agree that celibacy will be a necessity for certain type of duties toward the common good. But no one will agree that homosexual activity is a necessity for the common good.

As far as I am concerned, thus your point regarding comparing homosexual activity with celibacy is invalid and has been sufficiently shown as to why that is the case. If you want to still keep insisting, that is really not my problem anymore.

I feel that the question has been answered sufficiently enough to see that the your comparison is invalid. Since my goal is not about “I must convince Rossum” I see no reason to continue this discussion on this specific objection.

So unless you have anything new to say, this particular discussion is over for me.

 

[cornbread_r2]

There may be a good secular argument against gay marriage, but I’ve not seen it in this thread.

 

[rossum]

Please read the argument. There is a qualifier that it has to be an act that is not necessary for contributing to the common good. Celibacy in that sense is justified but I am yet to find the person who can claim that homosexual activity is a necessity for the common good.

It is necessary for the peace of mind and personal happiness of homosexuals. That should be enough for anyone. Or are you saying that enforced celibacy is a force for the common good?

Absolute fail. There are certain jobs where celibacy is the way to go in order best fulfill ones duty. Stop grasping at straws Rossum.

And there are even more jobs where personal satisfaction and a happy home life, as in a marriage, help a great many more people fulfil their duty. It is you who is grasping at straws.

There will always be people who agree that celibacy will be a necessity for certain type of duties toward the common good. But no one will agree that homosexual activity is a necessity for the common good.

You are not comparing like with like here. For celibacy, your criterion is “a necessity for certain type of duties”, that is only covering a limited range of duties. For homosexuality your criterion is “a necessity for the common good”, which is far wider. For a homosexual, a happy home life is likely to improve her performance at work. The absence of tax worries is likely to improve her performance at work. Having a partner is likely to reduce her worries about getting the shopping done. You are biasing your comparison in favour of the result you want to see. That isn’t going to fly when you are not preaching to the choir.

So unless you have anything new to say, this particular discussion is over for me.

It is your thread. You are at liberty to leave at any time.

rossum

 

[ComputerGeek25]

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 problem here is the tax code. Not whether it’s OK for people to get married.

 

[rossum]

The problem here is the tax code. Not whether it’s OK for people to get married.

The problem is actually DOMA, which means that the provisions in the tax code for inheritance tax between married partners cannot be applied in the case of a legal same sex marriage. The case is currently before the USSC along with the one about Proposition 8 in California.

rossum

 

[RevDon]

There will always be people who agree that celibacy will be a necessity for certain type of duties toward the common good. But no one will agree that homosexual activity is a necessity for the common good.
.

For the life of me, I can’t come up with a profession which is enhhanced by a life of celibacy. The obvious candidate is priesthood, however any benefits derived from a celibate priesthood are offset by disadvantages.

 

[JABA]

There are other reasons for those to be wrong. Paedophilia and zoophilia are wrong because of issues of consent – one party cannot give consent. Adult incest sometimes has issues of consent, but in that case there are the effects on possible children to consider .

The issues why other disordered sexual behaviors are considered wrong now and only in some cultures though, is based on the governing opinion, not the fixed facts of reality. Consent is fine example example of this subjective reasoning. The definition of consent is subject to change, just like any other laws and such throughout history. Consent today, is something else tomorrow. The fixed facts of reality remain the same today, tomorrow and forever.

This is why your “consent” argument to justify homosexuality is flawed as it is defined by subjective changeable opinion and it can also be used to justify incest.

Pedophilia is considered acceptable in some cultures as well as incest.Why?, well they are basing their justification for these deviant sexual behaviors on a subjective opinion, just like you are doing to justify homosexuality. Obviously, this type of reasoning is flawed and illogical.

Adult homosexuality with a non-relative does not have any of those issues.

True, but it does have other issues, which are harmful to society. Men and Women were not created, to have sexual based relations with the same sex. This is not just my opinion or just a catholic opinion. I am just stating the fixed facts of reality the way they are.

Irrelevant. You have no reasoned objection to their current position, so you raise objections to fictional positions they have not taken. How about, “The Catholic Church’s position on marriage is wrong because they might declare interracial marriage to be sinful (Nehemiah 13:25)” That is not a good argument and likewise your argument is not a good one either.

Irrelevant?, You can’t talk about homosexuality without bringing up other deviant sexual behaviors.

I have reasoned my objection to their current position. I have already stated, human biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology as the basis for my argument. These are the cold hard, objective, fixed facts of reality, why homosexuality is a disorder of sexual preference.

It is easy to support one side of an argument if you ignore all the evidence for the other side.

Ignore what evidence?, only subjective opinion I have ignored.

Only my side of the argument has the evidence.

If you read that evidence, you would of realized that. The only acceptable sexual based relations in humans are

1. Between a single male and single female of the same species
2. Same as the first point, also between those who are not related
3. Same as the first and second point, also between those who are mature sexually and mentally

You would then realize that, any other sexual behaviors(homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, zoophilia and any others you can think of are disordered).

 

[Eufrosnia]

For the life of me, I can’t come up with a profession which is enhhanced by a life of celibacy. The obvious candidate is priesthood, however any benefits derived from a celibate priesthood are offset by disadvantages.

Note that I feel that this issue is settled but I thought it worth replying since there seems to be some confusion.

The premise does not lay on a comparative element i.e. advantages vs disadvantages. It just relies upon there being a need for it for the sake of common good.

Celibacy can be requirement in the performance of ones duty in any profession that requires a maximum commitment. Nurses for an example, could ideally benefit. Surgeons could ideally benefit. Priests of course, someone like the Pope (imagine him having to juggle a family). Logically speaking, any profession or act toward the common good that requires complete dedication will benefit from celibacy.

But homosexual activity, that doesn’t even come close to being a necessity for the common good.

 

[Monkey1976]

For the life of me, I can’t come up with a profession which is enhhanced by a life of celibacy. The obvious candidate is priesthood, however any benefits derived from a celibate priesthood are offset by disadvantages.

I wouldn’t call celibacy a qualified comparison here. Celibacy is defined by NOT engaging in sexual activity. Homosexual “marriage” is defined by deliberately and freely choosing to engage in homosexual activity.

Regarding celibacy enhancing the priesthood, I think that a particular early bishop just might have had some idea what he was talking about:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:32-34[/BIBLEDRB]
(Note - this is in no way intended as derogatory toward any married priests, nor toward the discipline of the Eastern Churches which allows a married man to be ordained priest. I would further note, though, that Eastern and Orthodox bishops still have to be unmarried AFAIK)

 

[rossum]

The issues why other disordered sexual behaviors are considered wrong now and only in some cultures though, is based on the governing opinion, not the fixed facts of reality.

Look at the title of this thread, it says “A secular case against gay marriage” (emphasis added). Since we are talking about the secular, then your “governing opinion” is what we are discussing, at least in democracies.

Your philosophical ideas about reality are not relevant here.

True, but it does have other issues, which are harmful to society. Men and Women were not created, to have sexual based relations with the same sex. This is not just my opinion or just a catholic opinion. I am just stating the fixed facts of reality the way they are.

I am Buddhist, not Catholic, so the opinion of the Catholic Church is not relevant. Again I would remind you that we are discussing secular arguments in this thread, not religious ones.

Irrelevant?, You can’t talk about homosexuality without bringing up other deviant sexual behaviors.

Of course it is irrelevant. Homosexuality is not a “deviant sexual behaviour”. It is a minority sexual behaviour but not deviant. The APA, and similar bodies in other countries, have stated that homosexuality is not deviant. Again this is a case where the secular position differs from the Catholic position.

I agree that the position of the Catholic Church is against homosexual behaviour – the Church has made that very clear. However, in a thread about secular reasons, that is not a sufficient argument.

rossum

 

[JABA]

Look at the title of this thread, it says “A secular case against gay marriage” (emphasis added). Since we are talking about the secular, then your “governing opinion” is what we are discussing, at least in democracies.

Your philosophical ideas about reality are not relevant here.

I am Buddhist, not Catholic, so the opinion of the Catholic Church is not relevant. Again I would remind you that we are discussing secular arguments in this thread, not religious ones.

The last time I checked, using human anatomy, physiology, biology, sociology and sexual psychology to justify that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual preference is secular reasoning. I am not discussing religious justification.

Again, I am stating objective facts in regards to the above, not philosophy or subjective opinion.

Of course it is irrelevant. Homosexuality is not a “deviant sexual behaviour”. It is a minority sexual behaviour but not deviant. The APA, and similar bodies in other countries, have stated that homosexuality is not deviant.

rossum

Again, all you have provided in justifying homosexuality is based on the changeable opinion of the APA, definition and issues of consent, observable behavior in humans argument. These type of justification is based on nothing more than changeable subjective secular reasoning.

Like I mentioned before, I have provided evidence in the form of the fixed objective, secular facts of reality, rooted in human anatomy, physiology, sociology, biology and sexual psychology as to justify why homosexuality is a disorder of sexual behavior and preference.

This is the secular case against gay marriage.

Again this is a case where the secular position differs from the Catholic position.

No, this is where the subjective secular opinion differs from the based on fixed objective secular facts of reality opinion.

The Catholic position just happens to agree with the latter.

 

[rossum]

The last time I checked, using human anatomy, physiology, biology, sociology and sexual psychology to justify that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual preference is secular reasoning. I am not discussing religious justification.

And your medical qualifications are?

The APA collectively has more medical qualifications than you. I will go with their opinion on medical matters. The UK equivalent, the BPS, is the same. Homosexuality is not a disorder.

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

And your medical qualifications are?

The APA collectively has more medical qualifications than you. I will go with their opinion on medical matters. The UK equivalent, the BPS, is the same. Homosexuality is not a disorder.

rossum

Look into why the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Medical knowledge had nothing to do with it.

 

[RevDon]

Note that I feel that this issue is settled but I thought it worth replying since there seems to be some confusion.

The premise does not lay on a comparative element i.e. advantages vs disadvantages. It just relies upon there being a need for it for the sake of common good.

Celibacy can be requirement in the performance of ones duty in any profession that requires a maximum commitment. Nurses for an example, could ideally benefit. Surgeons could ideally benefit. Priests of course, someone like the Pope (imagine him having to juggle a family). Logically speaking, any profession or act toward the common good that requires complete dedication will benefit from celibacy.

But homosexual activity, that doesn’t even come close to being a necessity for the common good.

If celibacy is for the common good among nurses and surgeons, then shouldn’t we legislate that persons in those professions might not marry? After all, if celibacy is for the common good, then marriage is opposed to the common good. It seems that ministry performed by married clergy (including those who have been accepted into the Catholic Church from other denominations) is not impaired by their marriage. Perhaps it is even enhanced.

 

[RevDon]

I wouldn’t call celibacy a qualified comparison here. Celibacy is defined by NOT engaging in sexual activity. Homosexual “marriage” is defined by deliberately and freely choosing to engage in homosexual activity.

Regarding celibacy enhancing the priesthood, I think that a particular early bishop just might have had some idea what he was talking about:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:32-34[/BIBLEDRB]
(Note - this is in no way intended as derogatory toward any married priests, nor toward the discipline of the Eastern Churches which allows a married man to be ordained priest. I would further note, though, that Eastern and Orthodox bishops still have to be unmarried AFAIK)

I suppose the example of Peter is irrelevant.

 

[RevDon]

True, but it does have other issues, which are harmful to society. Men and Women were not created, to have sexual based relations with the same sex. This is not just my opinion or just a catholic opinion. I am just stating the fixed facts of reality the way they are.

Irrelevant?, You can’t talk about homosexuality without bringing up other deviant sexual behaviors.

I have reasoned my objection to their current position. I have already stated, human biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology as the basis for my argument. These are the cold hard, objective, fixed facts of reality, why homosexuality is a disorder of sexual preference.
QUOTE]

There is no record of deviant sexual behavior among heterosexuals.

Since biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology all testify that homosexuals are incapable of sexual relations that are meaningful and satisfying, ten what’s the issue? Obviously it can’t happen, so there is no reason to fear that it happens.

Perhaps Homosexuals wish to marry for reasons other than sex?

 

[JABA]

And your medical qualifications are?

The APA collectively has more medical qualifications than you. I will go with their opinion on medical matters. The UK equivalent, the BPS, is the same. Homosexuality is not a disorder.

rossum

Medical qualifications are not relevent in this case, as their decision is not based on facts or medical knowledge, only an opinion, which is subject to change.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but just because a doctor said that he believes that Venus is the 1st planet from the sun, does not make it true, just cause he is a doctor. The facts point out the truth themselves.

There is no record of deviant sexual behavior among heterosexuals.

Since biology, anatomy, physiology, sociology and sexual psychology all testify that homosexuals are incapable of sexual relations that are meaningful and satisfying, ten what’s the issue? Obviously it can’t happen, so there is no reason to fear that it happens.

Perhaps Homosexuals wish to marry for reasons other than sex?

Meanigful and satisfying are a persons own interpretation and experience of a relationship, not the determinants if a sexual relationship is deviant. People can find meaning and satisfaction in many different deviant behavious and actions. Recently, there was a case of a biological father and daughter, who are together in a voluntary sexual relationship and both stated they want to stay together and no one will stop them. Obviously this relationship, has some sort of perverted meaning and satisfaction for both of them.

Marriage, has always been a representation of a sexual based union and bond between a man and woman. Lack of this type of affection is reason enough for an anulment. A platonic based union is not a marriage. This is more of a frienship. Friendship is not a marriage.

A marriage is a legal, social and relgious representation of the biological, anatomical, physiological, sociological and sexual psychological facts. You can’t change the definition of marriage, as it’s based on these facts. If the defitinion of marriage is changed, it’s based on nothing more than opinion. So a marriage between homosexuals or a human and a robot, lol is just as abnormal. You can’t have opinions overriding facts as the basis for a definition.

 

[_Abyssinia]

**Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

What is Marriage?

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4)

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage **

 

[rossum]

Medical qualifications are not relevent in this case, as their decision is not based on facts or medical knowledge, only an opinion, which is subject to change.

You are wrong. Medical qualifications are relevant to medical decisions on what is, and what is not, a medical disorder.

I am aware that you disagree with the medical decision,but since you lack the required medical qualifications I am free to ignore your disagreement.

You also don’t like the way the APA arrived at their decision. Do you have any problems about the way that the BPS, or many other equivalent organisations, arrived at their decisions?

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

You are wrong. Medical qualifications are relevant to medical decisions on what is, and what is not, a medical disorder.

I am aware that you disagree with the medical decision,but since you lack the required medical qualifications I am free to ignore your disagreement.

You also don’t like the way the APA arrived at their decision. Do you have any problems about the way that the BPS, or many other equivalent organisations, arrived at their decisions?

rossum

Yes, because the coerced decision of the APA was used as evidence.