A secular case against gay marriage

[Seeker1961]

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

Is there any objective evidence of this claim that the APA defined homosexuality because they caved to some gay agenda? The only support I’ve ever read is from religious based “traditional values” groups that clearly have an agenda of their own.

 

[rossum]

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

Then you agree that the similar decision by the BPS was not coerced? America is not the world, and similar decisions have been made by equivalent bodies in many countries.

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

Then you agree that the similar decision by the BPS was not coerced? America is not the world, and similar decisions have been made by equivalent bodies in many countries.

rossum

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

In any event, “medical experts” also denied the necessity of washing hands because “a gentleman’s hands are always clean”.

When it comes to something as complex as human behavior, why ignore what an institution that has been studying the problem for 2000 years has to say?

 

[rossum]

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

In any event, “medical experts” also denied the necessity of washing hands because “a gentleman’s hands are always clean”.

When it comes to something as complex as human behavior, why ignore what an institution that has been studying the problem for 2000 years has to say?

Because that institution has not updated its handbook for 2000 years?

As you correctly point out, science has learned things in the last 2,000 years, such as the importance of hand washing and a better way to treat leprosy. Or are you suggesting that we go back to the old methods of treating lepers?

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

Because that institution has not updated its handbook for 2000 years?

History is littered with the wreckage of those who thought they knew how to “update the handbook”. The Church has articulated its teaching in various ways throughout the centuries, just as textbooks are continually updated. What doesn’t change is the teaching itself. 1+1 is always 2, and homosexual acts are always against nature.

As you correctly point out, science has learned things in the last 2,000 years, such as the importance of hand washing and a better way to treat leprosy. Or are you suggesting that we go back to the old methods of treating lepers?

rossum

My point is that the APA - the first national body to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis from its central text - made its decision based primarily on political pressure from gay protestors at the 1973 conference and used Kinsey’s “study” and its 1-in-10 result as a scientific fig leaf. The decision was based on their desire to be seen as “keeping with the times” - a modern version of “a gentleman’s hands are always clean”.

 

[Seeker1961]

History is littered with the wreckage of those who thought they knew how to “update the handbook”. The Church has articulated its teaching in various ways throughout the centuries, just as textbooks are continually updated. What doesn’t change is the teaching itself. 1+1 is always 2, and homosexual acts are always against nature.

My point is that the APA - the first national body to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis from its central text - made its decision based primarily on political pressure from gay protestors at the 1973 conference and used Kinsey’s “study” and its 1-in-10 result as a scientific fig leaf. The decision was based on their desire to be seen as “keeping with the times” - a modern version of “a gentleman’s hands are always clean”.

You mention this political pressure again…but where is the evidence that doesn’t come from a religious or “traditional values” organization? I’ve done research myself and all I can find is “evidence” from people on both sides but nothing objective. Do you have something from someone who doesn’t have an agenda?

 

[Monkey1976]

You mention this political pressure again…but where is the evidence that doesn’t come from a religious or “traditional values” organization? I’ve done research myself and all I can find is “evidence” from people on both sides but nothing objective. Do you have something from someone who doesn’t have an agenda?

As close to unbiased as I can find. Take a look at the transcript:
Part 1
Part 2

In short, the removal was backed by a group of homosexual psychiatrists - one of whom was the APA president-elect - and scientifically supported by a single 1956 study by Dr. Evelyn Hooker (where homosexuality could not be diagnosed - using a single one of 3 of the most generalized tests possible and never actually meeting the patient - with 100% accuracy) and a pile of dung called the “Kinsey Report”.

 

[rossum]

In short, the removal was backed by a group of homosexual psychiatrists - one of whom was the APA president-elect

So, shall we ask for the vote to be re-run in a fair manner? All homosexual psychiatrists will be barred from voting and all heterosexual psychiatrists will also be barred. In order to ensure neutral voting, only bisexual and asexual psychiatrists will be allowed to vote.

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

So, shall we ask for the vote to be re-run in a fair manner? All homosexual psychiatrists will be barred from voting and all heterosexual psychiatrists will also be barred. In order to ensure neutral voting, only bisexual and asexual psychiatrists will be allowed to vote.

rossum

A group that had everything to gain by removing the disorder they would have been diagnosed with leads the charge to have it removed as a possible diagnosis. Nope, nothing questionable there. Totally based in science.

 

[Seeker1961]

As close to unbiased as I can find. Take a look at the transcript:
Part 1
Part 2

In short, the removal was backed by a group of homosexual psychiatrists - one of whom was the APA president-elect - and scientifically supported by a single 1956 study by Dr. Evelyn Hooker (where homosexuality could not be diagnosed - using a single one of 3 of the most generalized tests possible and never actually meeting the patient - with 100% accuracy) and a pile of dung called the “Kinsey Report”.

And yet, people on both sides of the debate have read the same transcripts,looked at the same evidence and defend completely opposite positions. A simple stroll though google can provide you with plenty of examples of the SAME transcript being used both to support a conspiracy theory of gays taking over the world and one of a conspiracy theory of conservatives holding science hostage to continue persecution of gays.

 

[minkymurph]

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

I read first blog - haven’t read the second one yet so I can’t comment on it yet.

Regarding your arguments against same-sex marriage, in the first instance I would like to state what I am about to write is not what I personally think. What I am about to write is in my view possible counter-arguments that could be put forward. I stress I put them forward simply for the purpose of discussion and formulating responses to possible criticisms, and not because I personally agree with them.

I would say your theory is too speculative in terms of the human race dying out as a consequence of same-sex marriage being recognized. Homosexuality has been around from the dawn of time and in past era’s, it was actively encouraged - Egypt, Greece, Rome to mention a few. It is true those Empire’s collapsed, but the human race survived. In addition, reaching a point were no one in the world is heterosexual is something I see as unlikely.

I would also say the illegality of same-sex marriage would neither increase or decrease the population. People will engage in homosexual activity irrespective of whether same-sex marriage is recognized by the state or not, and will not form heterosexual relationships and have children just because same-sex marriage is illegal. It continues to be the case the majority of people are heterosexual and as such, they will continue to have children.

I would also say you’re line of argument could be said to be overly optimistic in terms of the ‘common good.’ People in contemporary society have are more radically individualistic and self-absorbed, and less concerned with the ‘common good.’ In addition, not everyone agrees on what constitutes the ‘common good,’ and many contrasting and opposing opinions exist. As such, it is difficult to achieve consensus.

To conclude, I don’t think the arguments you present are likely to persuade anyone who supports same-sex marriage. I think the only people you’re line of argument is likely to persuade are those who are against same-sex marriage anyway.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I read first blog - haven’t read the second one yet so I can’t comment on it yet.

Regarding your arguments against same-sex marriage, in the first instance I would like to state what I am about to write is not what I personally think. What I am about to write is in my view possible counter-arguments that could be put forward. I stress I put them forward simply for the purpose of discussion and formulating responses to possible criticisms, and not because I personally agree with them.

I would say your theory is too speculative in terms of the human race dying out as a consequence of same-sex marriage being recognized. Homosexuality has been around from the dawn of time and in past era’s, it was actively encouraged - Egypt, Greece, Rome to mention a few. It is true those Empire’s collapsed, but the human race survived. In addition, reaching a point were no one in the world is heterosexual is something I see as unlikely.

I would also say the illegality of same-sex marriage would neither increase or decrease the population. People will engage in homosexual activity irrespective of whether same-sex marriage is recognized by the state or not, and will not form heterosexual relationships and have children just because same-sex marriage is illegal. It continues to be the case the majority of people are heterosexual and as such, they will continue to have children.

I would also say you’re line of argument could be said to be overly optimistic in terms of the ‘common good.’ People in contemporary society have are more radically individualistic and self-absorbed, and less concerned with the ‘common good.’ In addition, not everyone agrees on what constitutes the ‘common good,’ and many contrasting and opposing opinions exist. As such, it is difficult to achieve consensus.

To conclude, I don’t think the arguments you present are likely to persuade anyone who supports same-sex marriage. I think the only people you’re line of argument is likely to persuade are those who are against same-sex marriage anyway.

Thank you for your kind reply.

I would first of all like to point out that you have postulated an incorrect meaning for premise 1. The premise does not appeal to the idea that “If homosexual activity was made legal, others will adopt it. Thus leading to extinction”. That is incorrect.

What the premise appeals to is that

“It is a fact that if hypothetically all were to embrace homosexual activity as their lifestyle, the human race will have problems with respect to propagation”

This is a key distinction that you need to understand to better appreciate/object to the argument.

The reasoning for premise 1 is that it is the intuitive way many reason regarding acts which are not required for the common good, and one would like to know whether to allow/disallow…

So for an example, someone might say Piracy by one individual is not against the common good. BUT, one may then reason that it should not be allowed since if all were to do it, it will clearly be against the common good (i.e. deprive profit for authors of the creative material). This does not mean that one person pirating = all will start to pirate. Rather, it is how we reason regarding which acts would be acceptable for the common good, given that the acts themselves are not requirements.

Now you maybe absolutely correct that many might not buy in to the view if they are already on the other side. But it gives a good solid grounding for those on the fence to oppose same sex marriage as well a solid ground to defend ones belief against same sex marriage. Why? Because even though one might personally reject premise 1, it does not seem unreasonable if someone holds it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

An argument, however valid in universal principles, that is contrary to experience should not be used to justify law.

1. Everyone WILL NOT adopt a homosexual lifestyle because homoexuality is not an option, not a choice; it is part of an individual’s intrinsic makeup.
2. The argument began as a justification to deny the option of marriage to same-sex couples. Since homosexual persons are who they are, the possibility of marriage neither discourages nor promotes homosexuality; it just promotes the kind of relationship that is described by “marriage,” mutual, loving, exclusive, life-long. The denial of that possibility promotes relationships that are promiscuous. It is undeniable that this is a greater harm to the common good, if for no other reason than the possibility of the spread of STD’s.
3. Therefore, I cannot accept that the premise of denying the right of homosexuals to marry is to uphold the common good.

Please do understand the argument. The argument does not hinge on the actuality of a gay world but the hypothetical result of a gay world. In essence, the argument is about a person saying that they base their decisions regarding actions which are not required for the common good by evaluating them by looking at the hypothetical where all would engage in that activity.

You also make the error in not realizing that the argument does not directly address same sex marriage. It addresses homosexual activity. Then because homosexual activity was shown to be against the common good, the conclusion was made that any allowing of homosexual activity should be banned i.e. same sex marriage as well.

So I appreciate everyone’s objections but it doesn’t help me or you if you argue something that I am not saying.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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?

Just to really try and explain things to you one more time.

It really is not an argument to say that “x is in favor of common good because it gives those who want to do x peace of mind”.

Why?

Take the example of pedophilia. To have sex with a child brings great comfort to the mind of a pedophile. BUT, I hope you will agree with me that it should not be allowed, perhaps on the grounds that children cannot given consent. Yes? What that means is that the desires/wants/disposition of the pedophile was not allowed to be acted upon based on the criterion of consent. So here we have at least one criterion that exists which invalidates the idea that “if it gives a person piece of mind, then it is required for the common good”.

Therefore, by proof of counter-example, your idea of making “achieving/pursuing ones notion of happiness” as intrinsically required for the common good is invalid. No matter what else you want to say to try and bolster your position, it collapses by one counterexample. If you are aware of how proofs work, you will know that it only takes one counter-example prove a position false. In this case, your notion of common good would thus be proven false by the counter example of pedophilia. This is of course assuming that you are against pedophilia.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

If something is required, it does not need to be legislated. You are talking about an issue I do not even address in my argument i.e. how do we treat actions which are required for the common good.

I am sure you honestly would like to discuss that but that is not the scope of this topic. Just to show you that your view of “If it is required, enforce it” is incorrect, just consider the example of professions themselves.

We need doctors but we cannot enforce that x become doctors. What we do instead is encourage people to be doctors by giving high salaries/benefits, running ad campaigns etc. When we have enough, we automatically control it by encouraging other careers.

In any case, I hope that answered your question to some degree.

 

[rossum]

Take the example of pedophilia. To have sex with a child brings great comfort to the mind of a pedophile.

Why is it that so many of the anti gay marriage arguments rely on bringing in paedophilia? That is not relevant to the subject.

Shall I bring up rape every time someone argues in favour of heterosexual marriage? It would be just as relevant. This irrelevant argument is brought up so man times that you will only convince the choir with it.

BUT, I hope you will agree with me that it should not be allowed, perhaps on the grounds that children cannot given consent. Yes?

Of course yes. Same sex marriage requires consent by both parties. That is absent in paedophilia. Just as it is absent in rape, but nobody uses the existence of rape as an argument against heterosexual marriage.

You are just making a lazy and irrelevant argument here.

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

“It is a fact that if hypothetically all were to embrace homosexual activity as their lifestyle, the human race will have problems with respect to propagation”

I understand that, and that’s kind of the point. It’s a hypothetical argument and hypothetical arguments tend not to stand up under scrutiny.

The reasoning for premise 1 is that it is the intuitive way many reason regarding acts which are not required for the common good, and one would like to know whether to allow/disallow…

So for an example, someone might say Piracy by one individual is not against the common good. BUT, one may then reason that it should not be allowed since if all were to do it, it will clearly be against the common good (i.e. deprive profit for authors of the creative material). This does not mean that one person pirating = all will start to pirate. Rather, it is how we reason regarding which acts would be acceptable for the common good, given that the acts themselves are not requirements.

You are quite correct to say that because one person is a pirate all will be pirates - but does that not refute the hypothetical argument, in that heterosexuals would continue to have children and as such, it doesn’t matter in terms of sustaining the human race whether gay people have children or not?

The common good argument is a problematic one. Not all reason in the same way in terms of what constitutes the common good. Who decides what the common good is and on what basis? You can argue the need for reproduction to sustain the human race is in the common good, but then that brings us back to what I have said above.

Now you maybe absolutely correct that many might not buy in to the view if they are already on the other side. But it gives a good solid grounding for those on the fence to oppose same sex marriage as well a solid ground to defend ones belief against same sex marriage. Why? Because even though one might personally reject premise 1, it does not seem unreasonable if someone holds it.

For those who are on the fence I think the role model argument is a better one. But that’s my personal opinion and people are free to disagree. Many posters who are on the fence could comment on which argument they think is more persuasive.

It is true many single parents do very well, and we cannot say two men or two women would not make good parents purely on the basis of gender. There is also the argument given the number of children in care and the reluctance of heterosexual couples to adopt or foster, it can be argued it would be preferable for such children to be raised by gay parents than in a home.

Where I think the role model argument holds up is it is an established fact men and women parent in different ways and both are equally necessary. There is considerable evidence to support that. Further to this, teaching in my part of the world is a very female dominated profession. Men and women communicate in different ways, they have different teaching styles and even the colors they use in a classroom and the resources they use are different. As such, if one gender dominates in a particular environment it can cause an imbalance in terms of, among other things, development of life skills and how we form relationships. Schools are crying out for male teachers for the very reasons I mention. Therefore, I would say it can be argued that while single parents, two men or two women may do very well at parenting and have no doubt love their children, it is preferable for a child to have a male parent and a female parent.

 

[RevDon]

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.

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.

Interestingly, the case you cite as deviant behavior is heterosexual. If you were trying to disprove my statement, please note that I was being sarcastic. There is more harmful sexual activity of a heterosexual nature (rape, incest etc) than there is homosexual.

In an earlier posting I posed this question in another form: What percentage of marriage is sex?
I believe that most married people will say that it is an important part, but not the greater part of what constitutes their marriage.

In most jurisdictions in the U.S. at least, laws prohibiting sex between two consenting adults of the same sex are either nonexistent or not enforced, with the exception of circumstances like public lewdness. That being said, sex between persons of the same sex is functionally legal already. Marriage is not required for that, hence my point that sex is not the purpose of same-sex couples seeking marriage. So, then, what other detriments to society might be the basis for restrictions against marriage for same-sex couples?

 

[Eufrosnia]

I understand that, and that’s kind of the point. It’s a hypothetical argument and hypothetical arguments tend not to stand up under scrutiny.

I think you are still missing the key point here. The main point of premise 1is that it is a way of judging actions that are not required for common good.

It seems intuitive to think that many people do subscribe to this way of judging acts that are not directly required for the common good. Many when faced with such an action tend to ask the question “What if everyone were to do it, is that good for the common good? If no, then do not allow it”.

So premise 1 is not hinging on a hypothetical. It hinges on whether or not you personally accept it or not. Not it may well be the case that you are not someone who accepts it. But the point here is that many will accept it and there is ample room for a person to argue in favor of it.

In other words, its hard for someone to just say that the position is simply a religious belief.

You are quite correct to say that because one person is a pirate all will be pirates - but does that not refute the hypothetical argument, in that heterosexuals would continue to have children and as such, it doesn’t matter in terms of sustaining the human race whether gay people have children or not?

No. Why? Because when we are to determine the action of homosexual activity, we only consider the effects of that particular act. Your mistake is that you are still thinking in terms of the probability of an actual world where all are gay etc. The argument does not hinge on that. It merely hinges on you accepting premise 1 as a method of judgement of acts which are not required for the common good.

The common good argument is a problematic one. Not all reason in the same way in terms of what constitutes the common good. Who decides what the common good is and on what basis? You can argue the need for reproduction to sustain the human race is in the common good, but then that brings us back to what I have said above.

Usually, people will agree that extinction of the human race is definitely contrary to the common good (at least I hope they do).

However, it is once again worth pointing out that the main point of disagreement against this argument will be on premise 1. Someone might disagree that they do not see merit in judging an act in such a way. But what premise 1 allows is for the other side to make a very good case. One may also ask the disagreeing side as to what other method they propose.

For those who are on the fence I think the role model argument is a better one. But that’s my personal opinion and people are free to disagree. Many posters who are on the fence could comment on which argument they think is more persuasive.

I do not know what you mean by the role model argument.

It is true many single parents do very well, and we cannot say two men or two women would not make good parents purely on the basis of gender. There is also the argument given the number of children in care and the reluctance of heterosexual couples to adopt or foster, it can be argued it would be preferable for such children to be raised by gay parents than in a home.

True, but this requires actual empirical evidence of effects after allowing the act. This is why I think the argument is weak and perhaps be easily discarded by claiming bias on the sample space.

Where I think the role model argument holds up is it is an established fact men and women parent in different ways and both are equally necessary. There is considerable evidence to support that. Further to this, teaching in my part of the world is a very female dominated profession. Men and women communicate in different ways, they have different teaching styles and even the colors they use in a classroom and the resources they use are different. As such, if one gender dominates in a particular environment it can cause an imbalance in terms of, among other things, development of life skills and how we form relationships. Schools are crying out for male teachers for the very reasons I mention. Therefore, I would say it can be argued that while single parents, two men or two women may do very well at parenting and have no doubt love their children, it is preferable for a child to have a male parent and a female parent.

I do think this is a fair argument (now I also understand what you mean by role model). But it will be much harder to use this argument in a cultural setting like that of the West which has already decided that gender itself is malleable.

Honestly speaking, I think if you live in a society that already does not allow gay marriage, you should do all you can to make sure it never slides to the point of allowing such a thing. Naturally, most people will not be in favor of it and that feeling must be reinforced. One could perhaps even encourage people to stand up against such ideas purely based on religion itself.

In the special case of the West, that solution is no longer possible. The culture has already slid pretty deep. This is why I felt a logical argument will allow Christians some breathing space. Premise 1 as I said is possible not something all will accept. But it gives Christians

1. breathing room to argue in favor of premise 1
2. opportunity to ask the other side as to what other criterion they would like to promote and then refute it

I personally think premise 1 is very defensible.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Why is it that so many of the anti gay marriage arguments rely on bringing in paedophilia? That is not relevant to the subject.

Shall I bring up rape every time someone argues in favour of heterosexual marriage? It would be just as relevant. This irrelevant argument is brought up so man times that you will only convince the choir with it.

I bring it up, (just as I would have brought up rape myself), to highlight the point that merely “desiring something for personal happiness is not grounds for common good”.

As you can see, you yourself are in favor of enforcing the condition of consent upon it. This means that “desiring something deeply because of who one is” or allowing one to “be themselves to the fullest” can never be a grounds for common ground.

Of course yes. Same sex marriage requires consent by both parties. That is absent in paedophilia. Just as it is absent in rape, but nobody uses the existence of rape as an argument against heterosexual marriage.

You are just making a lazy and irrelevant argument here.

Actually no. Perhaps you didn’t think about what I said. Please read the above. The point here is that in conceding that consent is required, you have enforced at least one condition upon which one may rightly deny certain people their “way of satisfying their personal happiness” or “being themselves”.

That indicates that the criterion you propose for the common good is not acceptable i.e. “every man/woman should be allowed to be themselves and seek their goals for personal happiness”.

So questions such as “Aren’t you in denying a gay person the chance of being happy by banning same sex marriage?” are actually very irrelevant questions. Why? Because we do not base public policy based on “what makes a person happy”. The state has the right and obligation to consider other things in denying gay marriage, which in this case, is the common good.