A secular case against gay marriage

[Helena_K]

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.

There has been no evidence that cultural acceptance of homosexuality leads to universal homosexuality, when we look at states and nations in which gay marriage is both legal and has wide social acceptance. Massachusetts has had legal same sex marriage for over a decade, and it enjoys wide social acceptance, yet it continues to make up only about 8% of all marraiges in Massachusetts.

You know what has been proven to make birth rates plummet on a wide social scale? Women seeking higher education and joining the work force. That is a well established fact.

So by your argument, women should be banned from college and from working, because this is absolutely proven to cause birth rates to plummet.

any activity that is promoted is usually adopted

Wait, what? If something isn’t considered wrong, then the obvious next step is that everyone will do that thing? That makes no sense what so ever. Interracial marriage was once considered wrong, then it gained acceptance. Last I checked, people didn’t feel a compulsion to only marry others of a different race just because it became legal and socially acceptable.

Saying a black person *should be allowed *to marry a white person does not promote the idea that a white person *should not *marry a white person. Same thing applies to gay marriage. I’ve lived around legal gay marriage my entire adult life, and it has never once made me feel guilty about being in a heterosexual union or made me think, “huh, even though I am in no way sexually or romantically interested in women, I should marry one just because it is legal now.”

Is that honestly what you expect people to do? Start marrying people they don’t love and aren’t attracted to for *no other reason *than hey, it’s socially acceptable for them to be in a same sex partnership.

People don’t tend to do things they have no interest in simply because it is “socially acceptable” and legal. Tennis is socially acceptable. It is legal. But I do not play tennis, because I have no interest in it.

Being married to a woman wouldn’t even be something I would be simply uninterested in, it would be something I would actively dislike. I am not attracted to women, so the idea of being sexually inolved with a woman completely grosses me out (the way I am grossed out at the idea of sex with anyone I am not attracted to). Why on earth would I enter into a loveless marriage in which I shudder with revulsion every time my spouse wants to get me into bed just because it would be legal for me to be married to them?

 

[RevDon]

It is worth pointing out that the argument is not, first and foremost, against gay marriage. The fact that gay marriage should be banned hinges on whether homosexual activity should be banned. The argument first and foremost addresses that issue.

Since homosexual activity is not required for the common good of society, one has to find a way to analyze whether the act should be allowed or disallowed. It turns out that if you accept the premises in my argument, then it follows that homosexual activity should indeed be banned.

The problem here is that without addressing the argument, you want to try and justify gay marriage. But to do so, you must provide a premise that I can accept. Your premise of “oh but it can do this much good”, is not really a valid argument since it may also do bad that you have not taken in to account. The bad result might indeed outweigh the good. That is why consequentialism that deals with the quantifying of ACTUAL impact of actions can be quiet useless.

So unless you have a reasons to disagree with the premises of my argument, the conclusions do follow. I am just baffled at this point why no one wants to discuss the premises but are rather caught up on either attacking a straw man or trying to present a new argument in favor of gay marriage.

Eufrosnia,
You have been insistent that readers take a look at your earlier postings to see the line of logic you are pursuing. I have done that in the attempt to understand tour progression. Here are a number of your statements (bold is mine):

1. if X is accepted by all, is it contrary to the common good?

If the answer is YES, then the act is contrary to the common good. Hence, do not allow.
Homosexual acts themselves are all deviant. The difference in heterosexual activity is that there is a form of it that is non-deviant and worthy of encouragement by the state for the sake of common good i.e. MARRIAGE.

1. We can determine nature of actions by looking at the consequences of a **thought experiment **of everyone performing the same act
2. Homosexual activity if adopted by all, as in this thought experiment, indicates that it will lead to the extinction of the human race

Then the conclusion follows.

**Yes, it is a thought experiment. However there is no data to suggest that there could ever be a realization of that thought experiment. I would grant that in some fanciful, non-existent world, anything that, if adopted by every single person would result in the extinction of the human race should be banned.

How about in the real world? Does the objection that the fulfillment of the terms of premise 1 is impossible not suggest that your argument is not only a straw man, but an invisible straw man?**

You wrote:
There exists at least one criterion upon which the right to “pursue ones happiness” must be denied i.e. consent. So the right to pursue happiness is not an absolute right.
What this means is that you cannot go around saying such a right is the basis for the common ground or asking “how can gay people be happy if they are not allowed to be gay?”.

If consent is the nullifying condition that renders the happiness argument nul, then in all circumstances where consent is found, the argument is valid.

You wrote:
Homosexual behavior is 100% deviant. Heterosexual behavior is only deviant in specific instances.
Premise 1 RevDon. PREMISE 1. Please re-read it again. The whole argument I presented shows that all homosexual activity is deviant.
I am not sure where in my argument that I ASSUMED a premise that “All homosexual activity is harmful”. There was only a conclusion that all homosexual activity was harmful. Now as anyone would tell you, if you want to disagree with the conclusion, you have to show which premises you disagree with. If you have no qualms with the premises, the conclusion just inevitably follows. Ok?

And your proof of that conclusion is based on,what? The non-existent world of premise 1?

To be continued

 

[RevDon]

Eufrosnia, you also wrote:

I honestly don’t know how you or anyone else can tell me the exact magnitude of the effects of a gay couple marrying in Toronto. Neither I nor you know that. What you and I both know is that if such activity were to be adopted by all, we have the extinction of the human race. What that means is that such behavior is MALADAPTIVE/ INFERIOR/ AGAINST THE COMMON GOOD. Honestly, take your pick.

The problem here is that without addressing the argument, you want to try and justify gay marriage. But to do so, you must provide a premise that I can accept. Your premise of “oh but it can do this much good”, is not really a valid argument since it may also do bad that you have not taken in to account. The bad result might indeed outweigh the good. That is why consequentialism that deals with the quantifying of ACTUAL impact of actions can be quiet useless.

I responded with
**A gay couple marrying (and I am including all of the aspects of marriage, not just copulation) results in the formation of a household recognized by civil authorities for the sake of taxation, responsible medical decisions, the possibility of providing a home for children, the elimination of promiscuous sex that might lead to the spread of STDs, makes persons answerable to others on a daily basis for moral and economic decisions, provides psychological stability for partners.

This is the beginning of my list of how marriage benefits society in a secular way. When the institution of marriage is opened to homosexuals, the encouragement and structures of secular society are applicable as defining the relationship, and providing the means whereby the partners may live up to that definition (for example, partner’s health/psychiatric care).

And I challenged you to provide a list of ways in which the union of two same-sex persons would harm society.**

You also wrote:
Since homosexual activity is not required for the common good of society, one has to find a way to analyze whether the act should be allowed or disallowed. It turns out that if you accept the premises in my argument, then it follows that homosexual activity should indeed be banned.

**Other posters have given sufficient evidence for the folly of this line of thinking. **

 

[Stephen168]

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.

I basically agree except for the phrase ‘or allowing.’ It seems to me that as a matter of public policy many actions by people can not be practically stopped.

At first I wasn’t sure about ‘marriage promotes homosexual acts’ part of your argument but I think I agree. It seems to me the motivation to desire same sex ‘marriage’ instead of same sex ‘domestic partnerships’ in law is the desire to make homosexual activity appear to be ordered/natural/OK. So it seems to me people on both sides of the argument actually agree with this premise.

 

[RevDon]

I basically agree except for the phrase ‘or allowing.’ It seems to me that as a matter of public policy many actions by people can not be practically stopped.

At first I wasn’t sure about ‘marriage promotes homosexual acts’ part of your argument but I think I agree. It seems to me the motivation to desire same sex ‘marriage’ instead of same sex ‘domestic partnerships’ in law is the desire to make homosexual activity appear to be ordered/natural/OK. So it seems to me people on both sides of the argument actually agree with this premise.

Yes, in part the goal is to proclaim that activity that has been villainized can have permutations that are in civil terms acceptable and not harmful to society, and in religious terms, capable of being the opportunity for grace.
The other part of the argument is to attain equal treatment for citizens under the law.

 

[Stephen168]

Interracial marriage was once considered wrong, then it gained acceptance. Last I checked, people didn’t feel a compulsion to only marry others of a different race just because it became legal and socially acceptable.

Saying a black person *should be allowed *to marry a white person does not promote the idea that a white person *should not *marry a white person. Same thing applies to gay marriage.

If every single black person married a white person the human race would be in no danger of ending. The same thing does not apply to same sex “marriage.”

 

[Seeker1961]

If every single black person married a white person the human race would be in no danger of ending. The same thing does not apply to same sex “marriage.”

If every single gay person married every other single gay person, the human race would STILL be in no danger of ending. Gay people are less than 10% of the population. That still lives over 90% to marry and procreate.

 

[Monkey1976]

If every single gay person married every other single gay person, the human race would STILL be in no danger of ending. Gay people are less than 10% of the population. That still lives over 90% to marry and procreate.

So what reason is there to give financial and legal benefits to those who will not - and cannot - be contributing to the future of the society through the generation of children? The law doesn’t care what two men or two women choose to call their relationship. The question only arises when they try to claim the benefits reserved to those whose relationship has the potential to contribute to the future of the society.

If I want to claim the tax credits offered to Alaska residents from pipeline profits, I have to move to Alaska. What if I claim that it’s unfair to me, because I prefer Missouri as my residence but want the benefit anyway? That’s not fighting for my civil rights in the tradition of Martin Luther King, it’s throwing a tantrum in the tradition of my 2-year-old godson. Homosexual people have the same route to those benefits as heterosexual people: Marry a person of the opposite sex. The legal benefits attached to marriage are there for a single reason: Children. For those who want to lay claim to the psychological and physiological benefits, a marriage license isn’t magical. If those two men or two women actually are committed to each other in a permanent, stable, exclusive relationship, wouldn’t they gain the extra-legal benefits just as much as a heterosexual couple?

The legal benefits of marriage have nothing to do with the man and woman themselves - they are there for the children, present and future.

 

[rossum]

If every single black person married a white person the human race would be in no danger of ending. The same thing does not apply to same sex “marriage.”

If every person became a police officer then the human race would starve to death because there would be no farmers to grow food.

“If…” is a very silly way to start an argument unless you can show evidence that your “If…” is likely to happen. Given that for the vast majority of people their sexuality appears to be fixed this particular “If…” appears to be extremely unlikely.

How about, “If everyone was female…” Even more unlikely and even more unconvincing.

rossum

 

[Seeker1961]

So what reason is there to give financial and legal benefits to those who will not - and cannot - be contributing to the future of the society through the generation of children? The law doesn’t care what two men or two women choose to call their relationship. The question only arises when they try to claim the benefits reserved to those whose relationship has the potential to contribute to the future of the society.

If I want to claim the tax credits offered to Alaska residents from pipeline profits, I have to move to Alaska. What if I claim that it’s unfair to me, because I prefer Missouri as my residence but want the benefit anyway? That’s not fighting for my civil rights in the tradition of Martin Luther King, it’s throwing a tantrum in the tradition of my 2-year-old godson. Homosexual people have the same route to those benefits as heterosexual people: Marry a person of the opposite sex. The legal benefits attached to marriage are there for a single reason: Children. For those who want to lay claim to the psychological and physiological benefits, a marriage license isn’t magical. If those two men or two women actually are committed to each other in a permanent, stable, exclusive relationship, wouldn’t they gain the extra-legal benefits just as much as a heterosexual couple?

The legal benefits of marriage have nothing to do with the man and woman themselves - they are there for the children, present and future.

This argument has failed before, because unless you want to take those benefits away from sterile couples and couples past childbearing age you can’t say that those benefits are exclusively for those that are bearing children.

And believe it or not, people who don’t have children still contribute to society.

 

[Monkey1976]

This argument has failed before, because unless you want to take those benefits away from sterile couples and couples past childbearing age you can’t say that those benefits are exclusively for those that are bearing children.

We’ve been over this as well. The initial benefits attached to marriage are in place to allow the potential of children. Couples who do have children gain additional benefits. Sterile heterosexual couples are the exception, not the norm. There is no 100% reliable test for determining sterility other than actual removal of the gonads. The state makes the entirely reasonable assumption that heterosexual couples will produce children, because - so far - 99.9999…% of all humans have come from heterosexual couples. Sterility, when it happens, is a medical condition which the state has determined is intrusive to test for. Homosexual couples are guaranteed to be sterile. One’s sex is not a medical condition, and it is not privileged medical information - it’s on one’s driver’s license.

And believe it or not, people who don’t have children still contribute to society.

In what tangible, long-term (beyond their own lifetime) ways could the average homosexual couple contribute to the future of a society that could not be accomplished save for the redefinition of marriage?

Is there really no argument for same-sex “marriage” other than “I want it”?

 

[Seeker1961]

We’ve been over this as well. The initial benefits attached to marriage are in place to allow the potential of children. Couples who do have children gain additional benefits. Sterile heterosexual couples are the exception, not the norm. There is no 100% reliable test for determining sterility other than actual removal of the gonads. The state makes the entirely reasonable assumption that heterosexual couples will produce children, because - so far - 99.9999…% of all humans have come from heterosexual couples. Sterility, when it happens, is a medical condition which the state has determined is intrusive to test for. Homosexual couples are guaranteed to be sterile. One’s sex is not a medical condition, and it is not privileged medical information - it’s on one’s driver’s license.

In what tangible, long-term (beyond their own lifetime) ways could the average homosexual couple contribute to the future of a society that could not be accomplished save for the redefinition of marriage?

Is there really no argument for same-sex “marriage” other than “I want it”?

If I’m correct, your opinion is that only people capable of having children can have any impact on society or are any good to society. If I’m correct, than we have a fundamental disagreement on the value of people as individuals that I cannot see us overcoming.

There are plenty of arguments for civil same sex marriage other than “I want it”, but I don’t imagine that you would accept any of them as valid, given your opinion that the only value to society is the ability to bear children.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

If every single gay person married every other single gay person, the human race would STILL be in no danger of ending. Gay people are less than 10% of the population. That still lives over 90% to marry and procreate.

The question is: Do we promote what is harmful to the common good?
Is human extinction good?

 

[Seeker1961]

The question is: Do we promote what is harmful to the common good?
Is human extinction good?

I don’t understand where this “human extinction” idea comes from. If civil gay marriage is legalized, do you think that heterosexual marriage will end completely? Or are you part of the Pat Robertson/Westboro Baptist camp that believes giving civil rights to gay people will bring on natural disasters that will wipe out the planet?

 

[Stephen168]

If every person became a police officer then the human race would starve to death because there would be no farmers to grow food.

In the USA, we promote farming. It appears to be for the common good.
I knew a police officer who also raised cattle.

“If…” is a very silly way to start an argument unless you can show evidence that your “If…” is likely to happen. Given that for the vast majority of people their sexuality appears to be fixed this particular “If…” appears to be extremely unlikely.

I don’t have to show it will happen to the extreme to use the extreme to show the thing being promoted is good or not good. I just have to show the extreme to be factual and not emotional.

How about, “If everyone was female…”

Yes, we should not promote the creation of one sex over the other. Even people who support abortion seem to think that killing a baby just because of its sex is wrong.

 

[Monkey1976]

If I’m correct, your opinion is that only people capable of having children can have any impact on society or are any good to society. If I’m correct, than we have a fundamental disagreement on the value of people as individuals that I cannot see us overcoming.

You’re not correct. My opinion is that - from a purely legal point of view - marriage is about one thing: Children. I made no judgments on persons or individuals.

There are plenty of arguments for civil same sex marriage other than “I want it”, but I don’t imagine that you would accept any of them as valid, given your opinion that the only value to society is the ability to bear children.

Not their individual value to society - the value of their “marriage” to society. If two, or three, or twenty men all want to claim their relationship is a “marriage”, no law will stop them from calling it as such. What I want to know is, exactly what does legal recognition of their “marriage” gain society that can only be accomplished by doing so?

You seem to have chosen to ignore my question: In what tangible, long-term (beyond their own lifetime) ways could the average homosexual couple contribute to the future of a society that could not be accomplished save for the redefinition of marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t understand where this “human extinction” idea comes from

The OP

-Any action whose wide spread adoption can lead to or pose a danger to the extinction of the human race is against the common good
-Such an action must never be promoted

If civil gay marriage is legalized, do you think that heterosexual marriage will end completely?

Irrelevant to the OP.

The question is: Do we promote what is harmful to the common good?
Is human extinction good?

 

[Seeker1961]

You’re not correct. My opinion is that - from a purely legal point of view - marriage is about one thing: Children. I made no judgments on persons or individuals.

Not their individual value to society - the value of their “marriage” to society. If two, or three, or twenty men all want to claim their relationship is a “marriage”, no law will stop them from calling it as such. What I want to know is, exactly what does legal recognition of their “marriage” gain society that can only be accomplished by doing so?

You seem to have chosen to ignore my question: In what tangible, long-term (beyond their own lifetime) ways could the average homosexual couple contribute to the future of a society that could not be accomplished save for the redefinition of marriage?

I don’t view justice as something someone has to “pay” for with contributions to society. Justice is given to people because of their inherent dignity as people, not because of something they can give back.

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t view justice as something someone has to “pay” for with contributions to society. Justice is given to people because of their inherent dignity as people, not because of something they can give back.

Is it “just” that I, simply because I live in Missouri, cannot claim tax benefits reserved to Alaska residents?

 

[RevDon]

In what tangible, long-term (beyond their own lifetime) ways could the average homosexual couple contribute to the future of a society that could not be accomplished save for the redefinition of marriage?

Is there really no argument for same-sex “marriage” other than “I want it”?

It makes us a more just society.