A secular case against gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eufrosnia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RevDon said:
If you don’t want to live your life in Alaska, then don’t grouse if you don’t get Alaska oil income.
Click to expand...
Then if homosexual persons don’t want to live in an actual marriage - one man and one woman - they shouldn’t grouse if they don’t get the benefits attached to that state.
 
RevDon said:
If you are trying to show it is evil, how about a list of ways that society could be harmed by same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...
Again what do you mean by harm? You mean direct physical attack? Do you mean an increase in arson? What specific parameters do you claim are important?
 
Stephen168 said:
Yes, sodomy was illegal, because it is not reproductive.
If non-reproductive sex was adopted by all, it would lead to the extinction of the human race.
The extinction of the human race is not good.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is it is a crime against nature and corrupts public morals among other issues.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yes, we promote farming and organized religion, because they are good
Click to expand...
If everyone was a celibate Catholic religious then the human race would go extinct. Do you agree?

Anything which, if taken up by the whole human race, would cause the extinction of humanity is to be discouraged. Do you agree? Remember that you posted:
Stephen168 said:
The question is: Do we promote what is harmful to the common good?
Is human extinction good?
Click to expand...
Celibate Catholic monks, nuns and priests are following a practice which, if followed by everyone, would result in the extinction of the human race.

Why are you applying your argument in one case and not in the other? Are you saying that Catholic monasteries and parishes should give up their tax exempt status because they are promoting “what is harmful to the common good”?
You haven’t shown that to be true.
Click to expand...
Yes I have. Almost every activity would result in extinction if everyone followed it, except farmer or hunter-gatherer. Men and women are also caught in your ludicrously wide net; “If everyone was male…”. All that you allow is hermaphrodite farmers; anything else is “harmful to the common good”.

You really need to think through this argument far more carefully.

rossum
 
fix said:
I think the issue is it is a crime against nature and corrupts public morals among other issues.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. Sodomy, a crime against nature, is any act that is not intercourse between male and female; per my UCMJ instruction in basic training.
 
Stephen168 said:
You say that because you have no definition of marriage except that it should be whatever you want it to mean.
Therefore Alaska can mean whatever Monkey1976 wants it to mean.
Click to expand...
Alaska is defined by a specific group of boundaries in the real world.
If you want to extend this analogy to the same sex marriage argument, then you could say that marriage is defined by a specific group of boundaries in the real world.
My argument is that as a society we are free to reconsider those boundaries. If we can come up with some good reasons why the “new” boundaries of marriage would cause harm, then I say, don’t change them. But if we can find reasons why the new boundaries can benefit some people without causing harm to others, then I would be hard-put to see a reason (other than “we have always don it this way” not to change them.
The Canadians might feel harmed if we were to extend the boundaries of Alaska to the lower 48. And probably a lot of people in the states between Alaska and Missouri, too.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Then if homosexual persons don’t want to live in an actual marriage - one man and one woman - they shouldn’t grouse if they don’t get the benefits attached to that state.
Click to expand...
You say the definition requires two different sexes. That’s the substance of this conversation.
 
fix said:
Again what do you mean by harm? You mean direct physical attack? Do you mean an increase in arson? What specific parameters do you claim are important?
Click to expand...
I’d like to see any list, based on any criteria that shows real harm to people because others are living in a same sex marriage. If you can show an increase in arson committed among people living in same sex marriages, do not leave it off the list.
 
rossum said:
If everyone was a celibate Catholic religious then the human race would go extinct. Do you agree?

Anything which, if taken up by the whole human race, would cause the extinction of humanity is to be discouraged. Do you agree? Remember that you posted:

Celibate Catholic monks, nuns and priests are following a practice which, if followed by everyone, would result in the extinction of the human race.

Why are you applying your argument in one case and not in the other? Are you saying that Catholic monasteries and parishes should give up their tax exempt status because they are promoting “what is harmful to the common good”?

Yes I have. Almost every activity would result in extinction if everyone followed it, except farmer or hunter-gatherer. Men and women are also caught in your ludicrously wide net; “If everyone was male…”. All that you allow is hermaphrodite farmers; anything else is “harmful to the common good”.

You really need to think through this argument far more carefully.

rossum
Click to expand...
You have not said anything to refute what I said in post 131, so the OP’s argument is doing just fine so far.
 
fix said:
I think the issue is it is a crime against nature and corrupts public morals among other issues.
Click to expand...
That’s a conclusion that would be worth considering if true. How about some evidence that it is true?
 
RevDon said:
Alaska is defined by a specific group of boundaries in the real world.
If you want to extend this analogy to the same sex marriage argument, then you could say that marriage is defined by a specific group of boundaries in the real world.
My argument is that as a society we are free to reconsider those boundaries. If we can come up with some good reasons why the “new” boundaries of marriage would cause harm, then I say, don’t change them. But if we can find reasons why the new boundaries can benefit some people without causing harm to others, then I would be hard-put to see a reason (other than “we have always don it this way” not to change them.
The Canadians might feel harmed if we were to extend the boundaries of Alaska to the lower 48. And probably a lot of people in the states between Alaska and Missouri, too.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
How does that answer the questions?
Do you support air pollution?
Click to expand...
 
Stephen168 said:
Yes, I agree. Sodomy, a crime against nature, is any act that is not intercourse between male and female; per my UCMJ instruction in basic training.
Click to expand...
And the UCMJ is a source of truth? Or does it rather reflect and enforce a set of values commonly held at the time it was issued? Values that clearly are changing.
I do think I could make a case against sodomy outside of marriage in a military environment.
 
40.png
Stephen168:
You asked if it answers the questions posed in the posting to which I was responding. My answer is yes.
You asked if I was in favor of air pollution -another idiotic response from you-- to which I answer no.
 
RevDon said:
I’d like to see any list, based on any criteria that shows real harm to people because others are living in a same sex marriage. If you can show an increase in arson committed among people living in same sex marriages, do not leave it off the list.
Click to expand...
Real harm:
  1. It legalizes unnatural acts.
  2. It teaches that unnatural acts are acceptable.
  3. The civil law helps to form consciences. The State is saying these actions do not disturb the public order or offend public morals.
  4. Children will be indoctrinated into this strange unnatural ideology.
  5. Children will be subjected to homes where there is no mother and father but two, or more, same sex persons posing as mother and father acting like natural parents.
These are but a few harms against society and children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top