M
michael-kaw
Guest
Or against abortion, euthanasia or any other catholic belief which is often disagreed with by secularists
- Status
S
SnowRose
Guest
The secular-view issue with euthanasia would be the problem of assuring the person who wants to depart is of sound mind, not coerced or suffering from mental illness.
It’s a similar argument as forbidding the death penalty.
It’s non-reversible if it’s a mistake.
It’s a similar argument as forbidding the death penalty.
It’s non-reversible if it’s a mistake.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You probably don’t want to tackle all of those in one thread. 
As for the subject in the thread title, arguments regarding same-sex marriage must start with a definition of what marriage really is. This is easy to do without bringing in religion since marriage pre-dates all religions and isn’t only for people who subscribe to a particular religion. Marriage is about a man and a woman coming together in a permanent commitment for the procreation and rearing of the children that result from their union. Men cannot marry other men (and women cannot marry other women) because their union cannot create life.
Obviously, this is the 5 cent version. Much more can be said.
As for the subject in the thread title, arguments regarding same-sex marriage must start with a definition of what marriage really is. This is easy to do without bringing in religion since marriage pre-dates all religions and isn’t only for people who subscribe to a particular religion. Marriage is about a man and a woman coming together in a permanent commitment for the procreation and rearing of the children that result from their union. Men cannot marry other men (and women cannot marry other women) because their union cannot create life.
Obviously, this is the 5 cent version. Much more can be said.
J
James214
Guest
The state has an interest for the public good and maintaining order in standardizing, promoting and even subsidizing stable sexual unions between men and women in order that the next generation of children will be brought up in stability and the fathers of such children will be assumed for the sake of accountability and the protection of the mother and her children.
The state does not have an inherent interest in promoting, prioritizing or subsidizing sexual unions based on personal feelings of affection between two people, which was the “definition” of marriage given by justice Kennedy in the 2015 Supreme Court decision.
The state does not have an inherent interest in promoting, prioritizing or subsidizing sexual unions based on personal feelings of affection between two people, which was the “definition” of marriage given by justice Kennedy in the 2015 Supreme Court decision.
S
SnowRose
Guest
…
That will be countered by the overpopulation argument. And by the people-should-be-stable-and-prosperous argument.
There just aren’t enough gay people to effect nativity in comparison to effective political family support efforts.
That secular anti-gay marriage isn’t effective unless you run with the natural marriage crowd.
That will be countered by the overpopulation argument. And by the people-should-be-stable-and-prosperous argument.
There just aren’t enough gay people to effect nativity in comparison to effective political family support efforts.
That secular anti-gay marriage isn’t effective unless you run with the natural marriage crowd.
M
michael-kaw
Guest
Fortunately I have an answer for the overpopulation arguement!
J
James214
Guest
Overpopulation is a myth and always has been, people have been making claims of overpopulation for centuries. When resources get scarce throughout history people delay marriage or have fewer children. Instability and corruption leads to starvation, not sheer numbers of people.
But even if that were the case, encouraging stable family relationships over unstable breeding doesn’t have anything to do with the number of children born in such unions. And it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the state has a specific interest in protecting and promoting non-procreative sexual unions for the sake of feelings.
But even if that were the case, encouraging stable family relationships over unstable breeding doesn’t have anything to do with the number of children born in such unions. And it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the state has a specific interest in protecting and promoting non-procreative sexual unions for the sake of feelings.
M
michael-kaw
Guest
Well said. If everyone where to have exactly one child that would rebalance the population right? However roughly half of us are men so that makes it roughly 2 kids per woman. But there are loads of people who are infertile, millions of abortions happening each year so the average amount of kids a woman should have keeps getting higher so yes overpopulation IS a myth
Last edited:
- Status