Are there arguments against Gay Marriage which don't use religion?

[clem456]

I don’t think the “Marriage is for children” argument will be very convincing to many. That a marriage or sex must be open to the possibility of children, that sex only occur within marriage, or that marriage is necessary for children is not necessarily a shared belief. You’d be having a discussion where the other person might not agree on a premise making all things that follow seem irrelevant

Some of the arguments for Same sex marriage deal with laws on property ownership, fifth ammendment rights, and other statuses that range from being more difficult to impossible to acquire in a form that is durable across state lines. For those that have feelings in part motivated by these other considerations the may find that their concerns are unaddressed by the argument.

What’s being proposed is not belief or an argument, but common sense observation.

There is a difference.
Belief can be un-reasonable, it can also be reasonable, or commonly sensible by any person.

For instance, the belief that same sex marriage is equatable to “regular” marriage is an unreasonable belief, for the reasons detailed in several other posts. The equation is not grounded in reason and common sense.
Property rights, affection, mutual support, can surely be there in a same sex relationship, but in talking about the nature of the types of relationship, the attempt to equate is failed from the start.
The attempt to equate could be called “superstition”, or perhaps “deception”, rather than a well grounded belief that is founded upon reason.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What’s being proposed is not belief or an argument, but common sense observation.

If I were to change what I wrote from “not necessarily a shared belief” to “not necessarily an agreed upon/accepted argument” the implications are not terribly different. But I think what is labeled as “common sense” is often what is considered “popular belief” irrespective of whether or not it is true. If two people both agree about the proposition that is being labeled as “common sense” then further dissection of it might be considered unnecessary. If the two people do not agree then further explanation may be needed to support the proposition labeled as “common sense.”

For instance, the belief that same sex marriage is equatable to “regular” marriage is an unreasonable belief, for the reasons detailed in several other posts. The equation is not grounded in reason and common sense.

Civil marriage is what we make of it. It is defined by and evolves with the society in which we live even though Sacramental Marriage and Civil Marriage don’t always overlap.

Property rights, affection, mutual support, can surely be there in a same sex relationship

Yes, I acknowledged that. But what I said is that some rights can range from being “more difficult to impossible to acquire.” In the case of people that are not married this could involve separate legal contracts for each item. In the case of someone that has become no longer competent (such as in a comma or heavily drugged) and a decision must be made for the person evidence of being married is sufficient for showing authority to make the decision. Prior to the Supreme Court decision a same sex couple that was married and crossed state lines could find that there’s other paperwork that had to be secured before decisions could be made for the other person and they might find that one of the hurdles over which they were supposed to have jumped ahead of time had not been properly done. With marriage there is lower risk of such a scenario. In some cases no contracts will suffice, 5th amendment rights between a couple being named as an example.

 

[clem456]

Civil marriage is what we make of it. It is defined by and evolves with the society in which we live even though Sacramental Marriage and Civil Marriage don’t always overlap.

What we make of civil marriage is not the point.
That makes the whole thing a matter of arbitrary belief.

I will leave the word marriage out of the discussion since it seems to cause confusion.

The point is the observation that the union of a man and woman is unique is not a belief. It is an observation.
It is not something subject to belief any more that I say “I believe the sun rises in the morning”. Doesn’t matter what I believe (other than to have a contradictory belief means I am probably insane). The sun does what it does and is what it is.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What we make of civil marriage is not the point.

Countries and regions that allow for gay marriage are allowing for sam sex civil marriages. That’s what is being argued against.

That makes the whole thing a matter of arbitrary belief.

One might be able to describe it that way, civil marriage is a social construct to which certain rights and statuses are granted.

I will leave the word marriage out of the discussion since it seems to cause confusion.

I don’t think there’s any confusion. Though there is disagreement. But his discussion on on Gay [civil] Marriage. Even if you don’t use the word it’s implied by the topic of this thread and my color anything you say within this thread.

The point is the observation that the union of a man and woman is unique is not a belief. It is an observation.

Unique in what way? It’s one of the many configurations of [civil] unions that occur.

It is not something subject to belief any more that I say “I believe the sun rises in the morning”. Doesn’t matter what I believe (other than to have a contradictory belief means I am probably insane). The sun does what it does and is what it is.

Holding contradictory or inconsistent beliefs isn’t by itself a clinical criteria for determining insanity. People can have thoughts that are not consistent with each other and not notice it, especially if the thoughts that contradict each other are separately compartmentalized. I can’t give a full response to this though since I don’t yet know what you mean when you say that “observation that the union …] is unique” (something on which I can’t say I have agreement without knowing your intended message) and how that relates to astronomical observations of the apparent motion of the sun.

That aside, “belief” and “knowledge” depending on usage can be said to be forms of each other or overlapping concepts in some cases. Something that something that one holds as knowledge or fact can also be something that she believes. Perhaps you mean instead to express that you don’t think it is only a matter of opinion. For those that have opinions that disagree with me my inclination to care may depend on my knowledge and/or belief of how it affects me. Even if their position actually does have a negative effect on me if I don’t know it I may not be motivated to act on it. This isn’t unique to me and more information can be found about it under the description “Motivation Theory.”

There are those that support gay marriage or are at least apathetic about it because they do not know of or believe there are negative effects that it will have on them. They probably have little to nothing against the rights granted to a same sex couple for having the status of having a civil marriage.

 

[eddie_too]

i suppose the “secular” argument against same-sex unions being considered the same as opposite-sex unions is that they are two distinctively and substantively different human relationships. they are not the same and their is no logical reason to pretend they are.

what makes the two types of human relationships distinctively and substantively different is that one of the two relationships perpetuates the human race while the other cannot do that.

same-sex “marriage” and opposite-sex marriage are two different things. you can support changing the definition of a word, but the reality still exists and the relationship that you eliminated from your definition will just assume another word to describe it.

there is no way for the two relationships to be the same. for that reason, we will always need two different words to describe the two different relationships.

 

[eddie_too]

the following is not a religious argument in the sense that it refers to the tenets of an organized religion, but it is based on a belief in a Supreme Being.

i imagine it all depends on your definition of marriage.

if a person defines marriage as the institution created by God to ensure the only relationship that results in the procreation of His children is properly respected and honored, the argument against gay marriage defines itself.

if you use some other definition for marriage, then the definition must be accepted by others and the argument of those who accept that definition defines itself.

using the same word to describe two substantively and essentially and rationally different human relationships is nonsensical.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

same-sex “marriage” and opposite-sex marriage are two different things. you can support changing the definition of a word, but the reality still exists and the relationship that you eliminated from your definition will just assume another word to describe it.

tusing the same word to describe two substantively and essentially and rationally different human relationships is nonsensical.

No need to eliminate any concepts. There are qualifiers that are used to describe what type of marriage one is invoking. In the above you used the qualifier “same-sex” and “opposite-sex.” Other qualifiers include “civil”, “sacramental”, “ghost” (yes, it’s a thing in a certain society), “natural”, “polygamous,” and there are others.

 

[eddie_too]

like i said above, if you use your own definition of something there is no reason to argue for or against it. it is self-referential. it cannot be argued against. that makes the OP irrelevant and specious.

using modifiers is no different that making up your own definition.

marriage itself is then defined to be a human relationship. then it would be ok to call business partnerships business partnership marriages and corporations corporation marriages.

if that is a useful way of speaking, in your mind, fine with me, but i will opt out of such rigamarole and remain with not wanting everything to be rendered meaningless by pure sophistry.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

like i said above, if you use your own definition of something there is no reason to argue for or against it. it is self-referential. it cannot be argued against. that makes the OP irrelevant and specious.

Throughout time and cultures the usage and intended meaning of words has evolved. If you want to treat this as a matter of a word being re-purposed for something that you see as different I think that’s fine. I personally find the topics of semantic drift and etymology rather interesting.

if that is a useful way of speaking, in your mind, fine with me, but i will opt out of such rigamarole and remain with not wanting everything to be rendered meaningless by pure sophistry.

It seems that semantic drift hasn’t made words meaningless. However when reading something that is more than a few hundred years old it can at times be difficult to understand it because of differences in word usage. After all in modern times we don’t use “torpedo” to refer to a type of eel or “girl” to refer to a young child irrespective of gender/sex. Societal context or a historical dictionary may at times be necessary to make sense of something written in another age or sometimes in another geography.

 

[vsedriver]

Some of the arguments for Same sex marriage deal with laws on property ownership, fifth ammendment rights, and other statuses that range from being more difficult to impossible to acquire in a form that is durable across state lines. For those that have feelings in part motivated by these other considerations the may find that their concerns are unaddressed by the argument.

then these laws should be open to all. They should be open to people who have a close blood relationship and also to those that want multiple spouses. Gay marriage discriminates against all other similar unions. If marriage is not about children (a by product of sex) then sex is not an issue in marriage. And if sex is not an issue in marriage than there is no logical reason to deny two sisters from getting married or a mother and daughter marriage. Do they not have everything in common with the gay relationship?

 

[clem456]

Unique in what way? It’s one of the many configurations of [civil] unions that occur.

Do you deny that the union of a man and woman is uniquely ordered to human existence?

I’m trying to have a coherent and rational discussion. If we can’t

1. see
   and
2. admit

the obvious, how can we have a rational discussion?

So far you have not addressed this issue with any sort of logic. You have dodged it by saying “words mean whatever…”

Two things come to mind: when people use words to call something it’s not, we always call that “deception”. I suppose you could also make the case that it’s “denial” instead of deception. Ok…

Deception robs us of rationale, or reason, and takes us down road of superstition, or irrational belief.

I assume you as a self indentifying “thinking sapien” do not intend to go down that path, so…help us out here and connect the dots.

How can you propose that the union of a man and woman is not unique as compared to a same sex union (or the union of any two or more random people)?
And maintain the credibility of reason?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I have not see any good non religious arguments against gay marriage. Marriage has not been the same throughout the ages. Polygamy has been around for ages and monogamy has only been widespread for about a 1000 years. Marriage should be a right for all and not be limited to a few. Could someone give me a good reason that same sex marriage is wrong?

Check this out:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

What is Marriage?

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

There is a briefer argument here: thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7942/

All three of the authors of the paper linked in the abstract above gave a talk here:

youtu.be/C46-e8yRvrI

Lecture by Dr Jennifer Roback Morse

youtube.com/watch?v=I7AwGxqjPWg

This lecture is at Franciscan University but I think it may be quite a secular argument.

Here is Ryan T Anderson talking on the issue of same-sex marriage. Here he is at Stanford Anscombe Society, which is a secular institution so I’m betting the talk is mostly if not all secular based:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YWIhZ5xJJaQ

Q&A: youtu.be/nWC22S8FtJs

Here is a 3:31 minute highlight video: youtu.be/oVXX4bvLWRw

Another talk Ryan T Anderson have at The Wheatley Institution:

youtu.be/DIXZGFLKnCg

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you deny that the union of a man and woman is uniquely ordered to human existence? …]

Hey Clem, this is out of place. As of yet I’ve not taken a position on the statement and have asked for clarity on what you intended message is. Here is an abridged review of the conversational transactions on the above.

…]The point is the observation that the union of a man and woman is unique is not a belief. It is an observation. …]
ThinkingSapien;13873943:

Unique in what way? It’s one of the many configurations of [civil] unions that occur…]I can’t give a full response to this though since I don’t yet know what you mean when you say that “observation that the union …] is unique” (something on which I can’t say I have agreement without knowing your intended message) and how that relates to astronomical observations of the apparent

motion of the sun.

So far you have not addressed this issue with any sort of logic. You have dodged it by saying “words mean whatever…”

I’ll reiterate to better assure that it’s not missed but what I had said is repeated here:

I can’t give a full response to this though since I don’t yet know what you mean

This is not dodging, this is letting you know I didn’t have sufficient information for knowing what you were communicating to give a reply. If you believe that the above was somehow deceptive please explain to me why you think it is deceptive. Otherwise I will assume that this mistaken view has been corrected.

I’ll address it in a moment now that you’ve added a qualifier to your statement that had not been on the original statement ("uniquely ordered to human existence? "). Keep in mind that I can’t always know the mental context in which you or anyone else wrote something. So at times I will make this known. Usually providing additional information or rewording for clarity is all that is necessary for me to be able to give a response when this occurs.

Two things come to mind: when people use words to call something it’s not, we always call that “deception”. I suppose you could also make the case that it’s “denial” instead of deception. Ok…

More than 2 things come to my mind for this scenario. There are variations of non-literal speech including hyperbole, irony, slang, and metaphor. There’s also aphophasis, elevation, synecdoche among others. I’ve already mentioned semantic drift as we use some words in a manner that is slightly different to completely opposite to earlier meanings (ex: mortgage isn’t necessarily used to convey “death pledge”, “literally” can be used in a sense that is an antonym of one of it’s other senses, and if one football team were to “decimate” another one wouldn’t take this to mean that 1 in 10 of the other teams members were executed. I don’t think most people believe that souls inhabit alcohol yet drinkable alcohols are still referred to as “spirits”).

But as identified earlier I think “semantic drift” is what is applicable here. There’s a typology of semantic changes and “semantic broadening/widening” seems to be the one that is most applicable here. When semantic widening occurs a term that had been used for one concept is re-purposed for another concept that is inclusive of the previous concept. In some cases the use is initially metaphorical but may come to be recognized another sense for the word with repeated use. Right now as I understand it is whether such changes is language occur. This is something else that can be observed through publications over time. A dictionary of etymology will often have the evolution of specific words mentioned.

More to the point it seems that somehow you are of the belief that I’ve taken a position contrary to your statement that “the union of a man and a woman is unique.” I’ll reiterate again. I’ve not yet expressed a position on the statement because because more information was needed for me to be able to interpreted your intended message. It’s premature to entertain thoughts that I’m being deceptive on this. But not that you’ve added the qualifier “uniquely ordered to human existence” I believe I understand your intended message and will respond to it as mentioned above.

I assume you as a self [identifying] “[ThinkingSapien]” do not intend to go down that path, so…help us out here and connect the dots.

Since the above was also based on the thought that I was possibly being deceptive I’ll address this once again. Requesting to know in what way you considered something unique is not deception.

How can you propose

I haven’t proposed. I asked “unique in what way.”
Now that I know what your intended proposition is I can address this. It appears to me that what you are saying is that sexual reproduction within humans can only occur between people that are of the opposite sex. If that is what you are stating I agree. However you earlier responded to the message in which I said:

That a marriage or sex must be open to the possibility of children, that sex only occur within marriage, or that marriage is necessary for children is not necessarily a shared belief.

Sex is not marriage. As it applies to what you said above whether or not two people are able to produce children within a marriage isn’t necessarily a consideration. I understand that there is a view in Catholicism that sex only occur within marriage and that sex always be open to the possibility of children. But that isn’t a view that isn’t necessarily shared among those that support same sex marriage. If one adopts these views then the argument against same sex marriage is easy. But without these then the discussion is like many others for which the participants don’t agree on the premise.

 

[Irenechika]

If you look at scientific studies they reveal that homosexuality is not a genetic pre-disposition but instead it is usually ushered in from lack of family stability (missing one parent) or from childhood sexual abuse. So the way I look at it, it is a condition that we need to look at as detrimental to a person’s health etc. I believe the main argument that is not religious is that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle and it does not benefit those who choose to live that lifestyle.

 

[eddie_too]

since the word marriage standing alone seems to have lost meaning, then maybe we do need to use qualifiers to give it a meaning.

thus gay marriage can mean whatever those who use it define it to mean.

i will only defend "natural’ marriage and thus, to enter in to the spirit of the age, i will define what is “natural” marriage. my definition is not complex and is as follows.

“natural” marriage is a permanent and exclusive union between one man and one woman open to procreation of the human species.

i have no idea what “gay” marriage is and since marriage standing alone has lost all meaning, at least some say this, what does “gay” mean when used as a qualifier for the word marriage (that some say has no definable meaning any longer)?

certainly, civil authorities can define marriage for the purpose of civil laws to mean anything they want.

the only argument i have against “gay” marriage is that it is not “natural” marriage but merely an imaginary, intellectual construct. “natural” marriage on the other hand creates a real union with a real purpose.

 

[clem456]

since the word marriage standing alone seems to have lost meaning, then maybe we do need to use qualifiers to give it a meaning.

thus gay marriage can mean whatever those who use it define it to mean.

i will only defend "natural’ marriage and thus, to enter in to the spirit of the age, i will define what is “natural” marriage. my definition is not complex and is as follows.

“natural” marriage is a permanent and exclusive union between one man and one woman open to procreation of the human species.

i have no idea what “gay” marriage is and since marriage standing alone has lost all meaning, at least some say this, what does “gay” mean when used as a qualifier for the word marriage (that some say has no definable meaning any longer)?

certainly, civil authorities can define marriage for the purpose of civil laws to mean anything they want.

the only argument i have against “gay” marriage is that it is not “natural” marriage but merely an imaginary, intellectual construct. “natural” marriage on the other hand creates a real union with a real purpose.

Yes, the meanings change.

And seriously, I don’t have a problem with the meanings of words evolving and changing.
The problem is when they are used to lie about the underlying reality.

 

[clem456]

Hey Clem, this is out of place. As of yet I’ve not taken a position on the statement and have asked for clarity on what you intended message is. Here is an abridged review of the conversational transactions on the above. I’ll reiterate to better assure that it’s not missed but what I had said is repeated here:
This is not dodging, this is letting you know I didn’t have sufficient information for knowing what you were communicating to give a reply. If you believe that the above was somehow deceptive please explain to me why you think it is deceptive. Otherwise I will assume that this mistaken view has been corrected.
huge snip

You did not answer a simple question, you dodged, and did it very elaborately.
The elaborations do not hide your attempt to dodge it.

So here it is again:

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
**Do you deny that the union of a man and woman is uniquely ordered to human existence? **…]

Hey Clem, this is out of place. (Really???)As of yet I’ve not taken a position on the statement and have asked for clarity on what you intended message is. (You really need that question clarified for you?)Here is an abridged review of the conversational transactions on the above.

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
…]The point is the observation that the union of a man and woman is unique is not a belief. It is an observation. …]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
Unique in what way? It’s one of the many configurations of [civil] unions that occur…]I can’t give a full response to this though since I don’t yet know what you mean when you say that “observation that the union …] is unique”

You dodge the question, you do in insincerely and transparently. No one believes that you are ignorant of the content of the question.
Your dodge does not eliminate the question.
It is still there.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You did not answer a simple question, you dodged, and did it very elaborately.
The elaborations do not hide your attempt to dodge it.

Check again. I’ll quote it for you.

…] It appears to me that what you are saying is that sexual reproduction within humans can only occur between people that are of the opposite sex. If that is what you are stating I agree…]

 

[LittleFlower378]

Just to add… here is Servant of God Fr. John Hardon’s SJ audio series on homosexuality.

therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0023000.htm

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And seriously, I don’t have a problem with the meanings of words evolving and changing.

Cool, I’m glad to hear it. To

(“Word of the Year as chosen by Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com.”) lexicographer Katherine Connor Martin of the Oxford English Dictionary
" …]People have a tendency to see language as immutable bot the O.E.D. But the OED and Oxford’s other dictionaries are actually based on the premise language is changing all the time…] "
Lexicographers of many well used dictionaries make updates to their entries based on and documenting how words are used even if they don’t like the more recent usages.

The problem is when they are used to lie about the underlying reality.

You’ll have to know about how someone’s word usage maps to concepts and their intentions to know if they are telling a lie or not. If the concept that one associates with a word is different from yours then and if the person doesn’t intent to mislead you then you may be in a situation in which a bit more dialog is necessary to understand each other. Happens all the time, especially in the Philosophy sub-forum where request may be made for more on someone’s intended usage of a word before considering their arguments.