Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why gay-marriage should be illegal

[Pantheist]

I could only repeat what Orson Scott Card says here.

This is in large part what makes it all so messy. “Marriage” is a term wrapped up in religious meaning, and judges are legislating the meaning from the bench.

As for the argument that “marriage is everyone’s business” I disagree. If you think that divorced people are polluting your society, forbid your children to communicate with them. Don’t expect all divorce to become illegal.

If marriage is God’s business, then God can take care of it. If marriage is everyone’s business, then it is the business of those judges, and they should be allowed to legislate from the bench. It is their business after all. Or maybe he would rather marriage be the majority’s business, in which case it should be open to periodic voting, as society changes its views on the issue.

There are some other points I will have to sit down with longer in order to consider.

It would be safer (and maybe better) simply to allow civil unions between any two or more properly consenting parties, and to remove the issue of marriage from the debate altogether.

 

[Donald45]

…I would like an argument that is rational, for obvious reasons.

Agreed.

I would also like an argument that is not tied to any particular religion, because I am not tied to any particular religion, and so religious arguments (arguments with a certain particular religion as the basis) will not sway me.

I see your point. So, then, you would favor arguments based upon reason alone, rather than upon reason aided by faith (that is, rather than arguments based upon authority), yes?

I will continue to vote supporting gay marriage, and other forms of marriage (even absurd ones) until the government stops declaring who is married and who is not.

And yet, it’s the government’s job to govern, is it not? For example, one could also say, “I will continue to vote supporting indiscriminate killing until the government stops declaring what is murder and what is not.” This is an admittedly silly illustration, but it makes my point that it’s the task of civil government to lawfully determine what is, and is not, properly termed “murder.” Likewise with the legal term “marriage.”

But, if I were shown a rational and non-religious argument why I am wrong, I would like to change what I am doing.

I admire and respect your obvious intellectual integrity in this matter.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Pantheist]

But, it is a slippery slope. No one ever talked about homosexual “marriage” until recently. Once the definition of marriage is thrown away anything goes. There is no “rational” argument to claim man/pet marriage is absurd and man/man marriage is rational.

But there is. One involves two consenting parties, and the other does not. So long as “consent” is part of the premise, then that is a rational argument. It may not be one every person would accept, but it is rational nonetheless.

 

[Tracyms1974]

Hello, everybody.

  Kids do not need to be raised in same-sex households, period.  My daughter is 4 and she regularly talks about "Mommy, Daddy, and Baby."  Kids do not by any means need to grow up thinking that "Mommy, Mommy, and Baby" or "Daddy, Daddy, and Baby" is the norm or that it's biologically possible.  She doesn't know what sex is, of course, but at the tender age of four she's already picked up that it takes a mommy, a daddy, and a baby to make a true family.  If homosexuals were allowed to get married, then they would have all kinds of adoption rights, more so than now, and you'd have all these confused kids running around wondering if they're supposed to be gay or straight.  It would be crazy.

Tracy

 

[Pantheist]

If homosexuals were allowed to get married, then … you’d have all these confused kids running around wondering if they’re supposed to be gay or straight. It would be crazy.

But we already have that.

I’d contend that societies have always had this, but that it’s only now more in the open than it’s been before.

 

[whatevergirl]

But, it is a slippery slope. No one ever talked about homosexual “marriage” until recently. Once the definition of marriage is thrown away anything goes. There is no “rational” argument to claim man/pet marriage is absurd and man/man marriage is rational.

Silly? You mean because a certain subset of the population calls it silly?

No perception is not reality. Reality is reality. People reject all sorts of arguments but that does not necessarily make the arguments wrong.

No, it is immoral regardless of you, me, or anyone else.

fix, do you think that this subject is the first time we’re hearing about it? do you think that this happened over night? The issue probably has been talked about in great degree in homosexual circles…as a heterosexual, it seems new…it seems like a new discussion. I’m sure discussions like this, albeit secretively, were being bantered about back in the 50’s…or earlier…there were prominent celebs who were gay, but secretive about it, back then.

Also, which no one has mentioned…Homosexuals have been ‘marrying’ one another for a very very long time, too by the way…in their own ‘religious’ style ceremonies. Not legal, but they have been having ceremonies to validate their commitments for years… Having it made legal is what we’re discussing. So, for many homosexuals who have had ceremonies, to them, this is the natural next step…and they are looking for equal rights in this genre.

People by and large don’t have sex with their pets…or with animals in general. But, people have been having sex with others of same sex since the dawn of time. Maybe some were having sex with animals, but the percentage is so small, it’s barely existent. Plus, that behavior is illegal. That is why the argument is ridiculous…at best. Please…can we change that subject, and continue with rational arguments? That one is never going to be an issue…:dts:

 

[whatevergirl]

Hello, everybody.

  Kids do not need to be raised in same-sex households, period.  My daughter is 4 and she regularly talks about "Mommy, Daddy, and Baby."  Kids do not by any means need to grow up thinking that "Mommy, Mommy, and Baby" or "Daddy, Daddy, and Baby" is the norm or that it's biologically possible.  She doesn't know what sex is, of course, but at the tender age of four she's already picked up that it takes a mommy, a daddy, and a baby to make a true family.  If homosexuals were allowed to get married, then they would have all kinds of adoption rights, more so than now, and you'd have all these confused kids running around wondering if they're supposed to be gay or straight.  It would be crazy.

Tracy

This is a rational argument…I agree.

Thanks Tracy for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[fix]

I do. I just wish people would stop making gay folks out as these horrible monsters bent on the destruction of family life and the moral fabric of society.

But, who has said any of that?

For myself, i’m afraid that I don’t find friends on either side. I’m either too liberal or too conservative. I prefer to enjoy a rather simple life with my partner and we don’t get involved in politics too much. I couldn’t care less whether you agree with me or not. That’s fine, and as a Catholic, I completely understand . But I wish there could be more charity from both sides instead of all the mud slinging. I believe there should be dialogue but too many on both sides have set opinions and they’re not going to change. Then, in charity, could we agree to disagree? That would be nice. God bless!

There is nothing uncharitable in anything I have said. Having an opinion is one thing, but we are talking about principle here. Any dialogue must be in relation to truth, not a dialogue as in compromise.

 

[fix]

But there is. One involves two consenting parties, and the other does not. So long as “consent” is part of the premise, then that is a rational argument. It may not be one every person would accept, but it is rational nonetheless.

If consent is the hinge then mutual murder is rational? Now, I expect someone to complain I compared murder with homosexual unions.

 

[Pantheist]

If consent is the hinge then mutual murder is rational?

I do not see how that follows. Murder typically implies that consent is lacking.

Mutual suicide? I’ve never understood why suicide is illegal in the first place. How do they collect the fine?

Now, I expect someone to complain I compared murder with homosexual unions.

I won’t be one of them. Your situation is hypothetical. I don’t think it follows, but it’s still hypothetical.

 

[fix]

fix, do you think that this subject is the first time we’re hearing about it? do you think that this happened over night? The issue probably has been talked about in great degree in homosexual circles…as a heterosexual, it seems new…it seems like a new discussion. I’m sure discussions like this, albeit secretively, were being bantered about back in the 50’s…or earlier…there were prominent celebs who were gay, but secretive about it, back then.

That may be true of any number of illicit acts. Including man/animal contact.

Also, which no one has mentioned…Homosexuals have been ‘marrying’ one another for a very very long time, too by the way…in their own ‘religious’ style ceremonies. Not legal, but they have been having ceremonies to validate their commitments for years… Having it made legal is what we’re discussing. So, for many homosexuals who have had ceremonies, to them, this is the natural next step…and they are looking for equal rights in this genre.

Ok, so that proves some group decides they want to act as they desire regardless of right or wrong or how it effects others. What is to stop any other group from acting in the same way justifying your position?

People by and large don’t have sex with their pets…or with animals in general.

How many must engage in this conduct before it ceases to be a “silly” analogy?

But, people have been having sex with others of same sex since the dawn of time. Maybe some were having sex with animals, but the percentage is so small, it’s barely existent. Plus, that behavior is illegal. That is why the argument is ridiculous…at best. Please…can we change that subject, and continue with rational arguments? That one is never going to be an issue…:dts:

Sorry, I cannot accept your basic premise.

 

[fix]

I do not see how that follows. Murder typically implies that consent is lacking.

Ok, call it mutual killing or suicide.

Mutual suicide? I’ve never understood why suicide is illegal in the first place. How do they collect the fine?

It is all about the fine?

I won’t be one of them. Your situation is hypothetical. I don’t think it follows, but it’s still hypothetical.

Thanks, I guess.

 

[Pantheist]

Ok, call it mutual killing or suicide.

Again, so long as consent is present in both parties, though I would consider it very unwise, even wrong, I don’t think it should be illegal.

It is all about the fine?

Either that or prison. This is state law, nothing more.

 

[fix]

Again, so long as consent is present in both parties, though I would consider it very unwise, even wrong, I don’t think it should be illegal.

Consent is enough to justify legalizing lunancy?

Either that or prison. This is state law, nothing more.

But the basis for law is more than wanting to collect money or put people in prison, right?

 

[Pantheist]

Consent is enough to justify legalizing lunancy?

I’m not sure I understand your statement.

By “consent” I mean proper consent, in this case (which is why I tried to mention always proper consent, but it gets clunky), which means an obvious act of consent that was not seriously coerced, and that is within the capabilities of reason of both parties.

So people without the faculty of reason could not consent to mutual suicide, not legally.

But the basis for law is more than wanting to collect money or put people in prison, right?

Ideally, it tries to approximate a sort of justice, or at least allow for such.

But legislating all that is good seems unwise, as it limits freedom. People should, it seems to me, be allowed, without legal penalty, to mess their own lives up, and even the lives of other consenting parties. The law should be primarily intended for protecting social welfare while allowing a great amount of liberty.

 

[fix]

I’m not sure I understand your statement.

By “consent” I mean proper consent, in this case (which is why I tried to mention always proper consent, but it gets clunky), which means an obvious act of consent that was not seriously coerced, and that is within the capabilities of reason of both parties.

So people without the faculty of reason could not consent to mutual suicide, not legally.

I meant is it reasonable for the state to legalize “insane” behavior simply because two mentally stable people give consent?

I am not asking about specific legal doctrines but more of a philosophical/political issue. What interest is there for society to allow people to act badly simply because they consent?

Ideally, it tries to approximate a sort of justice, or at least allow for such.

That presupposes we agree on what justice means.

But legislating all that is good seems unwise, as it limits freedom. People should, it seems to me, be allowed, without legal penalty, to mess their own lives up, and even the lives of other consenting parties. The law should be primarily intended for protecting social welfare while allowing a great amount of liberty.

That is the issue. How we understand liberty.

 

[JimG]

Kids do not need to be raised in same-sex households, period. My daughter is 4 and she regularly talks about “Mommy, Daddy, and Baby.” Kids do not by any means need to grow up thinking that “Mommy, Mommy, and Baby” or “Daddy, Daddy, and Baby” is the norm or that it’s biologically possible. She doesn’t know what sex is, of course, but at the tender age of four she’s already picked up that it takes a mommy, a daddy, and a baby to make a true family.

And it is precisely this definition of family – Mommy, Daddy and Baby-- that those pushing for homosexual ‘marriage’ are trying so hard to marginalize. Don’t school textbooks now illustrate as a matter of “inclusiveness” the non-standard versions of family in an attempt to normalize them? See the Orson Scott Card article that I linked to above.

 

[fix]

But we already have that.

I’d contend that societies have always had this, but that it’s only now more in the open than it’s been before.

I would say not only more open, but more encouraged.

 

[RyanML]

But, who has said any of that?

No one on the thread that I could see. I was speaking in general not just those in this discussion.

There is nothing uncharitable in anything I have said. Having an opinion is one thing, but we are talking about principle here. Any dialogue must be in relation to truth, not a dialogue as in compromise.

I didn’t mean to imply you had said anything uncharitable. Again I meant generally. And I don’t expect anyone to compromise their convictions on either side. But we should listen and try to understand and respect each other even if we disagree. I don’t see how that’s compromising. God bless!

 

[Pantheist]

I meant is it reasonable for the state to legalize “insane” behavior simply because two mentally stable people give consent?

I see. If two rational people come to a bad conclusion, I’m not sure I would qualify it as “insane”, certainly not in some definitions, because that itself would imply a contradiction.

I am not asking about specific legal doctrines but more of a philosophical/political issue. What interest is there for society to allow people to act badly simply because they consent?

This is a very large question, far too large even for legislation (for society encourages behavior outside of legislation, by social pressure through understood taboos and mores). Freedom would be the interest of society in refraining from legislating against all bad decisions. And this because society may be wrong, and may accidentally legislate against good decisions, which would be far worse (though this at least accidentally happens and goes on even now, it should be discouraged).

From a purer philosophical perspective, God (the sum total of all that is) communicates to us (parts of God to other parts of God) by use of reason, as well as (from mode to mode) by communication. No one mode of God exhausts God, for God is a single substance comprised of infinite attributes each with infinite modes, and so one mode would not have the faculty to declare with certainty what is good for all. So not all things should be legislated, but, it seems to me at this time, only those things that encourage freedom for people within their natural limits, both to continue existing, and to move and act as they will. This freedom, of course, would be compromised, if it interfered with the freedom of others.

That is the issue. How we understand liberty.

I am unsure. How do you define liberty?