Good links to argue against gay marriage from a secular perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Natural Law

…According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). The eternal law is God’s wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the quote by St. Thomas. So, according to this little bit of theology, Natural Law defines the teleological nature of all things. This is the Catholic argument against gay marriage, that the meaning and purpose of sex and of marriage are intrinsically in their nature directed toward procreation.

All that I have said about it, is that legally, the purpose has changed. Therefore, the two “teleologies”, if you will, are at odds with each other.

But the poster asked the secular arguments. If the definition above is an accurate representation, then Natural Law is not a secular justification, since it is defined theologically/
 
Mudgely said:
errr… what the “founding fathers” meant by inalienable right, is a right which you as a person cannot give up, even if you want to. It is not something granted by the State, but rather something which cannot be taken away legitimately. In that sense, everyone has the right to have children and to associate freely.

We get into rights discussion with gay marriage when we start looking at the equal protection guarantees. There is no longer a LEGAL gender distinction in marriage. Therefore, there is no legal bar to same gender marriage. This is the trend in the courts. However, there have only been a handful of cases. So it is sparse, and could go in any direction with each decision. This is the logical result of the women’s rights movement desire to eliminate gender distinction in all aspects of life.

It is a state’s right to confer marriage. If a marriage contract is legally conferred in NY, VT, etc… then it is legal. However, federal law denies benefits to legally married partners if they are same gender, but confers the benefits on opposite gender. Therefore, DOMA violates the equal protection clause.

This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or religion. It is a secular legal and civil rights issue. Those who glibly claim that gay people have the same rights as straights, may now take some of their own medicine (funny how that works). If you don’t want to marry someone of your own gender, then don’t. Simple. If the CC does not want to perform same sex marriages, then it shouldn’t.

Move along people. There is nothing to look at here. Stop the drama. We are talking about 2-4% of the population. This is not a big issue. The earth will not stop rotating because a gay couple gets married. Move on.
Click to expand...
First of all, “inalienable right” only appears in the Declaration of Independence. It is very pretty language but it has NO legal significance under our laws. It is nice language, we can all agree it is part of our culture and our worldview- but it ain’t law.

Second, you are misunderstanding the equal protection clause. Provided the laws are applied equally to all groups there is not problem of equal protection. If we were to say homosexuals cannot marry at all (even a member of the opposite gender) or if we said heterosexuals can marry either gender…then you would have an equal protection claim. Since the restriction of not marrying ones own gender is applied to everyone- it is not an equal protection problem.

If a state allows a marriage then the marriage is legal in that state. Marriage laws are not part of the “Full, faith and credit” clause. So you can be married in one state but that does not mean other states have to respect that marriage.

Yes, we have the right to associate freely. That’s why no one is dragging anyone out of their house for having an overnight guest. That’s why you can choose who you want to live with. But marriage is a LEGAL status. Under the secular worldview it cannot be a inalienable right because it is a LEGAL CONSTRUCT. So yes, marriage is granted by the state. So are adoptions.

Now, when you add religion into the mix, marriage becomes a lot more than just a legal piece of paper. But it is my understanding, you do not wish to add religion to the mix.

It is true the Catholic Church is under no legal obligation to preform same sex marriages…for now. But as I told another poster…I for one don’t believe it will be the “live and let live” world everyone is implying. Once the SSM movement gains some ground they will start coming after the Church.
 
Mudgely said:
Natural Law is not a secular justification, since it is defined theologically/
Click to expand...
Natural Law can be a secular justification, and for the purposes of this thread it is. Since it was a pagan who came up with the idea in some sense (Aristotle) it isn’t something that is only of the Christian faith.

Read Aquinas by Ed Feser for a better understanding of Natural Law. It will really give you a lot to think about.
 
NewsTheMan said:
Natural Law can be a secular justification, and for the purposes of this thread it is. Since it was a pagan who came up with the idea in some sense (Aristotle) it isn’t something that is only of the Christian faith.

Read Aquinas by Ed Feser for a better understanding of Natural Law. It will really give you a lot to think about.
Click to expand...
I would not dispute that claim. We all want to know the nature of things in the sense of what its purpose or meaning is. This is where a secular biologist will immediately start giving examples from “nature” in a scientific sense of observed behavior, etc… meanwhile the Catholic is thinking of the theological use of the word, resulting in a disconnect in communicating. Even the early proponents of “Natural Law” were philosophers though. Whether its etiology is philosophical, or is theological, it pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Aristotle is not usually given as a major author on homosexuality. Nevertheless, his writings show great familiarity with the subject, and with men with male lovers in particular.

See David Cohen, “Consent and Sexual Relations in Classical Athens”, in Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marriage in Ancient and Medieval Societies, ed. Angeliki Laiou, (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993), 5-16
 
Mudgely said:
Thank you for the quote by St. Thomas. So, according to this little bit of theology, Natural Law defines the teleological nature of all things. This is the Catholic argument against gay marriage, that the meaning and purpose of sex and of marriage are intrinsically in their nature directed toward procreation.

All that I have said about it, is that legally, the purpose has changed. Therefore, the two “teleologies”, if you will, are at odds with each other.

But the poster asked the secular arguments. If the definition above is an accurate representation, then Natural Law is not a secular justification, since it is defined theologically/
Click to expand...
Man made law cannot trump Divine law or natural law.

The most basic secular argument is that man is made for woman, not woman for woman and man for man. To deny it is to deny the obvious and special pleading.
 
buffalo said:
Man made law cannot trump Divine law or natural law.

The most basic secular argument is that man is made for woman, not woman for woman and man for man. To deny it is to deny the obvious and special pleading.
Click to expand...
The OP did not ask about theological arguments.
 
buffalo said:
Duh…Isn’t it obvious?
Click to expand...
If your point is procreation, why in the world would anyone on a desert island want to give birth? I suppose you missed the fact that there are also many other sorts of couples who would not be producing babies on a desert island. Even so, what does that have to do with anything? Everyone concedes that non-procreative pair bonds are non-procreative. I guess you missed that.
 
Mudgely said:
If your point is procreation, why in the world would anyone on a desert island want to give birth? I suppose you missed the fact that there are also many other sorts of couples who would not be producing babies on a desert island. Even so, what does that have to do with anything? Everyone concedes that non-procreative pair bonds are non-procreative. I guess you missed that.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about a desert island.
 
Mudgely said:
False as usual. A deserted island. Read your own words.
Click to expand...
Me- “Put two homosexuals alone on an island - see what happens no matter how much they love each other.”

You- “If your point is procreation, why in the world would anyone on a desert island want to give birth?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top