Good secular arguments against Homosexual marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asimis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Asimis

Guest
Having an exchange with someone over email on this topic and this person keeps claiming that the only reason there is to be against homosexual marrige are grounded on religious grounds, because the church, the bible (ie. God) says so.

He claims there are truly no good secular arguments to oppose homosexual marriage; so I was wondering if anyone here could either give some feedback or point to resource that details non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage.

Thanks in advance!
 
Well, it wasn’t religion that made men and women different. It wasn’t religion that made them with sexually complementary reproductive systems. It wasn’t religion that created male and female anatomy. And it wasn’t religion that led men and women to procreate and to become mothers and fathers who then created families.

It wasn’t even religion which decided that for the benefit of civilization, having such families would be a good idea. That was apparent, and governments soon recognized the benefits of families in which natural parents raised new citizens.

Marriage arose from biology, anthropology, anatomy, and historical necessity. Marriage is a conjugal relationship in which a husband and wife are capable of engaging in conjugal sex, --making use of sexual complementarity which,h is potentially reproductive. Same sex unions can never be conjugal.
 
Marriage creates a family with the potential of bringing children into the world.

Marriage is the natural bonding of man and woman practiced down through the ages by all societies.

Homosexual relations relies on a unnatural act to complete union with a partner.

Love does not demand that sex be the culmination of a relationship. Love is an act of the will not of the body alone.

Homosexual relations doesn’t commend itself to monogamy, which is the basis for a stable society.

There’s five good reason off the top of my head that have nothing to do with doctrine or dogma. 🙂 The mistake people make when they want to separate religion from sexual matters is that they forget that true religion is based on the natural not merely on the supernatural. Grace builds on nature, it does not negate it. We are free agents with free wills who can decide if we are going to keep the natural law every nation on earth has always upheld or not. Chaos reigns when everyone decides for himself what is right and what is wrong–it reduces us from sentient beings to ones driven merely by our wants and desires instead of our brains.
 
Sexual conduct has serious public health consequences and society has both a right and an obligation to regulate.

Currently sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) are at epidemic levels within the gay communities in America. Government has the responsibility of protecting ALL citizens. If government legitimizes homosexual relationships as marriage it is in fact supporting a dangerous (health wise) behavior.

If the state, nonetheless, adopts same sex “marriage” in order to further the political or social agendas of those who are looking for social validity and legal approval, the state would be acting illegitimately, and in opposition to reason.
 
This is fairly tentative, but I thought I’d throw it out:

Marriage benefits are conferred upon a married couple by the state due to their ability to bring about children and raise a family. Homosexual couples cannot bring about children.
Further, there is a distinct, almost obvious, conceptual connection between a heterosexual couple and the raising of a family. For a homosexual couple, however, things aren’t so cut-and-dried. It is required the a homosexual couple adopt or (if they are two women) use IVF. I don’t know the statics (and frankly, don’t tend to trust them since it they are easy to manipulate, and we know how much people tend to want one conclusion or another when it comes to gay marriage), but if homosexual couples don’t show an adoption trend comparable to the trend at which heterosexual couples have families, then there seems to be a good reason not to recognize them as deserving of the benefits. Thus a marriage stripped of it’s benefits doesn’t really provide much aside from a slip of paper in terms of government recognition. It seems, in that case, that such a marriage is not necessary and ought not to be recognized (besides, I doubt most gay marriage advocates would settle for a “marriage” in which they get nothing but the piece of paper saying they [as in, two homosexuals] are married.
 
this is from
The Failed Logic of Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage

vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/03/it-s-time-to-drop-the-fallacy-of-the-anti-gay-marriage

By Kurt Eichenwald

I could make all sorts of arguments rather than just pointing out the tautological, definitional, and logical flaws and laziness of conservative analysis of marriage. But instead, I think the person who should sum it up is Mildred Loving, the woman who went to the Supreme Court with her husband, Richard, to ensure that interracial marriage is legal.

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry,” she said. “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Amen.
 
Asimis said:
Having an exchange with someone over email on this topic and this person keeps claiming that the only reason there is to be against homosexual marrige are grounded on religious grounds, because the church, the bible (ie. God) says so.

He claims there are truly no good secular arguments to oppose homosexual marriage; so I was wondering if anyone here could either give some feedback or point to resource that details non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Good question. Not sure I could come up with anything.

All I could come up with is a debate strategy as a starting point. To present a convincing argument in any debate, you have to think like the other person. If you thought like them and shared their views, what would persuade you? Whether we like it or not, as Catholics we have a certain views, and certain views of marriage. The same can be said of anyone. Therefore, we (all of us) do not start from an objective, unbiased and undermined position. Our starting position is ‘this is right’ irrespective of how objective we try to because we are who we are. This is where secularists have an edge in a debate because they have no definite views on why something is good/bad or right/wrong. Their starting point is nothing is essentially right/wrong, good/bad. It has to be decided and changes in differing circumstances.

We should not apologize for being who we are, but secularists are who they are. To my knowledge they have no concrete views of marriage. In fact, they don’t really believe in marriage at all, and see no reason for people to get married. As has been said they see this debate purely from a rights perspective and it is difficult to come up with a persuasive argument that is purely rights centered. If you could come up with a ‘rights based’ argument that avoids a defining marriage, or implies on it is a necessity or the natural thing to do, you might be onto something.

Tall order as it would have to one that would be difficult to rebut from a secularist perspective.
 
SquallLeonheart said:
this is from
The Failed Logic of Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage

vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/03/it-s-time-to-drop-the-fallacy-of-the-anti-gay-marriage

By Kurt Eichenwald

I could make all sorts of arguments rather than just pointing out the tautological, definitional, and logical flaws and laziness of conservative analysis of marriage. But instead, I think the person who should sum it up is Mildred Loving, the woman who went to the Supreme Court with her husband, Richard, to ensure that interracial marriage is legal.

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry,” she said. “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Amen.
Click to expand...
Laws against interracial marriage were blatantly discriminatory.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, with same sex relations, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
 
minkymurph said:
Good question. Not sure I could come up with anything.

All I could come up with is a debate strategy as a starting point. To present a convincing argument in any debate, you have to think like the other person. If you thought like them and shared their views, what would persuade you? Whether we like it or not, as Catholics we have a certain views, and certain views of marriage. The same can be said of anyone. Therefore, we (all of us) do not start from an objective, unbiased and undermined position. Our starting position is ‘this is right’ irrespective of how objective we try to because we are who we are. **This is where secularists have an edge in a debate because they have no definite views on why something is good/bad or right/wrong. Their starting point is nothing is essentially right/wrong, good/bad. It has to be decided and changes in differing circumstances.
**
We should not apologize for being who we are, but secularists are who they are. To my knowledge they have no concrete views of marriage. In fact, they don’t really believe in marriage at all, and see no reason for people to get married. As has been said they see this debate purely from a rights perspective and it is difficult to come up with a persuasive argument that is purely rights centered. If you could come up with a ‘rights based’ argument that avoids a defining marriage, or implies on it is a necessity or the natural thing to do, you might be onto something.

Tall order as it would have to one that would be difficult to rebut from a secularist perspective.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
After college, I had a roommate for a few years who was also my best friend. Our friendship had significant benefits for both of us: companionship, intellectual challenges, financial assistance, and various other ways we supported each other.

It never occurred to either of us that we ought to be able to be listed on each other’s health insurance or be entitled to make emergency medical decisions for the other or that we should deserve some sort of tax break for being buddies.

So what, exactly, is it about marriage that deserves these special perks in law? The kisses? The sex? Seriously?

Perhaps it is the fact that marriage, by its very nature, is innately oriented towards generating children and raising them up in the best, healthiest of all known environments. Sure, married couples CAN remain childless, but only if there is a health/age issue or if they intentionally thwart the nature of what marriage IS. Being a parent is emotionally and financially tough. As a culture, we’ve established marriage as a norm to ENCOURAGE this special arrangement upon which society is literally dependent for survival.

So if the relationship between two gay men does NOT correspond to the very reason we first established special status for marriage in culture and law, how is it that people now consider it their “right” to enjoy those benefits? Sure, gay people CAN find ways to become parents, but only by actively working around the nature of their relationship. It’s a completely different thing, so why is it their right to call their relationship “marriage?”

Notice God is never mentioned above?
 
I could make all sorts of arguments
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

So then why doesn’t he?
rather than just pointing out the tautological, definitional, and logical flaws and laziness of conservative analysis of marriage. But instead, I think the person who should sum it up is Mildred Loving, the woman who went to the Supreme Court with her husband, Richard, to ensure that interracial marriage is legal.
Click to expand...
So…this is the great and awesome counterargument? Insulting conservatives?

:rotfl:

I might have known. :rolleyes:

As for this:
“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry,” she said.
Click to expand...
Americans do have the same freedom to marry. A straight person can’t marry someone of the same sex, and a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That’s equality. 👍
“I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
Click to expand...
A lot of gay relationships lack commitment. Furthermore, the Loving decision was based partly on economics and fecundity. Gay relationships cannot produce children without third party intervention and there is evidence indicating they are not a good investment for the state.

Also, I would remind Catholics who support so-called gay “marriage” that they have been asked to abstain from Communion.
 
Actually, most of the arguments I can think of against same sex marriage are secular arguments.

They begin with the facts of human nature. There are men; there are women. They are sexually complementary. This fact has consequences for civilization. It ensures that the next generation will come to pass, and that the society will continue. It ensures there will be new citizens to work and pay taxes. Men and women become mothers and fathers. They fulfill this role, which is of benefit to the state, best in the institution of marriage. I can see no similar secular arguments favoring same sex marriage.

I think when people ask about secular arguments, they don’t really mean secular arguments. They mean legal arguments, which is a quite different thing, and dependent entirely on the direction courts take in their assumptions about marriage and the meaning of man and woman and sexual complementarity.
 
From a stand point of evolution a gay gene would have been eliminated thousands of years ago because it would not be beneficial to the survival of the species. Therefore, same sex attraction is environmental conditioning, the flesh or a choice. aside: God created a natural order — when Paul refers to nature, he is not referring to today’s corrupt nature, but is referring to God’s perfect created nature. It all boils down to from a non-religious stand point what is best for survival of the human race. From God’s and therefore the Church’s stand point it all boils down to “What is Marriage?” It is a religious thing and thus divorcing the true meaning of marriage from God, the Bible and the Church gives one an anything goes mindset. Would your friend be willing to allow multiple husbands to one wife or the other way around? How about other types of “marriages” where does he/she draw the lines? And, what is their criteria? Play devils’ whatever and ask them questions to see where they draw the lines and what they base it on? If on evolution, then same sex marriage was ruled out thousands of years ago based on survival of the human race. If on their idea of religion, then what is their authority for that? how do they know they are right?
 
NotAllHere said:
From a stand point of evolution a gay gene would have been eliminated thousands of years ago because it would not be beneficial to the survival of the species. Therefore, same sex attraction is environmental conditioning, the flesh or a choice.
Click to expand...
Not even Darwin would buy that hogwash. Genetics and the relationship between nature and nurture are far too complex for such simplistic reasoning. It’s entirely possible that there are genes that cause a predisposition to homosexual attraction that ALSO contribute positive attributes such that both benefits and hindrances occur.

People are complex. Just because sodomy (and whatever it is you call lesbian sexual contact) is immoral and harmful to the soul doesn’t make the PERSON inclined to it of less innate worth. They just have that particular challenge that others don’t. We all have particular challenges.
 
NotAllHere said:
From a stand point of evolution a gay gene would have been eliminated thousands of years ago because it would not be beneficial to the survival of the species. Therefore, same sex attraction is environmental conditioning, the flesh or a choice.
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea what you mean by “the flesh” :confused:

Your statement is not scientifically sound. I don’t have any idea whether there are genes which (under some circumstances) influence sexual orientation. But if there are, you can bet there is more than one, and that the relevant form of the genes(s) arises in a continuing way, not just once in the past, and then disappeared due to,lack of procreation activity.

Further factors that might be relevant are conditions in utero, given the critical elements, such as brain structures etc, that form during this early developmental period.

I’m not aware that anyone argues credibly that sexual orientation is a choice. I’ve not done a poll, but as a heterosexual guy, I can tell you I don’t recall any time around puberty where I weighed up the options on which way to go, or which bodily forms I found the more appealing. A person already equipped with a bisexual orientation might face something like that, but we’re already past the point or orientation determination by then.
 
im gay and i have no intention on getting married to a man. God made me gay and not religion can deter me on my path. the jehovah witnesses tried to disfellowship me b ut i egnored thier decree and associated elsewhere. i was reenstated but left them. the army tried to harrass me with a spy followign me to new orleans to gay bar anbd sex clubs. i collect 2 pensions from the goverment now one from the army. gay are allowed to serve now and gay can be jehovah witnesses so long as they are not baptized.
i love my daniel and we dotn need a peice of paper between us. me holding his hand and kissing him in public are my decloration of my love. no parades with rainbow ballooon or marriage for me.👍
 
“Secular” things do not exist. Everyone has a worldview.

Even atheists believe in morality, which is a necessarily supernatural concept. You cannot find moral wrongs in nature, only combinations of chemicals. If a person kills a baby, it’s only one group of chemicals changing another group of chemicals. There is no objective way to call it wrong.

Wear a T-Shirt with an Islamic Crescent into a Unitarian Universalist church, and they will welcome you. They will welcome a T-Shirt with a Taoist symbol, Cross, or picture of Buddha.

Will they accept someone wearing a Swastika?

No, because Unitarians have a sort of morality, that is derived from liberal/ecumenical Protestantism. But has lost it’s explicit belief in the supernatural, but has retained much of the ideas of liberal/ecumenical Protestantism.

So when you ask for a “secular” argument against gay marriage, you are essentially asking for a liberal Protestant argument against gay marriage. And since liberal Protestantism hold the ideal of “equality” above most other ideals, there aren’t any good “secular” arguments against gay marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top