Good secular arguments against Homosexual marriage?

[Rob_Arnzen]

What’s wrong with imposing a little morality?

Ask the women living under Sharia law…

You equate Sharia law with morality?

Even with Islam Sharia deals with many non-moral topics including politics, economics, and everyday etiquette.

.

 

[MacQ]

You equate Sharia law with morality?

.

It’s THEIR morality.
Point being, if you want government to determine morality, be careful what you ask for.

 

[Della]

It’s THEIR morality.
Point being, if you want government to determine morality, be careful what you ask for.

All governments inforce morality in one form or another. We have decency laws, and laws against child pornography and prostitution, for example. Yours is a weak argument, dear friend.

I understand your desire to be charitable and kind to our gay brethren but encouraging people to sin is not helpful to them.

Civil governments often change what it considers moral, sometimes with disastrous results, but it does not have the right to change that which preceded it, such a marriage and family, to suit the whims of the times.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

It’s THEIR morality.

Every morality is somebody’s morality.

Point being, if you want government to determine morality, be careful what you ask for.

If you want the government to avoid passing moral laws, be careful what you ask for.

Nuremberg Laws

.

 

[MacQ]

All governments inforce morality in one form or another. We have decency laws, and laws against child pornography and prostitution, for example. Yours is a weak argument, dear friend. .

The things you cite have victims who are harmed. That ought to be the criterion used to legislate behavior.

I understand your desire to be charitable and kind to our gay brethren but encouraging people to sin is not helpful to them.

.

My view is not born of charity or kindness, actually. It’s borne of justice, which should be equally applied to everyone.
I do not think that giving civil union rights to ss couples causes anyone to be gay or to sin.
You seem to infer that punishing them will somehow make them straight. I don’t think so.

 

[MacQ]

Every morality is somebody’s morality.
.

Yes…and you could have ‘somebody’s’ morality imposed on you. Thanks for making my point!

If you want the government to avoid passing moral laws, be careful what you ask for.

Nuremberg Laws

.

Oh yes, let’s jump right from civil unions to naziiism. (But since you bring it up, we have seen societies go too far with their moral laws, haven’t we?

Obviously if there is a victim harmed by some act, it should be against the law.
If not, I think laws imposing behaviors on people (that someone defines as “moral”) are a very slippery slope indeed.
Sorry.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Yes…and you could have ‘somebody’s’ morality imposed on you. Thanks for making my point!

The “point” is that laws impose rules on people. If you don’t like that, become an anarchist.

Oh yes, let’s jump right from civil unions to naziiism. (But since you bring it up, we have seen societies go too far with their moral laws, haven’t we?

The reference to the Germans (not per se Naziism) is to positivist legal theories. Once you severe the cord between the Natural Law and the legislature, there is no limit.

Societies that go too far aren’t passing moral laws.

Obviously if there is a victim harmed by some act, it should be against the law.

That’s the Libertarian argument. Unfortunately for you the Libertarian argument is defective.

The biggest single problem is that we can’t see harm as clearly as God and the Natural Law sees harm. The clearest example of that is the liberalization of divorce laws in the earlier part of the 20th century.

The millennium would arrive, folks would be freed of bad marriages, and children would live without conflict in their lives.

It didn’t work out that way.

.

 

[MacQ]

The “point” is that laws impose rules on people. If you don’t like that, become an anarchist…

Nice try changing the semantics. Yes, laws impose rules. DUH.
The question is whether government should use those laws (and rules) to impose morality.

The reference to the Germans (not per se Naziism) is to positivist legal theories. Once you severe the cord between the Natural Law and the legislature, there is no limit.

Societies that go too far aren’t passing moral laws…

They are passing laws according to THEIR morals.

That’s the Libertarian argument. Unfortunately for you the Libertarian argument is defective.

The biggest single problem is that we can’t see harm as clearly as God and the Natural Law sees harm. The clearest example of that is the liberalization of divorce laws in the earlier part of the 20th century.

The millennium would arrive, folks would be freed of bad marriages, and children would live without conflict in their lives.

It didn’t work out that way.

.

It didn’t work out that way before that either, sorry to have to tell you.

Before no-fault divorce, a spouse had to prove something like adultery, drag the other spouse (and the correspondent) through all kinds of public hell, which vastly escalated their ill feelings toward each other, and vastly reduced the chances that the kids could have two parents who weren’t locked in a battle of hatred. It didn’t bring about good marriages. And it did bring about nasty divorces. Very nasty ones.

Liberalization only attempted to mitigate the rancor between spouses to hopeful benefit of the children, who are going to have divorced parents anyway…there less bloodied they are by the process itself, the better.
I don’t think the state has any say in WHY any couple wants to dissolve their civil union.

 

[Scottgun]

There’s always an imposition of morality, whether religious or not. This can be identified as the Tyranny of Contract (my emphasis):

Liberalism in general cannot deal with complementarian realities, because complementarian realities imply that some discriminations and inequalities are natural and good in a way which trumps the whims of putatively free and equal citizens who get to decide for themselves what they want to be. As a result liberalism necessarily has to turn a blind eye to certain parts of reality; most especially those parts of reality where substantively good discriminations are enforced.

This willful blindness manifests itself in the language used under libertarian auspices. How often do we hear the issue of enforcing contracts between sodomites-qua-sodomites phrased as “allowing gays to marry?” The passive libertarian language of “allowing” deliberately conceals the reality; for what is advocated is not mere passivity. What is advocated at the most basic level is for society to enforce certain kinds of legal contracts, even though those legal contracts are grossly immoral. The passive language “allow gays to marry” is a lie. Enforcing contracts is an activity of government (not a passivity), and it is impossible to decide what to actively enforce and what not to actively enforce without making substantive judgements about the good. Substantive judgements about the good will necessarily discriminate: every function of governance, including contract enforcement, is an authoritative discrimination of some kind resting on some substantive concept of the good. What makes liberalism (including libertarianism) different from other political views is that liberalism has to make authoritative discriminations resting in a substantive conception of the good while at the same time denying that it is doing so. What makes liberalism different is that it has to lie about itself in order to invoke its own justifying principles, that is, nondiscrimination (equality of rights) and freedom from substantive discriminating authority.

We don’t “allow” – that is, actively enforce with police, courts, and jails – just any sort of contract whatsoever, and we shouldn’t. We also shouldn’t allow language to abused that way, because active enforcement of contracts is anything but the live-and-let-live passivity implied by the lying word “allow”.

 

[MacQ]

There’s always an imposition of morality, whether religious or not. This can be identified as the Tyranny of Contract (my emphasis):

It’s a thoughtful piece, but I would take issue on a couple of counts.

1. It conflates libertarians with liberals, and I think there is a vast gulf between those ideologies today. Libertarian views on some issues are more far right than far left. Government control is one of them. (I am neither a libertarian nor a liberal, I should point out, tho on some issues my view might align with theirs)
2. I don’t think a true libertarian would say “allow”. Because “allowing” implies that the government should be in the business of deciding which people are “allowed” rights that all should inherently have. “Allowing” blacks or women to vote, for example, is an anathema, as they already had those constitutional rights in the first place as citizens.
3. “Contract enforcement” can be done regardless of the gender of contractual parties. To say otherwise (as your article does) is a flawed assumption. Why should it be any different than business partnerships unless it is to impose a moral?

Therefore, it could also be argued that if government truly wants to be non-discriminatory, it would be blind to the color, gender or creed of any two adults entering into a civil union (a contract).
For state purposes, those things should not matter, and government should be constrained to its own purposes (taxing, inheritance, etc) and not stray into imposing morals.
For me, ALL such contracts (including mine) should be civil unions in the eyes of the government.
Mine is also a marriage sacrament in the Church.
Render unto Caesar…

 

[Scottgun]

Libertarianism is inherently progressive and statist

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Nice try changing the semantics. Yes, laws impose rules. DUH.

This is the first admission on your part that all laws impose rules on people. That’s something of a breakthrough. So, we won’t be hearing the objection that a law is imposing a rule on people again, eh?

The question is whether government should use those laws (and rules) to impose morality.

It’s not a question to me, or to many other posters.

Whether you call it a rule, a law, or morality the end is the same.

”Societies that go too far aren’t passing moral laws…”

They are passing laws according to THEIR morals.

So were the Germans. Perhaps if you could define “morals” you could cease your circular argument. As it stands apparently “morals” means laws you don’t like.

It didn’t work out that way before that either, sorry to have to tell you.

Life’s a trial. Why is that a surprise?

Before no-fault divorce, a spouse had to prove something like adultery, drag the other spouse (and the correspondent) through all kinds of public hell, which vastly escalated their ill feelings toward each other, and vastly reduced the chances that the kids could have two parents who weren’t locked in a battle of hatred.

That’s essentially how it works now. The outcomes for children of divorce are terrible, much worse than the mind mavens predicted 90 years ago, or even 30 years ago.

The only real change has been that divorce, which was rare, is now the norm and intact families, which were the norm, are now rare.

Liberalization only attempted to mitigate the rancor between spouses to hopeful benefit of the children, who are going to have divorced parents anyway…there less bloodied they are by the process itself, the better.

Unfortunately it didn’t work.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Therefore, it could also be argued that if government truly wants to be non-discriminatory, it would be blind to the color, gender or creed of any two adults entering into a civil union (a contract).

If the government wanted to truly be non-discriminatory, it wouldn’t be involved in marriage.

Once the formation of families and the nurturing children is not a state goal, the government has no further stake in what people do as far as pairing off in twos, threes, or more.

.

 

[MacQ]

If the government wanted to truly be non-discriminatory, it wouldn’t be involved in marriage…

EXACTLY!!!

Once the formation of families and the nurturing children is not a state goal, the government has no further stake in what people do as far as pairing off in twos, threes, or more.

.

Well, not exactly. The state has to determine for legal purposes who has rights of inheritance, custody, and other legal matters that pertain to civil unions.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by MacQ View Post
Therefore, it could also be argued that if government truly wants to be non-discriminatory, it would be blind to the color, gender or creed of any two adults entering into a civil union (a contract).

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as color, gender or creed . 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.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

“Once the formation of families and the nurturing children is not a state goal, the government has no further stake in what people do as far as pairing off in twos, threes, or more.”

EXACTLY!!!

When did the government decide that the formation of families and the nurturing of children is not a state goal?

Are you also advocating for the termination of the various welfare programs for dependent children, school lunch programs, tax deductions for dependents, and so on?

All of these issues are tied together.

Well, not exactly. The state has to determine for legal purposes who has rights of inheritance, custody, and other legal matters that pertain to civil unions.

Why, particularly? Hasn’t anyone heard of wills? Civil contracts?

If the state is going hands off in the name of equity, then hands off.

.

 

[987mk]

The outcomes for children of divorce are terrible, much worse than the mind mavens predicted 90 years ago, or even 30 years ago.

That’s an urban myth.

"
Most children of divorce also do well in the longer term.

the findings suggest that only a small percentage of young people experience divorce-related problems.

Yet scientific research does not support the view that problems in adulthood are prevalent; it instead demonstrates that most children of divorce become well-adjusted adults.

These findings suggest that only 15 percent of adult children of divorce experience problems over and above those from stable families. No one knows whether this difference is caused by the divorce itself or by variables, such as poorer parenting, "

scientificamerican.com/article/is-divorce-bad-for-children/

 

[987mk]

Currently sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) are at epidemic levels within the gay communities in America.

“African Americans make up 14% of the U.S. population, but they represent 44% of new HIV cases. **The picture is even bleaker in black women, teens, and children. **In 2010, the CDC estimates that new HIV infections in African American women accounted for nearly two thirds of all new infections among women.”

webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-in-blacks-alarming-crisis

 

[MacQ]

Yet scientific research does not support the view that problems in adulthood are prevalent; it instead demonstrates that most children of divorce become well-adjusted adults.

These findings suggest that only 15 percent of adult children of divorce experience problems over and above those from stable families. No one knows whether this difference is caused by the divorce itself or by variables, such as poorer parenting, "

scientificamerican.com/ar…-for-children/

“African Americans make up 14% of the U.S. population, but they represent 44% of new HIV cases. **The picture is even bleaker in black women, teens, and children. **In 2010, the CDC estimates that new HIV infections in African American women accounted for nearly two thirds of all new infections among women.”

webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-in-blacks-alarming-crisis

These facts you’re posting are going to get in the way of some opinions…nah…I’m sure they won’t let that happen…
…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by 987mk View Post
Yet scientific research does not support the view that problems in adulthood are prevalent; it instead demonstrates that most children of divorce become well-adjusted adults.

These findings suggest that only 15 percent of adult children of divorce experience problems over and above those from stable families. No one knows whether this difference is caused by the divorce itself or by variables, such as poorer parenting, "

scientificamerican.com/ar…-for-children/

“African Americans make up 14% of the U.S. population, but they represent 44% of new HIV cases. The picture is even bleaker in black women, teens, and children. In 2010, the CDC estimates that new HIV infections in African American women accounted for nearly two thirds of all new infections among women.”

These facts you’re posting are going to get in the way of some opinions…nah…I’m sure they won’t let that happen…
…

Mac,

Those statistics are shocking…

A whopping **"…15 percent **of adult children of divorce experience problems over and above those from stable families."

That means adult children of divorce are 15% more likely to experience problems than those from stable families. That is terrible!

Also:

If African Americans make up 14% of the U.S. population, but they represent 44% of new HIV cases… does that mean there is a higher proportion of homosexuality within the African American community compared to whites???