Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[Stephen168]

Vaginal sex cannot bring children into the world when the newly married couple is too old, yet we allow the elderly to marry.

See Post #302

 

[Lokadottir]

And they can not perform the reproductive act; only sodomy.

I think thats the same thing…

 

[Lokadottir]

It is not that they are incapable of raising children. It is that they shouldn’t be raising children.

Why?

 

[Aeden]

Ask yourself this: why does the government provide tax breaks? Well, quite simply, they do so to encourage a given behavior; green energy, charity, etc. So why do marriages get tax breaks? Answer should be obvious: they get them because it is safe to assume that they can, hypothetically, produce children in the stable unit that society is based on. Given this, why shouldn’t homosexual marriage get a tax break? They can’t produce children as a part of the way their marriage is ordered. They love each other, sure. But if love were the requirement, every starstruck teenager in high school would be getting tax breaks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why? [shouldn’t gay couples be raising children]

Because it is better for the children that they be raised by their biological parents if possible, and if not, then by a family that most models the loving husband and wife interaction that they are (hopefully) going to be a part of some day. This gives the children the best chance of developing a healthy understanding of what marriage should be, and their potential role in it.

 

[DrTaffy]

But the state is acting on my behalf, so if the state recognizes it, I have to recognize it.

No you do not. Very obviously.

The state recognizes other religions as equally valid as Catholicism. Does that mean that you are thereby obliged to believe that they are as true as your own belief?

No name calling, please. And assertions are not arrogant. They are only true or false.

Name calling would only apply to people, not to assertions. And if assertions, according to you, cannot be arrogant, then they cannot be insulted.

You, again, do not respond to the point that it is absurd to claim that you are anything like as much effected as gay couples are by whether or not they are able to marry.

But it is much easier to make the anti-discrimination case if they are legally recognized marriages.

Nope. The cases brought were often in states where same sex marriage was illegal. These are two different things that you are trying to conflate.

If anything, there have been rulings that in places where same sex couples cannot marry, any same sex couple must be treated as married. So legalising same sex marriage would actually enable you to discriminate against more same sex couples.

OK, with that in mind, go back and read my posting #305 where I started from this principle and developed the justification for societal marriage in general - a justification that does not apply to gay marriage.
I addressed all three of these cases in my posting #305.

No you did not. All you did there was try to justify why you believe what you do. This is, per se, none of my business. As it happens, what you believe is logically incoherent (in my opinion, of course) but this is none of my business unless and until you try to force your beliefs on others - at which point the most relevant fact is that you are trying to force your subjective beliefs on others, which is morally wrong even if they were not incoherent!

A) You have not even tried to show that your beliefs are objectively true, only that they have some internal consistency. Nothing you wrote would show, for example, that the alternative view that marriage is about the couple, not about conceiving, was invalid.
So nothing there justifies forcing your beliefs on others.

B) All you even tried to do is show that heterosexual marriage is justified. Which, as you yourself said, noone has challenged. Showing that heterosexual marriage is justified does nothing to show that same sex marriage is not.

C) Your justification of heterosexual marriage does not even exclude same sex marriage, which goes to show how little thought you have given this before weighing in to advocate laws that are devastating to those effected by them, as you are not.
If a woman has children by a husband, that man dies, and she remarries, her children are still being raised by their own sole remaining biological parent, yet you would deny her the support of the state if (and only if) her new spouse were of the same sex as her.

No, but conceiving children is what establishes who the biological parents are. So if society has an interest in promoting the raising of children by biological parents, it must have at least some interest in the fact of their conception.

Nonsense.
First of all, consider a case where a couple conceive, then immediately abort. What societal good is there in that?
Or, if Arthur and Barbara have a drunken sexual encounter, then half an hour later Arthur is back in the bar and never sees or hears from or thinks about Barbara again, has he really done anything good for society? If Barbara moves in with Christina (it hardly matters whether or not they are having sex, but if it rocks your jollies by all means imagine that they are) and Christina supports her emotionally and financially through gestation and raising the child, pays for food and clothing and education, goes to his graduation and so on, who out of Christina and Arthur has done most for society? Yet which one is the only one you are willing to see rewarded?

Finally, consider a population of 1000 chaps and 1000 gals. They are all exclusively heterosexual - the only thing this has to do with homosexuality of you lot trying to use conception as an excuse to discriminate against gays.

However 5 of the guys are sterile and 5 of the girls are barren. Do I really need to spell out to you how lifelong sexually exclusive marriage (with no premarital nookie) will actually reduce the number of women who conceive, compared to a 1960s Austin Powers style love pile? Marriage is neither necessary nor helpful for conception, it actually reduces chances of conception, it is only helpful for gestation and raising of children. Which same sex couples do do.

 

[DrTaffy]

No, you are using the fact that this thread is supposed to be about “secular arguments” to discount arguments made on moral (but not religious) grounds.

You are very confused. Please show where I have discounted arguments made on secular grounds? If anything I do the opposite, at least as far as State involvement goes.

Again, do you disagree with my assertion that the State should not impose the subjective beliefs of one group on another?

Why do you think this thread is specifically about secular arguments?

On the contrary, your posts do attempt to justify your beliefs.

Occasionally, either by chance or where I have been asked, sure. But you were criticising me for not justifiying my beliefs enough, and I was explaining why.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11660566:

Well, given that that was the main point

of the whole article, that is a doozy of an ‘oversight’. But let it lie.
The fact that the study has severe deficits in terms of claims regarding the actual benefit of gay marriage renders your “main point,” pointless, actually. Which is why you do want to let it lie.

Well, actually the point I was offering to ‘let lie’ was the point that you were sneering at me for allegedly not having read the study, when it then turned out that you were the one who had somehow missed the entire gist of the article and was now trying to make fun of me based on am embarassing failure to understand very clear and explicit statements in the article.

Now if you don’t want me to let that lie, I will happily discuss it at length.

No actually, because the data shows that they would be better off in a stable heterosexual marriage because even a stable gay marriage leaves them no better off than divorced, widowed or single individuals whereas stable heterosexual relationships are positively conducive to lower death rates than found in the general population.

The data shows that same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality, especially in gay men. Now do you actually agree that this is a good thing, or do you argue that gay men dying is a good thing?

Granted, if we had a magic wand that would turn all gay couples straight, that might do more to reduce mortality. Although I don’t see why gays should have a higher mortality at all if the stereotypical ‘gay lifestyle’ (drink and drugs and promiscuity) and discrimination against gays were both eradicated.

However, as we do not have such a magic wand, that is hardly a valid objection, is it? The point is that you are directly blocking a measure that could save lives, in order to force your religious views on others.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are very confused. Please show where I have discounted arguments made on secular grounds? If anything I do the opposite, at least as far as State involvement goes.

No, what you did want to refuse to accept an argument based on morality as being a secular argument, since apparently you equate morality with religious. Therefore you discounted those arguments, claiming they were not secular.

Again, do you disagree with my assertion that the State should not impose the subjective beliefs of one group on another?

That depends on the nature of the beliefs. If those beliefs are about the good of the society as a group, then the State should impose the consequences of the beliefs on all, providing the decision of the State was made in a just manner. Note that the State does not have the right to make anyone believe one thing or another. But it does have the right to impose the consequences of that belief on all members. For example, people believe that murder is wrong. This affects the good of society. So the state has the right to make murder a punishable crime. You may counter that murder is not a subjective belief, since murder is objectively bad for the society. But consider murder of foreign aliens - illegal immigrants. One could argue that murder of those people is not obviously bad for the society. It is certainly bad for the victims. But not for the society. Yet people generally agree (me included) that this is still a bad thing. Yet it is still subjective, because there is no clear proof that allowing murder of illegal immigrants is objectively bad for the society. So here we have a clear example of a subjective belief, shared by most members of society, that it is bad to murder illegal immigrants. Yet I think you will agree that it is right and proper for society to impose the prohibition on such a murder on all members of the society.

Occasionally, either by chance or where I have been asked, sure. But you were criticising me for not justifiying my beliefs enough, and I was explaining why.

OK, fair enough.

 

[DrTaffy]

Precisely. Law is instructive. If it is legal, the youth are likely to think active homosexuality must be okay.

Being homosexual is already legal anywhere that is considering same sex marriage. So this wouldn’t lead to ‘more homosexuals’.
Gay sex is already legal anywhere that is considering same sex marriage. So this wouldn’t lead to more gay sex (quite the opposite!)
Same sex couples living together is already legal anywhere that is considering same sex marriage. While this might lead to more couples living together, what is wrong with that?

The only thing being debated is legal recognition of stable same sex marriages, and what is wrong with more recognition of stable relationships? Oh no, young gay people might think that stable relationships are a good thing! :bigyikes:

For that matter, even if you can argue that not discriminating against gay people will lead to more gay people, what is wrong with that unless you again assert that homosexuals are evil?

You are, again, trying to force your personal subjective beliefs into law. Just as the current situation, where the law actively discriminates against same sex couples, sends a clear message that society disapproves of gays and so probably contributes to homophobia. I have as much right to object to the law sending that message as you would to the law actively sending a message that homosexuality is good.

But making same sex couples equal to opposite couples in law only removes an active message, it doesn’t send one. You are the ones fighting to keep having the law endorse your personal beliefs. I am only advocating that the law remain neutral.

I can already hear the counter : But but but … we need to see empirical evidence first! ,

Gosh, it’s almost as if that were a blindingly obvious truth!

To be fair, this is at least an attempt at what I asked for, an objective argument, so thanks for that. But:
A) You are right. All you have done so far is speculate about objective evidence you might be able to find. You have not actually produced it. Until you do, this is still subjective belief.
B) As I said above, you have made the assumption that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong. This also makes this entirely subjective.

I have to say that I am rather bemused by the implication that you think that otherwise straight people will ‘turn gay’ because of a law. Do you fear that you would turn gay if this law were passed?

Even if you are thinking about bisexuals, if Tom Daley or Ronan Farrow or [rumoured bi celebrity-du-jour where *you are] chooses to date a man or a woman, is that really any of your business?

 

[DrTaffy]

The only answer I can give to this is that if Adam and Steve did not adopt the unreasonable expectation that they should be considered married, it would not feel like a slap in the face when they are reminded that they are not.

And if black people just accepted that they are second class citizens, they shouldn’t feel offended at being sent to the back of the bus?

 

[DrTaffy]

Exceptions do not provide sufficient reason to amend principles, otherwise all egg-laying animals would be classed as mammals simply because the platypus and echidna are.

Of course they do. The echidna and the platypus are sufficient to disprove the assertion that “no mammals lay eggs” and thus to counter a definition of “mammal” that included “not laying eggs”.

 

[DrTaffy]

Why does the Church of the Secular have special privilege?

There is no ‘Church of the Secular’ - ‘secular’ here just means that no one group should be able to force its subjective beliefs on others. This protects **everyone
**.

Do you disagree with this principle?

The existence of civil marriage as a legal entity is entirely based upon marriage as a biological reality - the procreation and care of new human beings.

Blank assertion.

I could equally assert that “civil marriage as a legal entity is entirely based upon marriage as a biological reality - the pair-bond between two loving entities”.

There was never a need to legalize friendships precisely because friendships between two men or two women, even when they got close and personal, were never fecund by their very nature. If civil authorities were so concerned about stabilizing societies they would have legalized and controlled all kinds of “friendly” relationships. They never saw the need to do so, except where those relationships led to the creation of new lives, new citizens with rights that needed protection that were never party to the original “agreement.”

So you have never heard of adelphopoiesis or affrerement?

One has to be in deep historical denial not to see this.

Such as denying the existence of same sex marriage throughout North and South American culture, the Carribean and much of Siberia?

 

[DrTaffy]

No, what you did want to refuse to accept an argument based on morality as being a secular argument, since apparently you equate morality with religious.

I can’t parse *or *understand that sentence.

Therefore you discounted those arguments, claiming they were not secular.

Please show me where. An example might be the easiest way for me to understand what on earth you are talking about.

That depends on the nature of the beliefs. If those beliefs are about the good of the society as a group, then the State should impose the consequences of the beliefs on all, providing the decision of the State was made in a just manner.
…]
You may counter that murder is not a subjective belief, since murder is objectively bad for the society.

Exactly. I feel that I can justify a ban on murder objectively. It’s a bit late for me to try that now, but if you insist I can do so later. Actually, the easiest way is just to expand the definition of the ‘culture’ you are talking about to include many ‘cultures’ and apply the golden rule to those sub-cultures as you would to individuals.

Mind you, many cultures did only ban ‘murder’ of their own. The biblical “thou shalt not kill” allegedly only referred to killing other Jews, hence the merry slaughter that enlivens most of the Old Testament not being in breach.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No you do not. Very obviously.

The state recognizes other religions as equally valid as Catholicism. Does that mean that you are thereby obliged to believe that they are as true as your own belief?

I don’t know about Pembrokeshire, but in the US, the state does not recognize any religions. We only have a policy of non-interference with different religions - to let them do their own thing. If gay marriage were like that, I would have little to complain about. Gays can do their own thing without any interference from me. But they want more. They want the legal status of marriage. That is where it becomes more than just non-interference. It becomes outright support.

You, again, do not respond to the point that it is absurd to claim that you are anything like as much effected as gay couples are by whether or not they are able to marry.

If they are greatly affected, it is because of decisions made by them. It is not up to the government to mollify every decision that anyone might make.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No you did not. All you did there was try to justify why you believe what you do.
A) You have not even tried to show that your beliefs are objectively true, only that they have some internal consistency.

That is why I asked if you accepted the starting point that it is a good societal ideal to foster the raising of children by their biological parents. I claim more that just an internal consistency. I claim that the development in post #305 follows from our mutually-agreed starting point. If you think otherwise, it should be easy to point out the break in the chain.

Nothing you wrote would show, for example, that the alternative view that marriage is about the couple, not about conceiving, was invalid.

I don’t know what you mean by “valid” in this context. Does it mean “desirable” or “good”? These terms I could understand as being applicable to the discussion, but “valid” is a little obscure.

B) All you even tried to do is show that heterosexual marriage is justified.

I showed more than that. I showed that it is a ** preferred** good. Not merely something that should be tolerated.

Showing that heterosexual marriage is justified does nothing to show that same sex marriage is not.

I showed the basis for supporting heterosexual marriage. There is no comparable argument for same sex marriage, and plenty of arguments against same sex marriage that I have not even gotten into. But even without those arguments, there is not sufficient positive grounds to justify same sex marriage.

C) Your justification of heterosexual marriage does not even exclude same sex marriage,

The justification I gave in post #305 doesn’t make sense with same sex marriage. Just substitute same-sex marriage for marriage in that argument and read it and see if it makes sense to you.

which goes to show how little thought you have given this before weighing in to advocate laws that are devastating to those effected by them

As I said before, if these laws are devastating to them, it is because of choices that they have made.

If a woman has children by a husband, that man dies, and she remarries, her children are still being raised by their own sole remaining biological parent, yet you would deny her the support of the state if (and only if) her new spouse were of the same sex as her.

She should have some kind of support whether she marries anybody or not - especially if she does not marry - since she would likely be in greater need. But that kind of support need not be legal recognition of marriage. It is a very exceptional case you describe. It is a bad legal policy to make broad law that is meant to address a narrow problem. If the problem of widows raising children is to be addressed, it is not good policy to do so by allowing same sex marriage, on the off-chance that she might suddenly become gay.

Nonsense.
First of all, consider a case where a couple conceive, then immediately abort. What societal good is there in that?

Is this suppose to be a refutation of my claim that society must take some interest in the conception of children? If so, I don’t see it. By “interest” I did not mean that society wanted to make as many conceptions happen as possible. I meant that society has an interest in the circumstances of the conception of children. You example actually proves my point.

Or, if Arthur and Barbara have a drunken sexual encounter, then half an hour later Arthur is back in the bar and never sees or hears from or thinks about Barbara again, has he really done anything good for society?

Again you prove my point that society should take an interest in the circumstances of conception. Discouraging drunken sexual encounters is a reasonable thing for a society to do.

If Barbara moves in with Christina (it hardly matters whether or not they are having sex, but if it rocks your jollies by all means imagine that they are) and Christina supports her emotionally and financially through gestation and raising the child, pays for food and clothing and education, goes to his graduation and so on, who out of Christina and Arthur has done most for society? Yet which one is the only one you are willing to see rewarded?

Again you are proposing a broad law to address a narrow problem. Not good policy. The circumstance of Christina and the charity of Barbara deserve attention, but not by declaring them to be married. What if, instead of Barbara, Christina moved in to a charitable support community that gave her the same emotional and financial support that Barbara would have given her? Does that mean we ought to declare Christina married to that charity?

Finally, consider a population of 1000 chaps and 1000 gals. They are all exclusively heterosexual - the only thing this has to do with homosexuality of you lot trying to use conception as an excuse to discriminate against gays.

However 5 of the guys are sterile and 5 of the girls are barren. Do I really need to spell out to you how lifelong sexually exclusive marriage (with no premarital nookie) will actually reduce the number of women who conceive, compared to a 1960s Austin Powers style love pile? Marriage is neither necessary nor helpful for conception, it actually reduces chances of conception

It has never been my contention, or anyone else’s in this thread, that the good of heterosexual marriage was in causing the sheer number of conceptions.

…it is only helpful for gestation and raising of children. Which same sex couples do do.

Well, they could, but then those children would not be raised by both biological parents, which you agreed is a valid societal goal.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Exactly. I feel that I can justify a ban on murder objectively. It’s a bit late for me to try that now, but if you insist I can do so later. Actually, the easiest way is just to expand the definition of the ‘culture’ you are talking about to include many ‘cultures’ and apply the golden rule to those sub-cultures as you would to individuals.

The golden rule is a subjective belief. It’s usefulness, even in a pragmatic context, is up for debate in specific instances. So that is not an objective justification for a ban on murder.

Mind you, many cultures did only ban ‘murder’ of their own. The biblical “thou shalt not kill” allegedly only referred to killing other Jews, hence the merry slaughter that enlivens most of the Old Testament not being in breach.

Which shows that the ban on murder is based on a subjective belief, and is modified by various versions of that belief.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And if black people just accepted that they are second class citizens, they shouldn’t feel offended at being sent to the back of the bus?

The expectation to be able to sit where you want on the bus is a reasonable expectation. The expectation that two guys should be considered married is an unreasonable one.

To illustrate the point, I will repeat something I wrote long ago. Suppose I have the desire to write a much-loved symphony. I write the symphony and it is performed. The public says it is the worst symphony ever. They have given me a slap in the face and prevented me from achieving my life-long ambition to write a much-loved symphony. Is it society’s fault that my expectations were frustrated, or my own?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I could equally assert that “civil marriage as a legal entity is entirely based upon marriage as a biological reality - the pair-bond between two loving entities”.

…and I could equally assert that “civil marriage as a legal entity is entirely based upon marriage as a biological reality - the group bonding of two or more entities that all love each other”, but I would be wrong, just as you are wrong in your assertion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Being homosexual is already legal anywhere that is considering same sex marriage. So this wouldn’t lead to ‘more homosexuals’.
Gay sex is already legal anywhere that is considering same sex marriage. So this wouldn’t lead to more gay sex .

It possible to have something be legal and still in the interests of society to discourage. Consider smoking. If the government started offering subsidies to people who smoke, don’t you think that would make more kids want to smoke? Of course it would. Even the tolerance of smoking by government sends a mixed message to kids. They think “if it is so bad, why do they sell cigarettes?”.

So yes, if it good to discourage young people from experimenting with homosexuality, then gay marriage works against this goal.