Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[DrTaffy]

Only if one equivocates the meaning of “having children”.

No, they have children in every sense of the word.

Insult?

You object to being called intelligent?

 

[davidv]

No, they have children in every sense of the word.

I can think of one sense of the word that they do not. Your statement equivocates.

You object to being called intelligent?

No. I do object to poorly disguised putdowns.

 

[Viewer]

I think we can summarize then outside of theology, faith (which do not come under purely secular) and tradition (which is a weak arguing, since our countries have done terrible things such as slavery and witchunts) there is no secular argument against same sex marriage except basic biology (which with animals tending to homosexual acts being observed by scientists is hard to justify in natural theory) and personal distaste (which is bigotry).

Arguing in favour of SSM on a Catholic forum is a task into futility Taffy, but I aknowledge any secular augments against instituting it just don’t stand up and it is these that matter for lawmaking. “God said so” as an excuse doesn’t really cut it anymore, to a secular authority “God” is claimed to have said a lot of things by various religions (by that I mean no special position of authority is given to the Church over other faith groups).

 

[Rau]

No, they [gay couples] have children in every sense of the word.

Yet, “they” are never the parents? one of them may be, but never both. So how many people are in this “marriage”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Or the Native American tribes for whom same sex marriages were a major, traditional part of their beliefs. These groups are prevented, by you, from holding legally recognised same sex marriages, but they are not trying to force you to carry out same sex marriages.

Let me get this straight. You are proposing that we return to a state of savagery?

Should we include scalping our enemies in that return?

By the way, would you mind identifying the tribes that had same-sex marriage as a major, traditional part of their beliefs? And what is your source?

Sodomy in your mind is a legitimate consumation of a same-sex marriage, right?

So how is sodomy not also a return to savagery?

And so long as we are talking about savagery, why not include incestuous marriage in your approval. Or polygamy? Etc. etc.

Is there any kind of sexual relationship you will not legitimize with a marriage certificate?

 

[davidv]

I think we can summarize then outside of theology, faith (which do not come under purely secular) and tradition (which is a weak arguing, since our countries have done terrible things such as slavery and witchunts) there is no secular argument against same sex marriage except basic biology (which with animals tending to homosexual acts being observed by scientists is hard to justify in natural theory) and personal distaste (which is bigotry).

Arguing in favour of SSM on a Catholic forum is a task into futility Taffy, but I aknowledge any secular augments against instituting it just don’t stand up and it is these that matter for lawmaking. “God said so” as an excuse doesn’t really cut it anymore, to a secular authority “God” is claimed to have said a lot of things by various religions (by that I mean no special position of authority is given to the Church over other faith groups).

Why is the biological argument dismissed so causually? Abnormalities in the lower animals cannot be the basis for what is true for humans.

 

[Viewer]

Why is the biological argument dismissed so causually? Abnormalities in the lower animals cannot be the basis for what is true for humans.

Because in a secular debate where individuals or groups (such as the LGBT movements or the Church) put forward their propositions to be enforced as law their arguments are critically assessed for flaws and merit by the state legal authority, be it a panel of justices, law lords or however the country is set up to judge the merit of a piece of legislation.

Unless it can be proved by cold hard facts that can be scientifically or statistically demonstrated it will not be used as strong evidence. The LGBT movement can point to homosexuality in all mammals since time immemorial as an example of “natural law” against biological arguments (On the lines of “We don’t understand it yet but it clearly occurs for some reason”), but the Catholic Church cannot set up a Skype conference between our Lord and the lawmakers to make a formal statement (and the LGBT movement would object and ask why other non-christian scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita is not being consulted)

Scientific observations are usually deemed amongst the strongest forms of evidence, while “heresay” or blind faith is ranked amongst the least. I wouldn’t ever pull out a Bible in a non-theological debate (which in secular eyes this is) for this very reason, it is conducted on the basis on what we can demonstrate in the here and now.

Source: PhD in Theology

 

[DrTaffy]

I can think of one sense of the word that they do not. Your statement equivocates.

My statement was clear and absolute. You are carefully avoiding clarifying your position.

No. I do object to poorly disguised putdowns.

No putdown in my post, that I can see, although I note that you are quite happy to ladle out the putdowns yourself!

 

[DrTaffy]

Arguing in favour of SSM on a Catholic forum is a task into futility Taffy, but I aknowledge any secular augments against instituting it just don’t stand up and it is these that matter for lawmaking.

Absolutely, and while I would admit to being as prone as anyone else to being sucked into an argument, my aim here is not to convince anyone of anything but rather get you to explain and defend your position. In this case, more why you would be justified in imposing your view of SS marriage on other faiths than why that view is against SS marriage as such.

 

[HelenRose]

Very brave of you to admit to this on here, and it is interesting to hear that you are choosing to remain chaste.

This is purely my speculation but I think one of the main reasons why Homosexuality is so vehemently opposed compared to something equally abhorrent in the eyes of the church is personal discomfort and indeed fear. We might look down upon an alcoholic, but in the case of a homosexual straight men paticually automatically assume gays will be “after them” so to speak.

Also, in regards to an earlier argument. I do not think using the claim that there was no demand for gay marriage in the past is a very good one. Cabals, secret clubs and individual homosexuals like Oscar Wilde have always existed, but it’s only been fifty-sixty years in some parts of Europe that we don’t jail them for being homosexual.

Look back further and there’s a long history of homosexuals being tortured and executed. There couldn’t really be a demand if the Spanish Inquisition was going to burn them in the town square automatically.

Could you show documentation of the number of homosexuals who were burned by the Church during the Spanish Inquisition? My understanding that this was mostly a political induced situation.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Oh, go on. Tell us again about how homosexuals should just be grateful that you are not imprisoning and beheading them!

The fact is that you are demanding that society impose your views on marriage on those who do not share them - not just homosexuals, but those religions such as Quakers whose beliefs embrace same sex marriage. Or the Native American tribes for whom same sex marriages were a major, traditional part of their beliefs. These groups are prevented, by you, from holding legally recognised same sex marriages, but they are not trying to force you to carry out same sex marriages.

What Native American tribes, and did these tribes view homosexuals as disordered (like having Two Spirits)?

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11599341:

No, they [gay couples] have children in every sense of the word.

Yet, “they” are never the parents? one of them may be, but never both.

No, I did not say gay couples, I said “gay people can and do have children!” - in response to the claim that if the entire population were homosexual, there could be no further generation.

How is this not trivially clear?

 

[DrTaffy]

Let me get this straight. You are proposing that we return to a state of savagery?

I’m not sure that you have not already done so. Certainly the Native Americans I have met could give you some tips on civilised behaviour!

By the way, would you mind identifying the tribes that had same-sex marriage as a major, traditional part of their beliefs? And what is your source?

This took place pretty much throughout north and south America, the Carribean and over into Siberia. There are more potential sources than would fit into the character limit here, but a few:

George Devereux, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians, 9 Hum.
Biology 498 (1937)
Charles Callender & Lee M. Kochems, The North American Berdache, 24 Current Anthropology 443 (1983)
Donald G. Forgey, The Institution of Berdache Among the North American Plains Indians, 11 J. Sex Res. 1 (1975)
W.W. Hill, Note on the Pima Berdache, 40 Am. Anthropologist 338 (1938)
W.W. Hill, The Status of the Hermaphrodite and Transvestite in Navajo Culture, 37 Am. Anthropologist 273 (1935)
Nancy 0. Lurie, Winnebago Berdache, 55 Am. Anthropologist 708 (1953)
Elsie C. Parsons, The Zuni La’Mana, 18 Am. Anthropologist 521 (1916)
Matilda C. Stevenson, The Zuni Indians, in The Twenty-Third Ann. Rep. Bureau Am. Ethnology 3 (1904)
James S. Thayer, The Berdache of the Northern Plains, 36 J. Anthropological Res. 287 (1980)
Harriet Whitehead, The Bow and the Burden Strap: A New Look at Institutionalized Homosexuality in Native North America, in Sexual Meanings
Alfred L. Kroeber, The Arapaho, 18 Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 1, 19 (1902)

 

[Rau]

Absolutely, and while I would admit to being as prone as anyone else to being sucked into an argument, my aim here is not to convince anyone of anything but rather get you to explain and defend your position. In this case, more why you would be justified in imposing your view of SS marriage on other faiths than why that view is against SS marriage as such.

I don’t get this idea of “imposing”. In a democracy, people express their opinions, and the state generally moves with the majority. Does that mean the majority are always accused of imposing?

My opinion is that marriage is an inherently unique, inherently sexual, society building institution. Any individual can participate, together with any other individual of the opposite sex, since such a pairing is the only kind with the potential to be society building.

Different pairings ought to consider a different, fit for purpose, institution.

 

[Viewer]

Could you show documentation of the number of homosexuals who were burned by the Church during the Spanish Inquisition? My understanding that this was mostly a political induced situation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

Scroll down to Sodomy, there were 35 (known) executions. There are better examples, such as the early Christian Roman Emperors, Medieval France and the Buggery laws of England which were all religiously motivated and which you can also read a brief overview of here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people .

Absolutely, and while I would admit to being as prone as anyone else to being sucked into an argument, my aim here is not to convince anyone of anything but rather get you to explain and defend your position. In this case, more why you would be justified in imposing your view of SS marriage on other faiths than why that view is against SS marriage as such.

I have to teach against the practice as my position as a lecturer within a Catholic institution but privately when I’m not on the clock? I’m not going to, I’ve got no argument against it, on a secular level it’s defending the indefensible and I can see that.

One reason why people have to impose their view as you put it is obligation, I would review the Catholic Church’s mass excommunications for anyone who voted for the socialist/communist party in Italy. It’s still in force today, a Catholic cannot vote for a party which promotes abortion or gay marriage otherwise they cannot receive the sacraments. Catholics are expected to vote against it (or may choose to abstain, which depending on who you talk to is just as sinful).

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Viewer
Arguing in favour of SSM on a Catholic forum is a task into futility Taffy, but I aknowledge any secular augments against instituting it just don’t stand up and it is these that matter for lawmaking.

Viewers, view is decidedly insular unfortunately. In Australia during the last term of Julia Gillards government, she successfully quashed same sex marriage legislation on the natural law/tradition argument that marriage as a ritual, arises from the calling of the procreative intercourse between a man and woman. She herself is atheist and in a defacto relationship on the basis of a deliberate decision to remain childless. To her understanding, marriage is essentially the procreative voice of natural intercourse so to speak.

 

[HelenRose]

Absolutely, and while I would admit to being as prone as anyone else to being sucked into an argument, my aim here is not to convince anyone of anything but rather get you to explain and defend your position. In this case, more why you would be justified in imposing your view of SS marriage on other faiths than why that view is against SS marriage as such.

There still is a major part of me that asks the question? Why on Earth would anyone care anyway. Civil marriage no longer has anything to do with family, society, or civilization. It is simply a contract between two people who are looking out for their own welfare. Civil marriage means next to nothing any more. One can get married one day and divorced the next. At one time marriage was meant to protect children. Now with the possibility of 4 plus parents - the words mother and father being taboo - to squabble over a child, marriage is anything but a haven for children.

A child with a loving mother and a loving father who love each other is and will always be the best answer for a child. This is the ideal and the ideal should be honored. Anything else is second best, a “make do” or a selfish answer for an adult’s desires.

 

[Rau]

George Devereux, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians, 9 Hum.
Biology 498 (1937)
Charles Callender & Lee M. Kochems, The North American Berdache, 24 Current Anthropology 443 (1983)
Donald G. Forgey, The Institution of Berdache Among the North American Plains Indians, 11 J. Sex Res. 1 (1975)
W.W. Hill, Note on the Pima Berdache, 40 Am. Anthropologist 338 (1938)
W.W. Hill, The Status of the Hermaphrodite and Transvestite in Navajo Culture, 37 Am. Anthropologist 273 (1935)
Nancy 0. Lurie, Winnebago Berdache, 55 Am. Anthropologist 708 (1953)
Elsie C. Parsons, The Zuni La’Mana, 18 Am. Anthropologist 521 (1916)
Matilda C. Stevenson, The Zuni Indians, in The Twenty-Third Ann. Rep. Bureau Am. Ethnology 3 (1904)
James S. Thayer, The Berdache of the Northern Plains, 36 J. Anthropological Res. 287 (1980)
Harriet Whitehead, The Bow and the Burden Strap: A New Look at Institutionalized Homosexuality in Native North America, in Sexual Meanings
Alfred L. Kroeber, The Arapaho, 18 Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 1, 19 (1902)

The existence of homosexually oriented and practicing persons in multiple histories and cultures is not in doubt.

Out of interest, did the native Americans join two men, or two women in the very same ceremony and institution into which a heterosexual couple were joined?

 

[Viewer]

Viewers, view is decidedly insular unfortunately. In Australia during the last term of Julia Gillards government, she successfully quashed same sex marriage legislation on the natural law/tradition argument that marriage as a ritual, arises from the calling of the procreative intercourse between a man and woman. She herself is atheist and in a defacto relationship on the basis of a deliberate decision to remain childless. To her understanding, marriage is essentially the procreative voice of natural intercourse so to speak.

As I am not an Australian nor have I ever visited I couldn’t possibly comment upon the political setting there. Might I assume religion still holds some place in government, I really do not know. I can only comment upon placed I have lived in and have some knowledge of the legal system (and where SSM is becoming law or has in all of them).

A child with a loving mother and a loving father who love each other is and will always be the best answer for a child. This is the ideal and the ideal should be honored. Anything else is second best, a “make do” or a selfish answer for an adult’s desires.

Counter proposal from the oppositions perspective: Shall we just leave orphans out on the street to die then? Shall we take them from widows because daddy got hit by a car?

There is an ideal, and I agree with it but it is just that, and one that sadly not everyone can be blessed with.

 

[HelenRose]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

Scroll down to Sodomy, there were 35 (known) executions. There are better examples, such as the early Christian Roman Emperors, Medieval France and the Buggery laws of England which were all religiously motivated and which you can also read a brief overview of here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people .

I have to teach against the practice as my position as a lecturer within a Catholic institution but privately when I’m not on the clock? I’m not going to, I’ve got no argument against it, on a secular level it’s defending the indefensible and I can see that.

One reason why people have to impose their view as you put it is obligation, I would review the Catholic Church’s mass excommunications for anyone who voted for the socialist/communist party in Italy. It’s still in force today, a Catholic cannot vote for a party which promotes abortion or gay marriage otherwise they cannot receive the sacraments. Catholics are expected to vote against it (or may choose to abstain, which depending on who you talk to is just as sinful).

Can you produce a list of people that the Church as excommunicated?