Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[Stephen168]

Just found this thread. Sorry I am skipping to the last page w/o reading it all.

The only secular argument that I have found, that seems to hold up, is pointing out that every person has a right to live with both biological parents. SSM destroys the only legal connection between a child and the biological parents. SSM laws tend to recognize “marriage” as an institution for consenting adults, but it leaves out the repercussions on the family (children). It disregards the child’s right to know their parents.

Yes, I think the justice argument is the other half of the biological argument.

 

[Viewer]

Are you saying No you didn’t address it or no homosexual behavior in animals will not create offspring, so the homosexual animals cannot raise them together?

I’m saying I didn’t address it, but I will take the oppertunity to do so now.

As it has previously been presented to me “purely” homosexual animals do exist. While generally a fox that has previously engaged in acts with another male fox will favor a vixen in heat over a male there are examples of foxes (and other species, humans included) that wil always favour another male regardless of environmental factors.

Both Psychiatrists and Geneticists do not have a reason as to why it occurs, they only know that it does. In regards to not being able to reproduce let us turn to humans.

If we bar SSM on the principle that it cannot be a fruitful union, then we must also bar sterile men, barren women and post-menopausal women from undertaking marriage. They might have an oven but there’s no way to turn it on.

Using the argument that inability to produce offspring should bar SSM is ineffective in a secular debate on these grounds.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m saying I didn’t address it, but I will take the oppertunity to do so now.

As it has previously been presented to me “purely” homosexual animals do exist. While generally a fox that has previously engaged in acts with another male fox will favor a vixen in heat over a male there are examples of foxes (and other species, humans included) that wil always favour another male regardless of environmental factors.

Both Psychiatrists and Geneticists do not have a reason as to why it occurs, they only know that it does. In regards to not being able to reproduce let us turn to humans.

First lets finish with animals. So homosexual behavior in animals do not create and raise offspring?

 

[Viewer]

First lets finish with animals. So homosexual behavior in animals do not create and raise offspring?

You missed the second part of my statement, which is essential to the secular view

In secular eyes, humans are animals. Please include that before you continue down this line of thought.

 

[HelenRose]

I answered it, it’s the best choice on offer to them. Not everyone has the faculties, influence or even inclination to set up their own theological movement or indeed a “church”.

I’ll use some of my own students as an example. Other than Homosexual acts their views upon religion are avowedly conservative, far more so than even most Catholics. Women who have had abortions should be jailed for murder, people who do not attend mass should be shunned and a variety of other opinions are regually promoted by them that can sit perfectly well with Catholic faith and sets them apart from any other organization.

However, I’ve had zero luck trying to convince them that church teachings o homosexuality are correct. They divert only on this one point, and would disagree that they should stop calling themselves Catholics for questioning this one issue in an otherwise hardline (dare I say even puritanical) view on the practice of religion.

No, women who have had abortions should not be jailed for abortions. The people around them who offered no help with the children and the doctors who perform the abortions are the ones I have no use for.

The Catholic Church will open Her arms wide for women who have suffered the pain of losing their children. There is and will always be healing and help for them. When the word “choice” is bantered about, no woman who has had an abortion felt that they really had a choice. Only the loss of a child. I have never seen anyone shunned because they were not a Catholic. I have seen Catholics shunned however.

You will have to use the Catholic Catechism to substantiate what the Church does or does not teach. Shunning people with same sex attraction is forbidden. Women who have had abortions are welcomed with their pain and sorrow. It is true that same sex marriage is not allowed because marriage is meant for the children. Even if a couple can not have children, their marriage is meant to be open for such a blessing.

Even a doctor who has performed a 1,000 abortions will be welcome if he or she is sorry. For we all must recognize that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

But to openly and stridently defy the basic core beliefs of any organization is to make one wonder why they belong unless it is to undermine from within.

 

[Stephen168]

You missed the second part of my statement, which is essential to the secular view

In secular eyes, humans are animals. Please include that before you continue down this line of thought.

I didn’t miss it, we can get to it later. Yes, in secular eyes humans are animals, so are you saying that homosexual behavior in animals does not create and raise offspring?

 

[Viewer]

I didn’t miss it, we can get to it later. Yes, in secular eyes humans are animals, so are you saying that homosexual behavior in animals does not create and raise offspring?

No, it does not.

However, it has been observed in one study a few years back that a “lesbian” cat has nursed another cats offpsring. I’ve also seen that used as a prelude for adoption.

 

[Stephen168]

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).

No, it does not.

So homosexual behavior is not the same thing as reproduction and nourishing (raising). Because homosexual animals cannot create and raise offspring then homosexual man can’t either.

 

[GEddie]

In secular eyes, humans are animals. Please include that before you continue down this line of thought.

In theistic eyes, too, we admit that the Human Body is a glorified animal.

That is neither here nor there. We are called to transcend our origins; and the society’s policies should reflect that.

Even if a biologic anomaly exists in the animal world, the civil society is not called to give the human version of it official sanction.

ICXC NIKA

 

[HelenRose]

I didn’t miss it, we can get to it later. Yes, in secular eyes humans are animals, so are you saying that homosexual behavior in animals does not create and raise offspring?

Religions (at least the Catholic Church) accept that humans are animals. Many secular minded people believe that other animals and humans carry the same rights and there is no difference between a human and let us say, a dog or a cockroach.

 

[Stephen168]

Religions (at least the Catholic Church) accept that humans are animals. Many secular minded people believe that other animals and humans carry the same rights and there is no difference between a human and let us say, a dog or a cockroach.

Very true. It is our reason that gives us rights. Also we have to invest a lot more into our offspring that animals do. Sometimes I wish we could just teach them to eat and throw them out
But then we get to love on our grandchildren

 

[HelenRose]

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).

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.

I said “second best”. To leave orphans on the street is not second best. What I said is that the ideal should be honored. Each child longs to be loved my his or her mother and his or her father. To pretend otherwise is an illusion. To pretend that a same sex couple can give to a child what a mother and a father can give is living in a dream world. Sure it is better than living off the street but it is still not the same.

Check out anonymousus.org/ to see how donor children cope. Some do alright and some don’t. All long to know if they have brothers and sisters.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, my knowledge of religion does not extend to the secular sphere, and in my political environment theology is not regarded as a valid source of referal to in legal proceedings (unless it’s a ritualized murder, honor killing or somesuch). There is no Theological statement that holds any weight in a totally secular court.

But what you were claiming was… "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. "

It isn’t true that ‘no secular argument against instituting SSM won’t stand up’ in the realm of law. You have an erroneous opinion that only theological arguments can deny that marriage is only valid between a man and woman.

Curious, I wonder how Australia has reacted to Britain and the CoE movements towards SS/AAM acceptance? Not being smarmy here, I’d genuinely love to know.

Australia’s religious environment is pretty much following Britian with the adoption of the new Papal initiative of the Ordinariate. For those who don’t know, this global initiative instituted by Pope Benedict, creates a ‘diocese’ specifically for Anglicans wanting full communion with the Catholic Church now that the CofE has adopted same sex marriage. This new ‘diocese’ allows Anglicans to still retain some of their traditions that aren’t in conflict with the Catholic Church. The Australian version is called “The Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross”. Protestantism is so diluted these days that it can’t really contribute much theologically to the secular sphere… however the Catholic Church is regarded highly in the fields of secular ethics in all Christian countries.

 

[Viewer]

So homosexual behavior is not the same thing as reproduction and nourishing (raising). Because homosexual animals cannot create and raise offspring then homosexual man can’t either.

Neither can a post-menopausal woman, yet she can still be wed. In secular debates “equvalent cases” will be wheeled out to indicate inequalities in standing.

An 80 year old woman clearly cannot bear more children, yet she can still marry and engage in and enjoy sex. She’s no more likely to get pregnant than a homosexual male though.

In theistic eyes, too, we admit that the Human Body is a glorified animal.

That is neither here nor there. We are called to transcend our origins; and the society’s policies should reflect that.

Even if a biologic anomaly exists in the animal world, the civil society is not called to give the human version of it official sanction.

ICXC NIKA

Indeed, but as mentioned in the responses as soon as we begin to mention words such as “transcendence” we immediately leave the realm of the secular, which is something that cannot be done in the legalistic process.

As soon as theology is brought into a secular debate, you are only harming your argument. Secular is just that, secular. All theology, faith matters, rituals and scriptural justifications need to be left outside and the secular issue judged objectively.

 

[HelenRose]

Neither can a post-menopausal woman, yet she can still be wed. In secular debates “equvalent cases” will be wheeled out to indicate inequalities in standing.

An 80 year old woman clearly cannot bear more children, yet she can still marry and engage in and enjoy sex. She’s no more likely to get pregnant than a homosexual male though.

Indeed, but as mentioned in the responses as soon as we begin to mention words such as “transcendence” we immediately leave the realm of the secular, which is something that cannot be done in the legalistic process.

As soon as theology is brought into a secular debate, you are only harming your argument. Secular is just that, secular. All theology, faith matters, rituals and scriptural justifications need to be left outside and the secular issue judged objectively.

Secular, no God, no good, no evil. Just animals breeding, eating and dying and doing what feels good at the time. Absolutely no argument against same sex marriage can be found.

Existence without the transcendence is a rather boring don’t you think?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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!

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)

Well now, it’s interesting, isn’t it, that not one of your sources can be located on the Internet. Why do you suppose that is?

Could you provide a brief quote from one of those many sources you have collected?

I think it does not serve your purpose to accuse whole tribes of Indians of endorsing sodomy and/or same-sex marriage without some kind of definite documentation.

Thank you.

 

[Viewer]

Secular, no God, no good, no evil. Just animals breeding, eating and dying and doing what feels good at the time. Absolutely no argument against same sex marriage can be found.

Existence without the transcendence is a rather boring don’t you think?

I agree, but my own opinions on this don’t matter in secular debates. Evidence is what we can prove, not what we believe.

That is not to say there cannot be good and evil within a secular debate, murder is clearly evil, depriving someone of life. Most broadly it can be defined as…

Good: Helps others (Charity work, organ donation)
Neutral: Does not effect anyone other than consenting individuals (SSM, Hetrosexual marriage)
Evil: That which directly harms others (Discrimination, Murder, Assault).

Only that which falls into the last category should be condemned and prevented.

 

[Viewer]

Well now, it’s interesting, isn’t it, that not one of your sources can be located on the Internet. Why do you suppose that is?

Could you provide a brief quote from one of those many sources you have collected?

I think it does not serve your purpose to accuse whole tribes of Indians of endorsing sodomy and/or same-sex marriage without some kind of definite documentation.

Thank you.

Probably because a few of them are academic works and are protected by subscription archives. I’ll run a few searches when I get to work tomorrow on them.

 

[GEddie]

Probably because a few of them are academic works and are protected by subscription archives. I’ll run a few searches when I get to work tomorrow on them.

Even if full text access must be paid for, the reference should still appear on a web search.

ICXC NIKA

 

[HelenRose]

I agree, but my own opinions on this don’t matter in secular debates. Evidence is what we can prove, not what we believe.

That is not to say there cannot be good and evil within a secular debate, murder is clearly evil, depriving someone of life. Most broadly it can be defined as…

Good: Helps others (Charity work, organ donation)
Neutral: Does not effect anyone other than consenting individuals (SSM, Hetrosexual marriage)
Evil: That which directly harms others (Racism, Murder, Assault).

That doesn’t wash.

Who gets to determine that the killing of an unborn child is not evil?

You, me, the government?

If the killing of an unborn child is not evil, then the killing of disabled children whose lives are “simply not worth living” is not evil. The “ethics” of such an action is now being studied in Australia.

Euthanasia: my what a wonderful concept.

The killing of the infirmed old person is not evil. That is called mercy killing. Who gets to decide when a person’s life is no longer worth living? You, me, the government?

Who gets to decide, what exactly does it mean to be a person? Is intelligence the mark of being a person? At what point does society decide that a human is not intelligent enough to qualify?

Secular good and evil exists only as concepts of “ethics” which are held in the hands of the powerful.

Having said that, I don’t think that there is a secular argument against same sex marriage.

Good and evil are not arguments against same sex marriage because good and evil only exist if there is God to embrace or to reject.