Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[GEddie]

That assumes that conception is the sole purpose of marriage. Or, to be fair, is an essential component of marriage.

Now, I have no problem with you believing that, as regards living your own life, but do you think you can prove that objectively and indisputably, such that you are justified in forcing that belief on others who do not agree with you?

The people doing the forcing are those who want to change centennial legalities to accommodate their sexual preferences.

Not those who oppose them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[DrTaffy]

The people doing the forcing are those who want to change centennial legalities to accommodate their sexual preferences.

Not those who oppose them.

The pro-gay marriage lobby want to change ‘centennial’ legalities imposed by the Christian Emperors back in the 4th century in Roman Europe (far more recently elsewhere), true, but only so as to allow those who do not share your beliefs to live their lives according to their own beliefs, not yours.

The heart of the pro-gay marriage argument is that you are forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them. This, in my opinion (and those of many others) requires very solid justification.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Biologically, homosexuality is inimical to the purpose of a society, which is to protect and promote human life through generations.

You get a gold star for the word of the day.

A society in which there were no homosexuals would not be weakened in any way, but a society in which everybody was homosexual would perish.

This is what I was going to suggest. Even if the ratios were inverted, 98% of people were gay to 2% heterosexual, society could not continue. That alone is a rational argument.

 

[Rau]

If married couples get so much more government benefits than singles why are so many heterosexual couples choosing to “shack up” rather than get married? Also, when the “gay” lobby got their “civil unions” they had all the same benefits as married couple get. They promised that this would satisfy them. But as soon as they got it they wanted to push for changing the definition of marriage.

Jurisdictions may vary, but where I live, the tax benefit a couple enjoys just for being married is minimal. The real benefits arise where there are children.

Clearly, if the State allows a gay couple to procure children (and as a practical matter, I don’t see how it cannot) it is going to have to accede to the payment of the relevant support payments.

Fundamentally, the claim on marriage for a gay couple is not about benefits or rights, it’s about being accepted as “normal”.

 

[DrTaffy]

This is what I was going to suggest. Even if the ratios were inverted, 98% of people were gay to 2% heterosexual, society could not continue. That alone is a rational argument.

Gay people are neither universally sterile nor universally stupid. So why would such a society not be able to continue? The lack of unwanted pregnancies? Raging arguments over window treatments?

Also, your argument could be used to prove that people being male is somehow ‘wrong’: - a society that was 98% male to 2% female would have far more problems than a 98% gay society. (Assuming, if this is not obvious, that ‘gay’ includes lesbians and the 98% gay society still had a 50/50 split between sexes)

 

[Rau]

In Australia there was recently introduced a Marriage Equality Act in a State however the High Court declared that the Act was void for legal reasons. Here we have the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) which states in its definitions section that marriage is between a man and a woman for life and it later states that the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman must not be recognised in Australia. Commowealth law trumps State. We also have Constitutional opposition. In the traditional method of interpreting the Constitution we must use the meanings of words as they were understood by the framers, not the meanings that suit us at the moment, so when the framers said ‘marriage’ they meant marriage between a man and a woman.

Which all makes perfect sense. If the community wants constitutionally-recognised institutions to be different, then it needs to make changes at potentially the constitutional level as well as the legislative level. To achieve changes by a process of creeping evolution of words would be absurd, and potentially circular.

 

[LongingSoul]

That assumes that conception is the sole purpose of marriage. Or, to be fair, is an essential component of marriage.

Now, I have no problem with you believing that, as regards living your own life, but do you think you can prove that objectively and indisputably, such that you are justified in forcing that belief on others who do not agree with you?

Unless you believe that sexual couplings should be a free for all, there always has to be a standard by which we adhere for the sake of healthy civilisation and especially child safety and wellbeing. Even some of the sexual behaviours you and I might find easily dangerous like sexual relationships between children and adults or people and animals… garner support in some quarters of humanity. So to what should the standard adhere first and foremost? It can’t be feelings of love since that could be used to defend the two examples I’ve just given. The standard can’t adhere to the whim of the majority since that is submitting to survival of the fittest.

It can only adhere to a sense of the wellbeing of the species as a whole. That inbuilt sense that if the tribe is healthy first, them I and my kin will be safe and healthy within its structures. Even the animal kingdom demonstrate submission to standards that stem from species identity.

We have standards to define justice and healthcare and education that are based in known truths handed down by the generations and proven in science and psychology. When the laws and practices of a society are unhinged from the traditions handed down and their natural purpose and dictated by the whim of an individual or group… that is where you see injustice and violation of human dignity against the weak and vulnerable. Think of marriage then, as merely a contract obliging two people to stay together forever based only on their feelings of love for each other. That either sets people up to fail because rarely do couples stay in love forever… or again, the ‘fittest’ party in the contract gets to break or enforce the contract. Without the sense of deeper purpose for marriage… it proves a situation not worthy of a contract at all. A simple declaration that you’ll stay together while you both feel like it would suffice.

The standards that we hold dear make sense in terms of our human identity. They are the expression of caring not just for ourselves and our kin, but of caring for all our species as a wider family. That tribal identity is natural at every level of nature and it’s only through some glitch or disorder that it is forsaken for the sense of my needs above all other considerations.

 

[HelenRose]

That assumes that conception is the sole purpose of marriage. Or, to be fair, is an essential component of marriage.

Now, I have no problem with you believing that, as regards living your own life, but do you think you can prove that objectively and indisputably, such that you are justified in forcing that belief on others who do not agree with you?

I have become a little, or maybe a lot, cynical about civil marriage. Many young people who love each other are looking at civil marriage and saying, “Why bother.” It means nothing anyway.

What I foresee is “civil marriage” will become more and more of a legal contract for people who feel the need for a “legal” contract.

And young men and young woman who plan on having children will look to Churches to seal their love and devotion in Holy Matrimony. They will not want their “sacred” love being part of the legalese sterile environment of a court house.

I figure the Catholic Church will soon be forbidden to perform “civil” ceremonies because She will refuse to perform same sex marriages but She will still be able to bless a couple in Holy Matrimony - even if this may have to be done in secret.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Gay people are neither universally sterile nor universally stupid. So why would such a society not be able to continue? The lack of unwanted pregnancies? Raging arguments over window treatments?

Also, your argument could be used to prove that people being male is somehow ‘wrong’: - a society that was 98% male to 2% female would have far more problems than a 98% gay society. (Assuming, if this is not obvious, that ‘gay’ includes lesbians and the 98% gay society still had a 50/50 split between sexes)

The US has roughly 300 million people. 98% is close enough to 100%. 300 million gay people. None having babies, because the are gay. They die off, how many are left? 0.

Get it?

 

[Rau]

The pro-gay marriage lobby want to change ‘centennial’ legalities imposed by the Christian Emperors back in the 4th century in Roman Europe (far more recently elsewhere), true, but only so as to allow those who do not share your beliefs to live their lives according to their own beliefs, not yours.

The heart of the pro-gay marriage argument is that you are forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them. This, in my opinion (and those of many others) requires very solid justification.

Marriage as an institution addresses the obvious, natural need in society to establish and protect society-building family units. Was there a debate (hundreds of years ago) about which sex-combinations ought to be eligible for marriage? Not that I’m aware of, and I note that only 1 combination (Man + Woman) possesses the society building capability that Marriage represented.

I can understand a gay couple wishing to undertake a ceremony to “celebrate” their relationship and commitment, and to secure various legal statuses. And in so far as that goes, there is a partial overlap with marriage. But how on earth do we take the leap, reducing them both to common ceremonial and legal components, and call the lot “marriage”. Why would we “air-brush” away the unique and most important (society building) attributes of Marriage?

The only reason is to allow the gay couple to feel just like married couples. Never mind the reality.

 

[Rau]

I figure the Catholic Church will soon be forbidden to perform “civil” ceremonies because She will refuse to perform same sex marriages but She will still be able to bless a couple in Holy Matrimony - even if this may have to be done in secret.

That’s possible. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that arrangement, other than its lack of efficiency with the State having to take on extra work previously outsourced to the Church at nil cost.

I don’t understand the reference to “in secret”.

 

[HelenRose]

Gay people are neither universally sterile nor universally stupid. So why would such a society not be able to continue? The lack of unwanted pregnancies? Raging arguments over window treatments?

Also, your argument could be used to prove that people being male is somehow ‘wrong’: - a society that was 98% male to 2% female would have far more problems than a 98% gay society. (Assuming, if this is not obvious, that ‘gay’ includes lesbians and the 98% gay society still had a 50/50 split between sexes)

It isn’t a matter of just “gay” Gay marriage is merely the symptom of a dying civilization. It is abortion, child abuse, child neglect and experimentations made on the unborn child that will destroy a civilization. During the middle ages the black plague killed 20% to 30% of the human population. This had a devastating effect. In New York City 60% of black unborn children are being killed and 40% of white unborn children are being killed. If this rate continues and if this rate becomes the norm thorough out the country, all one has to do is the math to figure out that it will be “the survival of the fittest” One needs to read Margaret Sanger’s views on black population control to realize just how her dreams have come true with vengeance.

 

[HelenRose]

That’s possible. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that arrangement, other than its lack of efficiency with the State having to take on extra work previously outsourced to the Church at nil cost.

I don’t understand the reference to “in secret”.

Well in Germany that arraignment seems to work. First there is a civil marriage in a court room, then if a couple wishes it, there is a religious wedding. The religious wedding is optional.

As to the term “secret”, some one is sure to resent the fact the even matrimony will be unfair and sue the Churches. But that really is my cynicism coming through. I probably should drop that idea.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I figure the Catholic Church will soon be forbidden to perform “civil” ceremonies because She will refuse to perform same sex marriages but She will still be able to bless a couple in Holy Matrimony - even if this may have to be done in secret.

I’ve been thinking about this recently with the situation going on with the baker being sued. I actually think it will have a positive effect if the church is wise. What they will need to do is make a “weddings for members only” rule which some churches already have. Then, to become a member, have requiremements that preclude a lifestyle apart from the teachings of the church. Problem at least mitigated if not solved.

Part B is I’m not sure most Bishops have the “gumption” to make a rule which will force many out of the church. ( and hence salvation???)

Either way, persecution or “the blood of the martyrs” is the seed of the church. As the church is persecuted it will force people to stand for their beliefs ultimately making the church stronger.

PAX

 

[HelenRose]

I’ve been thinking about this recently with the situation going on with the baker being sued. I actually think it will have a positive effect if the church is wise. What they will need to do is make a “weddings for members only” rule which some churches already have. Then, to become a member, have requiremements that preclude a lifestyle apart from the teachings of the church. Problem at least mitigated if not solved.

Part B is I’m not sure most Bishops have the “gumption” to make a rule which will force many out of the church. ( and hence salvation???)

Either way, persecution or “the blood of the martyrs” is the seed of the church. As the church is persecuted it will force people to stand for their beliefs ultimately making the church stronger.

PAX

I am to much of a romantic to think in terms of “members only”.

 

[HelenRose]

I want to add one more thought. Let us refer to a simplistic concept “Mother Nature”. “Mother Nature” loves pro-creation.

I have read and unfortunately it was a long time ago so I don’t have a source, that when a community is starving, sex drive increases. It is as if “Mother Nature” is wanting to insure offspring. I remember a butter commercial where the line was “You can’t fool Mother Nature.”

It is just possible that the sex drive will strengthen and become more and more erratic as more and more babies are killed and fewer babies are born.

 

[Rau]

It is just possible that the sex drive will strengthen and become more and more erratic as more and more babies are killed and fewer babies are born.

I would expect that at some point people would recognise that the lack of children leads to an ageing population and falling living standards. That imbalance will cause a problem and I expect it will correct. Of course, an imbalance in the other direction, with ever increasing population, also can’t go on forever in a finite world, so that won’t happen either. To quote the Moody Blues it’s a “Question of Balance”

 

[GEddie]

I would expect that at some point people would recognise that the lack of children leads to an ageing population and falling living standards. That imbalance will cause a problem and I expect it will correct. Of course, an imbalance in the other direction, with ever increasing population, also can’t go on forever in a finite world, so that won’t happen either. To quote the Moody Blues it’s a “Question of Balance”

Actually, an increasing population probably flattens out with what we are seeing now, where the negative aspects of procreation are exaggerated and the birthrate goes down. IMNAAHO .

ICXC NIKA

 

[HelenRose]

I have just become a great grand mother so I have to admit that even though I carry on with cynicism I really am filled with hope when I look at the younger generation of couples who will carry the future in their love.

The “duh” statement of the year. The future belongs to those people whose mothers and fathers had children.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The best secular argument against same-sex marriage is that throughout the history of the world (including the decline of Greece and Rome) it has not, until now, become even a proposal, never mind a demand. That should tell you something about the prevalence of common sense in all generations and all places before our morally degenerate times in Europe and America.