Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[davidv]

My statement was clear and absolute.

And wrong in the context of what a marriage is and what it is not. A same sex couple pretending to be married cannot “have children” in the same sense as a male/female couple.

You are carefully avoiding clarifying your position.

See above. Clear?

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

 

[JimG]

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 mfaith gjroups).

Except basic biology?? Human beings naturally come in two genders which are sexually complementary. A fact of nature. A fact of biology. A fact of anatomy.

Basic biology indeed. Humans ignore basic biology at their own peril.

Homosexual people, in so far as they are acting as homosexuals, do not have children. They can indeed have children if they act in a heterosexual manner, or involve heterosexuality in some way to obtain a child. Homosexual conduct in so far as it remains homosexual, is a reproductive dead end.

 

[LongingSoul]

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).

As you were appealing to a Phd in Theology for authority to claim, there is the expectation that you present a universal theology though. It is not a true theological claim that there is no secular argument against same sex marriage. That’s just your opinion. Ex PM Julia Gillard proves that point.

And no, religion holds no greater and probably less significance in Australian government than in the US.

 

[Viewer]

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

Indeed, that would be anyone enrolled as a member of any communist or socialist party since 1949 when Pope Pius XII made the formal decree against communism until 1983.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism

I personally do not know how one would go about receiving a list of the Chinese or Cuban communist parties during that time frame. Perhaps we can look to modern figures such as Nancy Pelosi and the constant calls for her formal excommunication by various clerics within the church. Wasn’t Cardinal Dolan one of the most recent? I’d need to google that to check.

 

[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).

Were they executed for homosexuality or for political reasons? Also, how many of these individuals were executed by the Spanish Government trials and how many by Church trails?

 

[Viewer]

As you were appealing to a Phd in Theology for authority to claim, there is the expectation that you present a universal theology though. It is not a true theological claim that there is no secular argument against same sex marriage. That’s just your opinion. Ex PM Julia Gillard proves that point.

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.

And no, religion holds no greater and probably less significance in Australian government than in the US.

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.

 

[Viewer]

Were they executed for homosexuality or for political reasons? Also, how many of these individuals were executed by the Spanish Government trials and how many by Church trails?

Homosexuality (or rather “Sodomy” as was the formal term then).

Who presided over individual trials is a matter of uncertainty and debate. While it is undisputed that the trials targeting the Jews were mostly secular motivated there is more doubt over the minority cases.

There were certainly clerics of both low and high rank involved in the inquisition, and it was conducted in the formal name of faith and the church.

 

[HelenRose]

Indeed, that would be anyone enrolled as a member of any communist or socialist party since 1949 when Pope Pius XII made the formal decree against communism until 1983.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism

I personally do not know how one would go about receiving a list of the Chinese or Cuban communist parties during that time frame. Perhaps we can look to modern figures such as Nancy Pelosi and the constant calls for her formal excommunication by various clerics within the church. Wasn’t Cardinal Dolan one of the most recent? I’d need to google that to check.

Excommunication only means, one is no longer in communion with whatever organization is in question.

One generally excommunicates oneself. If one is a Democrat but always votes Republican, lives by the platform of the republican party, owns 50 guns, and detests Obama. I would dare say that this individual should not say that he or she is a Democrat.

If one does not agree with Church teaching, Church leadership, Church beliefs, it does lead you to wonder why one would stand up and say, "I belong to this Church, they “Have to include me.”

Why would anyone want to be part of something that they so vehemently disagree with?

 

[Viewer]

Excommunication only means, one is no longer in communion with whatever organization is in question.

One generally excommunicates oneself. If one is a Democrat but always votes Republican, lives by the platform of the republican party, owns 50 guns, and detests Obama. I would dare say that this individual should not say that he or she is a Democrat.

If one does not agree with Church teaching, Church leadership, Church beliefs, it does lead you to wonder why one would stand up and say, "I belong to this Church, they “Have to include me.”

Why would anyone want to be part of something that they so vehemently disagree with?

I think it is because they may disagree with one aspect of the church (or any organization for that matter) but aside from that all of their other beliefs fall in line. The church is the closest match so to speak with what they believe. They may believe homosexual acts are not sinful, but find they conflict even more with other faith organizations that tolerate homosexual acts on matters such as the virgin birth or communion.

It’s rather like when voting for a party, I might not like every single proposal but I choose the candidate with a statement closest to what I believe in. There’s always going to be something on the agenda I don’t like, I just pick the one with the most plus points.

 

[HelenRose]

Homosexuality (or rather “Sodomy” as was the formal term then).

Who presided over individual trials is a matter of uncertainty and debate. While it is undisputed that the trials targeting the Jews were mostly secular motivated there is more doubt over the minority cases.

There were certainly clerics of both low and high rank involved in the inquisition, and it was conducted in the formal name of faith and the church.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the Spanish Inquisition depending on who is making the study and what their motivations are.

 

[Viewer]

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the Spanish Inquisition depending on who is making the study and what their motivations are.

Indeed, I’ve read several with conflictign statements. Some say the Cardinals or the Benedictines were running the show, others say the inquisitors were merley the minions of the secular authorities.

I personally believe it was a mixture of both, there were certainly secular resentment held towards the jewish community but we also need to remember that the authority that called for the inquisition (Queen Isabella primarily) was one of the most rabid fundamentalists the world has ever known, I couldn’t comment so much about Ferdinands religious fevour.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

The Papacy may not have held full control (indeed the inquisition was intended to replace an earlier papal led one) but it was certainly heavily influenced by Catholic leaders.

 

[HelenRose]

I think it is because they may disagree with one aspect of the church (or any organization for that matter) but aside from that all of their other beliefs fall in line. The church is the closest match so to speak with what they believe. They may believe homosexual acts are not sinful, but find they conflict even more with other faith organizations that tolerate homosexual acts on matters such as the virgin birth or communion.

It’s rather like when voting for a party, I might not like every single proposal but I choose the candidate with a statement closest to what I believe in. There’s always going to be something on the agenda I don’t like, I just pick the one with the most plus points.

This thread is on same sex marriage not abortion. But they really are in the same boat. The killing of an innocent human being really is an important doctrine. Somewhat different than whether or not one should vote for Obama or Clinton. Why would anyone want to stay with a Church that teaches that killing an innocent human person is evil when he or she thoroughly believes that it is not wrong. Same sex marriage is also an important doctrine.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You continue to blur the distinction between what the couple does and what society does in response. If you believe in freedom, then you should believe that the couple (gay or straight) should be allowed to do what they want and others (i.e. the rest of society) should be allowed to do what they want, as long as those actions do not interfere with anyone’s basic human rights. And putting a legal stamp of approval on a union and calling it a legal marriage is definitely something that society does, or does not. That recognition is not a basic human right. It is quite properly up to the society to decide.

To illustrate the point, suppose I compose a symphony. It gets performed, and society calls it the worst symphony ever. Could I argue that society is preventing me from writing a much-loved symphony? My goodness! They are imposing their entirely subjective views on me. Is this not the same thing as objecting to society’s non-recognition of gay marriage? The truth is I have a basic human right to compose a symphony, and society has the right to decline to like it. No basic human rights have been violated on either side. Now why can’t you see the gay marriage debate in that light?

 

[HelenRose]

You continue to blur the distinction between what the couple does and what society does in response. If you believe in freedom, then you should believe that the couple (gay or straight) should be allowed to do what they want and others (i.e. the rest of society) should be allowed to do what they want, as long as those actions do not interfere with anyone’s basic human rights. And putting a legal stamp of approval on a union and calling it a legal marriage is definitely something that society does, or does not. That recognition is not a basic human right. It is quite properly up to the society to decide.

To illustrate the point, suppose I compose a symphony. It gets performed, and society calls it the worst symphony ever. Could I argue that society is preventing me from writing a much-loved symphony? My goodness! They are imposing their entirely subjective views on me. Is this not the same thing as objecting to society’s non-recognition of gay marriage? The truth is I have a basic human right to compose a symphony, and society has the right to decline to like it. No basic human rights have been violated on either side. Now why can’t you see the gay marriage debate in that light?

And I say, “Go for it.” Civil marriage is just that. It has no meaning beyond money. And when the Catholic Church will no longer be allowed to perform “civil marriages” they will continue to perform “Holy Matrimony”

This is my own prediction. Time will tell if I am wrong.

 

[Viewer]

This thread is on same sex marriage not abortion. But they really are in the same boat. The killing of an innocent human being really is an important doctrine. Somewhat different than whether or not one should vote for Obama or Clinton. Why would anyone want to stay with a Church that teaches that killing a human person is evil when he or she thoroughly believes that it is not wrong. Same sex marriage is also an important doctrine.

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.

 

[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).

Are you claiming that homosexual behavior in animals will create offspring, and the homosexual animals with then raise them together?

 

[Viewer]

Are you claiming that homosexual behavior in animals will create offspring, and the homosexual animals with then raise them together?

No. I never addressed this issue at all since it is irrelevant to this secular debate.

But if the gay couple who live up the street from me are anything to go by I assume they’ll adopt a number of orphans from eastern europe.

 

[Stephen168]

No. I never addressed this issue at all since it is irrelevant to this secular debate.

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?

 

[Newsy]

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.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

So as a couple, same sex unions are sterile.