Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[Stephen168]

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.

Now that we have established that homosexual coupling can never produce and raise offspring. Why is murder evil? Is that just your opinion or is it based on some evidence?

 

[Viewer]

Now that we have established that homosexual coupling can never produce and raise offspring. Why is murder evil? Is that just your opinion or is it based on some evidence?

My personal opinions come from church teaching, however the law of the land also defines murder as a grave crime.

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 a concepts of “ethics” which are held in the hands of the powerful.

Abortion isn’t quite a closed case yet, there’s still some unrest regarding it as you know, and it faces greater criticism from both the church, atheists, pagans and a far wider base of society.

I would assume euthanasia would come under “neutral”. It’s not plesant, but it’s hardly something we can legislate against either. As a lawyer actually said on the topic to me “we can’t charge a corpse, if they’re gonna kill themselves they’re gonna do it somehow”.

It would appear that the deciding factors seem to be “how many people does it effect”, “does it cause them any harm” and “can we actually enforce it”.

 

[Stephen168]

"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).

My personal opinions come from church teaching, however the law of the land also defines murder as a grave crime.

Why does the Church say it is evil? So is murder evil just because the church says it is evil or because the government says it is?

 

[Viewer]

Why does the Church say it is evil? So is murder evil just because the church says it is evil or because the government says it is?

I would say it is evil because it is, it causes destruction and despair. I think that because it does and not because anyone tells me it is so.

Church teaching may affirms my view but I would call it’s authenticity in serious doubt if his holiness was to ever come out on the balcony and proclaim death upon someone.

 

[Rau]

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?

I guess their options are to adopt, have pre-marital heterosexual relations, or break their marriage vows and have extra-marital heterosexual relations, with or without technicians assisting. Does this not sound a bit contrived?

 

[Stephen168]

I would say it is evil because it is, it causes destruction and despair. I think that because it does and not because anyone tells me it is so.

Church teaching may affirms my view but I would call it’s authenticity in serious doubt if his holiness was to ever come out on the balcony and proclaim death upon someone.

So you are saying murder is evil because murder is evil??? Is that reason the Church says it is evil?

 

[HelenRose]

My personal opinions come from church teaching, however the law of the land also defines murder as a grave crime.

Abortion isn’t quite a closed case yet, there’s still some unrest regarding it as you know, and it faces greater criticism from both the church, atheists, pagans and a far wider base of society.

I would assume euthanasia would come under “neutral”. It’s not plesant, but it’s hardly something we can legislate against either. As a lawyer actually said on the topic to me “we can’t charge a corpse, if they’re gonna kill themselves they’re gonna do it somehow”.

It would appear that the deciding factors seem to be “how many people does it effect”, “does it cause them any harm” and “can we actually enforce it”.

The arguments you present are the arguments of secular “ethics.”
Which is an approach for government powers to study before passing laws.
None of the above can be considered “good” or “bad” until secular consensus is established.

This is entirely different from believing that there is good and that there is evil. And that there is a “natural law” outside of ourselves that makes that determination.

So, as I said before, in regard to the original question. Is there a secular argument against same sex marriage? After reading the arguments I have, at this point, come to the conclusion that “no”, there is no secular argument against same sex marriage.

This can only be determined if “good” and “evil” exist. That argument is beyond the scope of the original question.

 

[Stephen168]

I would say it is evil because it is, it causes destruction and despair. I think that because it does and not because anyone tells me it is so.

Sounds like it is just made it up with no evidence.

Church teaching may affirms my view …

No the Church did not just make it up like you claim you did.

Justice is a cardinal virtue which claims that man has the right to have what is his. It is a human right. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, the stuff we earn, basic life support from our parents. In the USA we had to amend our constitution to include an income tax because the founders believed it was not just to take people’s money. We punish people who, steal, neglect their children, murder, and kidnap. Abortion is murder. We do this because we have adopted the ancient virtue of justice. This virtue was adopted by the Universal Church as part of the natural law. The Church did not invent justice, it is a human right that the Church and governments have adopted. I think murder is wrong because it is not just; the Church taught me about Justice.

 

[JimG]

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.

So she is capable of having marital intercourse. She is capable of conjugal relations. That is the key, not whether or not she is fertile. Sexually complementary couples are capable of marital intercourse. Same sex couples can never be. It is not a matter of fertility but of sexual complementarity.

Opposite sex couples are naturally ordered to marital relations. Same sex couples are never ordered to marital relations. There is nothing marital, nothing conjugal, about same sex relationships.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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)

Here is the abstract for the first- “The observations and two case histories were obtained during three visits at Parker, Ariz., and Needles, Calif. Alyha are male transvestites who take the role of women, and female homosexuals assuming the role of the male are called hwame. Their partners are not considered homosexuals and are usually persons of bisexual tendencies. Predestination, spirits and other accidents lead the person to become a homosexual. When this is once decided, the new state is attained through an initiation during which they change to the clothing of the other sex. The homosexuals are publicly courted and then live with their partners; the males occasionally experience spurious pregnancy and the females hunt game for their partners.”

Rather clear from the abstract that the practices of the Mohave in regards to homosexuality do not reflect the modern definition of homosexuality, homosexual relationships, or homosexual marriage. In fact, the practices would be considered homophobic stereotyping by current standards.

 

[DrTaffy]

So homosexual behavior in animals do not create and raise offspring?

Homosexual animals do create and raise offspring. See, for example, the case of Black Swans.

 

[DrTaffy]

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?

So if Catholics are in a minority, and the majority feel that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, does that mean that the majority have the moral right (not just the ability) to force Catholics to carry out same sex marriages?

Or do you think that in this instance the majority should think about whether they have the right (or any need) to impose their opinion on the minority? Not just what their opinion on same sex marriage is?

So should you be thinking not just about whether you think gays should be marry, but also whether you should impose that opinion on (for example) the Quakers?

 

[Stephen168]

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

Homosexual animals do create and raise offspring.

Not what I said

 

[DrTaffy]

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?

Of course! If it is not on TEH GOOGELWEBZ it is not reliable!

Yes it is true that those are all old publications, so not available for free on teh intertoobz, but I was asked for sources, which to me means as close as I can get to the original data behind the claims.

If you prefer Wikipaedia links (which you can see without facing the trial and heartbreak of leaving your bedroom) to actual peer-reviewed articles in reputable Journals, then you can see the Wikipaedia page on N American two-spirit tradition, or this page on one of the more famous individuals.

Or from this page about the Siberian equivalent:

In rare cases the ‘soft man’ begins to feel himself a woman; he seeks for a lover, and sometimes marries. The marriage is performed with the usual rites, and the union is as durable as any other. The ‘man’ goes hunting and fishing, the ‘woman’ does domestic work

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

I don’t suppose you would like to be explicit about what you are implying?

Of course not!
But since you ask, from the first citation, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians (George Devereux):

“At dances even boys who had no intention of marrying an alyha played around with them, as though they were flirtatious women. In the end some of them made up their minds to become the husbands of an alyha.”

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.

I, of course, do not see it as accusing them of anything. You are imposing your own value system on others.

But why is it up to me to prove anything? If you are basing your argument on the assertion that marriage has never meant anything except heterosexual couples, should you not be the ones with the burden of proof?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So if Catholics are in a minority, and the majority feel that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, does that mean that the majority have the moral right (not just the ability) to force Catholics to carry out same sex marriages?

Or do you think that in this instance the majority should think about whether they have the right (or any need) to impose their opinion on the minority? Not just what their opinion on same sex marriage is?

So should you be thinking not just about whether you think gays should be marry, but also whether you should impose that opinion on (for example) the Quakers?

You are drawing a false moral equivalence between forcing someone to take some action that they find abhorrent, and declining to take some action yourself. In the case of the majority refusing to recognize gay marriage, they are not forcing gays to do anything. Nor are they preventing gays from doing anything. They are merely declining to take the action of formally approving of what the gay couples want to do. But in the second case that you mention, the majority is forcing the minority to act in a certain way that is contrary to their beliefs. The two cases are entirely different, and do not shed any light on the morals rights of the other case.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

So if Catholics are in a minority, and the majority feel that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, does that mean that the majority have the moral right (not just the ability) to force Catholics to carry out same sex marriages?

Or do you think that in this instance the majority should think about whether they have the right (or any need) to impose their opinion on the minority? Not just what their opinion on same sex marriage is?

So should you be thinking not just about whether you think gays should be marry, but also whether you should impose that opinion on (for example) the Quakers?

forcing a christian baker who refuses to make a cake for a same sex “wedding”, sure sounds like imposing beliefs on them. And what about states such as Utah and Oklahoma, where the majority of the people have said we don’t want that here, we don’t like it. And then all of a sudden, a judge comes along and forces the state to recognize it. In those cases, it is the minority opressing the majority.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Why does it matter? Same sex couples can have a ceremony, move in together, and live happily ever after without getting the state involved. If you don’t like State marriage, don’t have one.

 

[HelenRose]

So if Catholics are in a minority, and the majority feel that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, does that mean that the majority have the moral right (not just the ability) to force Catholics to carry out same sex marriages?

Or do you think that in this instance the majority should think about whether they have the right (or any need) to impose their opinion on the minority? Not just what their opinion on same sex marriage is?

So should you be thinking not just about whether you think gays should be marry, but also whether you should impose that opinion on (for example) the Quakers?

I have no doubt that the Government will force the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages or lose the license to perform civil weddings.

I do not see this as a serious problem because civil marriage has become a farce. What I think will then happen: Holy Matrimony within the church will be performed for those who wish to be united with God in their “real” marriage.

In Germany a couple has a “civil” marriage in a court house. If the couple then wishes a Religious Wedding they have the ceremony within their own religion. I think that is the future for America.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is another great argument against same-sex marriage betwen men.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609

The notion that sodomy is not at the heart of homosexual relationships is absurd. It’s just not nice to try to fool Mother Nature and the consequence is nasty.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I reckon at some point in time somebody already whacked the head over the dead horse on this topic but this is something I don’t really have a good answer to.

I work in a pretty scientific environment and I have to debate with people who have no bearing in faith. I usually have no problem getting the upper hand on occasion with debates on abortion. You can argue on developmental milestones, DNA, and appealing to a solid base of morality that most people have. Even the most militant atheist will admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with punching a pregnant woman in the stomach.

But gay marriage is a whole different animal, and outside of arguments that reference a divine creator and scripture, I haven’t found any argument that could hold much water scientifically and even ethically that sounded convincing enough to support a governmental ban on gay marriage. Any thoughts?

I know I’m late to the party but to sum this up; you want a secular argument to help defend a sacrament?