Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter lux_in_tenebris_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
The majority only get to bring about their position on matters within the scope of the majority to decide. A majority of US citizens can’t decide the dress code to apply at a specific golf club in Arkansas. The majority of US citizens can’t require a baker to produce double choc cinnamon roles with custard. The majority does have a democratic right to decide whether the State will recognise same sex marriages - if not the majority, how should the matter be decided? The majority would have the democratic right to determine that any party authorised by the State to perform civil marriages cannot pick and choose for whom they do it - but I guess this could be a somewhat arbitrary requirement, and may be counter-productive from the State’s perspective and from the perspective of all who wish a Church wedding. Exercising democracy in this way, on these issues is not itself immoral, though that says nothing about the morality of the subject matter. Eg. The majority may decide that abortion is legal. That decision process is not immoral, but abortion is.

No one is imposing when the State applies “majority rules” on matters that the State is granted authority by the people to rule on. It is up to the State to choose (or not) to deem same sex unions in need of or deserving of recognition, and presumably it will do that if / when the majority concur. That is a reasonable democratic process, and we all are entitled to contribute a view so the State can decide.
 
Whenever a species goes against what they are naturally ordered towards, disastrous consequences will be sure to follow. Whether those consequences are immediate or not is another story.
 
I know I’m late to the party but to sum this up; you want a secular argument to help defend a sacrament?
Well that’s part of the madness. If it be a solely sacrament, then technically the government has no business fidgeting around with the definition. However, since the government is involved, it therefore proceeds into the logic that it probably is an institution that falls outside the realms of faith as well, or at least that’s what the agenda is pushing.
 
Well that’s part of the madness. If it be a solely sacrament, then technically the government has no business fidgeting around with the definition. However, since the government is involved, it therefore proceeds into the logic that it probably is an institution that falls outside the realms of faith as well, or at least that’s what the agenda is pushing.
For consistency’s sake, then, incest marriages and polygamy should also fall outside the realm of faith. Will those also now be honored as civil unions as opposed to religious ones?

Where is the line to be drawn by society for all this immoral madness? Nowhere? :confused:
 
Grace & Peace!
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.
Charlemagne, you would do well to read more carefully.

There’s a reason why the CDC uses the label “men who have sex with men” or “MSM”: because there are men who have sex with men who do not identify as homosexual. The MSM population would likely include: male prostitutes and male sex workers of all stripes; heterosexual men who engage in situational homosexual behaviors (such as men in prison); heterosexual men who experiment with homosexual sex or who enjoy homosexual sex but do not identify as homosexual; homosexual men who have homosexual sex. The CDC is pretty clear in its terminology that its statistical commentary is not regarding the entire male homosexual population (many of whom may be celibate or may not engage in risky sexual behaviors such as penetrative intercourse of any sort with other men), but it* is* regarding all folks in the MSM population, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

So while there is certainly some overlap between the homosexual male population and the MSM population, they are nonetheless not identical. Categorical statements regarding the one population may not be completely applicable to the other–though a lazy journalist or someone afflicted momentarily by lazy thinking may say otherwise…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Well that’s part of the madness. If it be a solely sacrament, then technically the government has no business fidgeting around with the definition. However, since the government is involved, it therefore proceeds into the logic that it probably is an institution that falls outside the realms of faith as well, or at least that’s what the agenda is pushing.
I think it proceeds into the logic that the government has over stepped its authority when it decided to rewrite the definition of that which it did not create; marriage. IMHO one can now validly accuse the government of starting its own form of religion.
 
For consistency’s sake, then, incest marriages and polygamy should also fall outside the realm of faith. Will those also now be honored as civil unions as opposed to religious ones?

Where is the line to be drawn by society for all this immoral madness? Nowhere? :confused:
There are very strong secular arguments to be made for all of those situations and that’s why we have bans on them. But honestly no argument is sea worthy enough to float with my crowd against gay marriage. I would love if the Catholic morality and social laws came hand in hand, but that’s not the world we live in. The burden of proof lies with us to prove why something is inherently wrong.
 
There are very strong secular arguments to be made for all of those situations and that’s why we have bans on them. But honestly no argument is sea worthy enough to float with my crowd against gay marriage. I would love if the Catholic morality and social laws came hand in hand, but that’s not the world we live in. The burden of proof lies with us to prove why something is inherently wrong.
Actually I believe those who challenge the standard are the ones who have to prove their position.
 
There are very strong secular arguments to be made for all of those situations and that’s why we have bans on them. But honestly no argument is sea worthy enough to float with my crowd against gay marriage. I would love if the Catholic morality and social laws came hand in hand, but that’s not the world we live in. The burden of proof lies with us to prove why something is inherently wrong.
Did you read post #72?
 
For consistency’s sake, then, incest marriages and polygamy should also fall outside the realm of faith. Will those also now be honored as civil unions as opposed to religious ones?
Actually they do, incestual marriages are currently ruled against on the grounds of genetic faults in potential offspring and polygamy on sheer economics (as can currently be observed in certain mormon communities in Utah).
I think it proceeds into the logic that the government has over stepped its authority when it decided to rewrite the definition of that which it did not create; marriage. IMHO one can now validly accuse the government of starting its own form of religion.
Neither the government nor religion invented taking a mate for life (a.k.a: Marriage). It’s a tad silly when the church claims to have created it and hold absolute control over it in secular eyes.
Actually I believe those who challenge the standard are the ones who have to prove their position.
Indeed, how dare Martin Luther King promote civil rights. He should have learned to accept his lot and bow before his white masters and not have challenged the status quo.

Does your statement sound ridiculous now? It should do.

Also, regarding the sources that couldn’t be checked on google. I ran a few searches through the archives and aside from one which I couldn’t read (Haven’t got a subscription for that database) they’re legit.

I still don’t see a secular argument. As far as the law is concerned homosexuals can have sexual relations (how could a gay man be charged with rape otherwise?), the sex act is now irrelevant to civil marriage and there are no substantiated reasons as to why formally acknowledging a gay partnership is harmful.

tl;dr: There is no secular defense.
 
Actually I believe those who challenge the standard are the ones who have to prove their position.
Not when we are losing the PR battle. I live in the bible belt and went to supposedly one of the more conservative universities and I am telling you we are losing, the most powerful organization on campus was the LGBT group which dominates half of the office of diversity. Among the youth, this is the standard. We are in trouble and to be indignant and say that they need to prove themselves would be foolishness on our part. This is why we need strong secular arguments.
 
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).
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.
We have established that your personal distaste for murderers is based in bigotry because you have no evidence for why you think they are wrong. While the Catholic Church agrees with your personal distaste it is not based in bigotry, but based in human nature/natural law/virtue. Many governments have also adopted this -]religious/-] virtuous idea that murder is wrong. If you were to want to support murderous activity, you could claim that the Catholic Church invented the idea that murder was evil and therefore a religious argument, and then dismiss it out of hand.

We have also established that homosexual animal and human behavior is sterile. It will never produce offspring. Only heterosexual behavior will.

As a matter of justice children have a human right to be feed and taken care of by their parents. The Catholic Church shares this view. Many governments have also adopted this -]religious/-] virtuous idea and have created laws against child abandonment and abuse. Of course you were you to want to support child cruelty, you could claim that the Catholic Church invented the idea that it was evil, and therefore a religious argument, and then dismiss it out of hand.

I would suggest that a heterosexual union, which includes heterosexual behavior, is the place where children are created as a biological fact; not invented by the Catholic Church. I would also suggest that children have a right to their parents as a matter of justice; not invented by the Catholic Church. Marriage satisfies this critical human condition. The purpose of marriage is to create, nourish, and educate the next generation. Marriage is not ‘neutral.’ Marriage is good, and same sex unions are not it.
 
It only works if you have a very rigid sense of definition or a conservative outlook of the world. Most young folks today don’t. You present that argument to my liberal counterparts and it won’t be taken seriously, in fact they may laugh. The young world values what they can see regardless the cost to values and tradition, its the nature of the beast.
 
It only works if you have a very rigid sense of definition or a conservative outlook of the world. Most young folks today don’t. You present that argument to my liberal counterparts and it won’t be taken seriously, in fact they may laugh. The young world values what they can see regardless the cost to values and tradition, its the nature of the beast.
I don’t get my reasoning from young people. Do you think marriage is something or anything/nothing?
 
Grace & Peace!

Charlemagne, you would do well to read more carefully.

There’s a reason why the CDC uses the label “men who have sex with men” or “MSM”: because there are men who have sex with men who do not identify as homosexual. The MSM population would likely include: male prostitutes and male sex workers of all stripes; heterosexual men who engage in situational homosexual behaviors (such as men in prison); heterosexual men who experiment with homosexual sex or who enjoy homosexual sex but do not identify as homosexual; homosexual men who have homosexual sex. The CDC is pretty clear in its terminology that its statistical commentary is not regarding the entire male homosexual population (many of whom may be celibate or may not engage in risky sexual behaviors such as penetrative intercourse of any sort with other men), but it* is* regarding all folks in the MSM population, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

So while there is certainly some overlap between the homosexual male population and the MSM population, they are nonetheless not identical. Categorical statements regarding the one population may not be completely applicable to the other–though a lazy journalist or someone afflicted momentarily by lazy thinking may say otherwise…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
You should be the one who should be reading more carefully, Mark.

From the CDC, why and where it uses the term MSM.

For assessing disease risk, the term MSM is often used instead of gay, homosexual, or bisexual because it refers to a risk behavior, rather than an identity that may or may not be tied to a behavior.

From the CDC, stating that

*Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.*

Also from the CDC, how their staff identified respondents to the study of sexual behavior of Men Who Have Sex With Men.

*Identification of Venues Frequented by MSM

In each city, a team of staff members familiar with the local community conducted formative research to establish a list of venues frequented by MSM (9). To identify possible venues for inclusion in the venue list, the team consulted local publications, online media, members of the local MSM community, business owners, staff members at community-based organizations, key health department staff members, and persons providing medical and social services to MSM. If a venue did not exclusively serve MSM, the team observed and conducted brief interviews at the venue. Brief interviews were used to assess the eligibility of male patrons for NHBS and their sexual history with other men. If the information from these brief interviews indicated that the venue would yield a sufficient number of MSM (i.e., ≥75% of men approached would meet the eligibility criteria and reported sex with other men), the venue was included on the venue list. Clinics and other health-care settings were specifically excluded because of the potential for introducing bias in several key indicators (e.g., HIV testing history and access to health care).

*Venues on the list were categorized as a bar, dance club, fitness club or gymnasium, Gay Pride event, park or beach, large dance party (e.g., rave or circuit party), café or restaurant, retail business, sex establishment or sex environment, social organization, street location, or another venue type, such as an event hosted by the local house ball community.

It does not appear that the CDC sent their information gathering team to the prisons. Understandably, I would think, because inmates would not classify as a random sample.
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top