Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[oldcatholicguy]

That’s a really good point that is hidden in plain sight, JButky. I might challenge the law that defines male and female right at the beginning. From now on I want to be known as a male because males get to grow lovely long beards and urinate standing up! Why shouldn’t I have the right to those lovely privileges! From here on forth, I demand the right to be called Mr. and I want it recorded on my birth certificate too!

Well if it helps you can join a military service in which all superiors (regardless of gender) are called “sir.”

 

[LongingSoul]

Well if it helps you can join a military service in which all superiors (regardless of gender) are called “sir.”

 

[DrTaffy]

Would you be likewise inclined to look at how the anus and the penis are formed, and how the insertion of one into the other was not really intended by nature?

What does this have to do with same sex marriage?

Given that anal sex:

• Is not universal to homosexuals. Not all gay males do it (Stephen Fry is disconcertingly blunt about the fact that he never has) and it seems evident to me that few lesbian couples will!
• Is not unique to homosexuals. For something that is allegedly “not intended by nature” (a condemnation that seems not to have put you off the internet) heterosexuals seem very keen on it. Indeed, it seems clear to me that numerically heterosexual cases of anal sex likely far outstrip homosexual ones!
• Does not require same sex marriage. If anything encouraging homosexuals to settle down into staid stable relationships would only reduce the level of ongoing sodomy!
• Is surely already legal anywhere that is even considering legalising gay marriage!

…what does this post tell us other than that you are at least apparently disturbingly obsessed by this particular sex act?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

…what does this post tell us other than that you are at least apparently disturbingly obsessed by this particular sex act?

As anyone with an ounce of common sense should be!

George Washington had one of his officers drummed out of the Army for sodomy.

Thomas Jefferson while governor of VIrginia backed a bill to castrate sodomites.

Only in the world you occupy do so many people think it’s the greatest thing going, even among heterosexuals.

By the way, nobody has to have a marital certificate to engage in sodomy.

Didn’t you know that? What goes on behind closed doors stays behind closed doors.

When sodomites want to advertise their sodomy by marrying their own sex, they have thrown the door wide open. Good luck to their reputations from then on.

 

[MarkInOregon]

You can make arguments based on incorrect biology or the optimum way to raise children, but ultimately those arguments don’t hold on there own.

We as a country tolerate some pretty ridiculous things that are bad for the individual, the family and society as a whole. For example smoking, over drinking, over eating, multiple sex partners (not necessarily same sex or marriage), gang membership, repeated divorce/marriages and other clearly bad and reckless decisions, but we don’t pass laws on it. Although I feel like sometimes we should, but that’s just not how the constitution works. People have the right to be stupid if they want to and they have the right to be wrong. If somebody wants to sit down and eat a bowl of broken glass and call it a meal, legally we can’t stop them. It’s a humdinger of a problem.

We have many laws that make it very difficult to smoke. Try driving, riding a bike or even walking while intoxicated–all of which can land you in legal trouble. We used to have reasonable laws regarding divorce and society was better for it. It is funny we have many laws to prevent people from being stupid or to protect them and their children from themselves–helmet laws, seat belt laws and car seats come quickly to mind. We do pass lots laws regarding reckless decisions that people might make.

When you think about it–it is really quite commical and quite sad–we keep our kids in car seats until they are rather large, require them to wear bike helmets etc in order to “keep them safe” at the same time we teach them all about sex, want to give them condoms, and allow minors to get abortions without parental notification–yet the school cannot give my child an advil for a headache. Go figure. It would appear, to me at least, that we actually tolerate very little in this society anymore–unless it relates to sex. And anyone who thinks this train is stopping at same sex marriage is just kidding themselves–and should maybe go back and take a look at some of the historical ancient practices that we seem to be ____ bent on returning to.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Given that anal sex:

• Is not universal to homosexuals. Not all gay males do it (Stephen Fry is disconcertingly blunt about the fact that he never has) and it seems evident to me that few lesbian couples will!
• Is not unique to homosexuals. For something that is allegedly “not intended by nature” (a condemnation that seems not to have put you off the internet) heterosexuals seem very keen on it. Indeed, it seems clear to me that numerically heterosexual cases of anal sex likely far outstrip homosexual ones!
• Does not require same sex marriage. If anything encouraging homosexuals to settle down into staid stable relationships would only reduce the level of ongoing sodomy!
• Is surely already legal anywhere that is even considering legalising gay marriage!

…

As a married female with two sons, now grown young men, I find it hard to believe the claim that many women would be very keen on the practice of sodomy, specifically receptive anal sex. The kind of sex as intended by nature, a phrase that does not require scare quotes really (except from the perspective of a homosexual, perhaps), that between a man and a woman, more than suffices, I would think. Native intelligence tells anyone the anal tract is for expelling waste; to use it as a receptive organ during sex in lieu of the female sexual organ or as fore or after play is unthinkable, at least to me. Unhealthy!

At any rate, I wondered about the veracity of claims by homosexual activists and gay “marriage” advocates along the lines of what you listed above. I will only address the first two in this post. One regular poster in this forum emphatically and I thought too defensively stated that anal sex is not the sine qua non of homosexual relationships, that not all sexually active gays engage in it. Another claimed that only a third of active homosexuals practice it, although I recall a while back reading a study that 2/3 do, not 1/3. Okay, these two posters may be right. Still, it is undeniable and not good news that men who have sex with men (MSM), mostly consisting of active homosexuals and bisexuals, remain the most affected by HIV, as reported by the CDC. The disease is transmitted via the riskiest sexual practice among MSM, homosexuals and bisexuals mostly, which would be unprotected anal sex.

I came across an interesting report from the International Conference on Microbicides held in Pittsburgh on May 25, 2010:

The risk of acquiring HIV through unprotected anal sex is at least 20 times greater than with unprotected vaginal sex and increases if other infections are already present in the rectal lining. Could the use of lubricants – at least certain kinds – be another risk factor among men and women who engage in receptive anal intercourse? Two studies presented at the International Microbicides Conference in Pittsburgh, suggest the answer is yes.

In one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. If in humans, these products have the same effect, the cells might be rendered more vulnerable targets for HIV infection than they already are.

In the United States alone, receptive anal intercourse is practiced in up to 90 percent of gay and other men who have sex with men, according to International Rectal Microbicides Advocates. Moreover, the practice is not limited to men. U.S. estimates and surveys in the United Kingdom indicate between 10 to 35 percent of heterosexual women have engaged in anal sex at least once. Globally, estimates suggest 5 to 10 percent of sexually active women are having anal sex. While condoms are generally effective for protecting against HIV and other STIs, most acts of anal sex go unprotected.
…

You can read the rest from this link, if the topic interests you. I stopped at the third paragraph, which essentially states that the practice of anal sex among men is more significant than what seems to be suggested or represented in this forum by the described posters, and that said sexual practice among women is not as significant.

It is a notable difference that 10 - 35% of sexually active American and British women engage in anal sex whereas globally, only 5 - 10 % of sexually active women, do.
,

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Even from a purely secular and utilitarian point of view, never mind from the view of common sense, it is difficult to grasp why anybody defends sodomy, and all the more difficult to understand why anybody wants to see it become a kind of sex that is enshrined in the marital laws of the land. Are we supposed to believe that what sodomites want is sufficient reason that they should get it? Then why not enshrine incest and polygamy in the marital laws of the land?

A man and a woman do not get married for the purpose of engaging exclusively in sodomy. If sodomy occurs between them, it is neither moral nor healthy; but engaging in sodomy does not negate the fact that heterosexual sex is their main reasom for getting married and having children. Statistics thrown as us by homosexuals and their champions concerning sodomy committed by heterosexuals is no argument in favor of the state being required to bless sodomy with a license to practice. The unhealthy risks of sodomy (both for homosexuals and heterosexuals) far outweigh any claims for the type of orgasms sodomy produces. Those who say that concern for the widespread practice of anal sex shows an unhealthy obsession with the topic might want to remember what they said when they hear of a relative or friend who has died or contracted a deadly disease as a result of anal sex. Lack of concern for same indicates to me an unhealthy obsession with tolerating everything … even demanding the state’s blessing on anal sex in the form of a marriage license to perform.

 

[Oreoracle]

Even from a purely secular and utilitarian point of view, never mind from the view of common sense, it is difficult to grasp why anybody defends sodomy, and all the more difficult to understand why anybody wants to see it become a kind of sex that is enshrined in the marital laws of the land.

I don’t think you grasp utilitarianism. From a utilitarian view, in order to prescribe that an action should not be done, you need to justify how such an action would cause suffering. Actions that harm no one cannot be deemed “evil” in a utilitarian framework. In other words, something is wrong because of its consequences, not because it violates deontic principles.

Are we supposed to believe that what sodomites want is sufficient reason that they should get it? Then why not enshrine incest and polygamy in the marital laws of the land?

Firstly, you’re comparing apples with oranges and oranges with salad. Sodomy is a way for two people of any gender to have sex–it is a sexual technique, if you will–while incest is any sort of sex between two closely related people, and polygamy isn’t sexual at all, but is institutional. We don’t alow incest because of genetic reasons, and we don’t allow polygamy for more bureacratic reasons (didn’t we address that in another thread?).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think you grasp utilitarianism. From a utilitarian view, in order to prescribe that an action should not be done, you need to justify how such an action would cause suffering. ***Actions that harm no one cannot be deemed “evil” in a utilitarian framework. *** In other words, something is wrong because of its consequences, not because it violates deontic principles.

This argument is flat out false. “Actions that harm no one”? Get real. What about Aids? What about rectal t earing? Do you know nothing about the consequences of sodomy? Do you know nothing about the shameful and disgusting aspects of this behavior? Is orgasmic pleasure all that counts for anything in your book of sexual exercises?

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Plato did not have to be a Christian to figure it out. What’s holding you back?

 

[Oreoracle]

This argument is flat out false. “Actions that harm no one”? Get real. What about Aids? What about rectal t earing? Do you know nothing about the consequences of sodomy? Do you know nothing about the shameful and disgusting aspects of this behavior? Is orgasmic pleasure all that counts for anything in your book of sexual exercises?

The point about rectal tearing is fair. As for AIDS, HIV doesn’t magically appear when two people engage in anal sex. It is transmitted. If people used protection or got themselves checked to see if they’re clean, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s the same reasoning we use with every other STD.

Besides, it would be a poor general rule to say that we should be able to repress behaviors between consenting adults. What next? Would you say we should moderate peoples’ diets because they may bring harm to themselves?

Utilitarianism is primarily concerned with harm brought onto others, not oneself. It would be in poor taste, I’m sure you’d agree, to assume that I understand others’ preferences better than they.

Plato did not have to be a Christian to figure it out. What’s holding you back?

Plato also lived in a setting in which a man having sexual relations with 10-year-old boys was acceptable. Your move.

 

[Rau]

Sodomy is a way for two people of any gender to have sex–it is a sexual technique

My objection is not with the chosen technique (as unappealimg as I may find it), but with the premise - viz. that sex acts happen at all in a same sex relationship.

Undeniably, the bodily faculties being utilised for pleasure are part of the reproductive elements of the body. Men are “designed” to emit sperm when they orgasm. Is there not a lesson in that? Not that each emission must be an attempt to produce a child, but that the context of such emission ought to conform with the intrinsic nature of the act.

 

[Oreoracle]

My objection is not with the chosen technique (as unappealimg as I may find it), but with the premise - viz. that sex acts happen at all in a same sex relationship.

If you disqualify sodomy as being sexual in nature, then precisely what are homosexuals doing wrong? They are asked to abstain from sexual acts, and according to you they are.

Not that each emission must be an attempt to produce a child, but that the context of such emission ought to conform with the intrinsic nature of the act.

I don’t see your point. My fingers were not designed to type on this keyboard, but they are. My feet are not designed to be enclosed in shoes, but they are. Our bodies are not designed to travel at 50+ miles per hour in mechanical deathtraps, but they do.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t think you grasp utilitarianism. From a utilitarian view, in order to prescribe that an action should not be done, you need to justify how such an action would cause suffering. Actions that harm no one cannot be deemed “evil” in a utilitarian framework. In other words, something is wrong because of its consequences, not because it violates deontic principles.

Utilitarianism is not about harm it is about what is the greatest good. Sodomy is a sterile action and therefore not good. Plato is simply pointing out that reproductive organs are for reproduction.

Plato also lived in a setting in which a man having sexual relations with 10-year-old boys was acceptable. Your move.

Which has nothing to do with Plato’s argument unless you are comparing Plato’s position with marriage and ‘his setting’ with same sex sodomy.

I don’t see your point. My fingers were not designed to type on this keyboard, but they are. My feet are not designed to be enclosed in shoes, but they are. Our bodies are not designed to travel at 50+ miles per hour in mechanical deathtraps, but they do.

The keyboard to made for fingers, shoes are made for feet, planes made for human travel, and girl parts are made for boy parts.

Marriage is only between opposite sex people and it is good.

 

[GEddie]

The keyboard to made for fingers, shoes are made for feet, planes made for human travel, and girl parts are made for boy parts.

I could not have said it better;

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Plato also lived in a setting in which a man having sexual relations with 10-year-old boys was acceptable. Your move.

Not sure what your point is. Plato did not likely approve of that either. He certainly did not approve of men marrying their own sex, no matter what age.

Nor was was pedophilia acceptable in Athens, though it was practiced; just as homicide is not acceptable in the United States, though it is rampant at present.

 

[Rau]

If you disqualify sodomy as being sexual in nature, then precisely what are homosexuals doing wrong? They are asked to abstain from sexual acts, and according to you they are.

I don’t see your point. My fingers were not designed to type on this keyboard, but they are. My feet are not designed to be enclosed in shoes, but they are. Our bodies are not designed to travel at 50+ miles per hour in mechanical deathtraps, but they do.

You misunderstand me - I was not denying that sodomy happens and is a sex act, I was saying that sex acts have no place in a same sex relationship. Sodomy is no less a use of the sexual faculty than is masturbation, or “oral sex”.

Your fingers were designed to be marvellously adaptable to all manner of grasping, touching and tapping activities, and such activities have expanded over time. There is no line dividing use and misuse that typing on a keyboard (or even an iPad) crosses. *

The misuse intrinsic to ejaculating into an anus, or blending up the gametes of two men on one of their torsos, seems clear. Why would two men who care for each other claim this is a natural thing to do?*

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11609620:

…what does this post tell us other than that you are at least apparently

disturbingly obsessed by this particular sex act?

As anyone with an ounce of common sense should be!

No, it is neither common sense nor particularly sane to be ‘disturbingly obsessed’ by a particular sex act, or other peoples’ sex lives in general.

By the way, nobody has to have a marital certificate to engage in sodomy.

My point exactly. So same sex marriage has no immediate link to anal sex. So why are you interrupting this thread to salivate and drool over a gratuitously detailed anatomical description of anal sex?

 

[GraceSofia]

We have many laws that make it very difficult to smoke. Try driving, riding a bike or even walking while intoxicated–all of which can land you in legal trouble. We used to have reasonable laws regarding divorce and society was better for it. It is funny we have many laws to prevent people from being stupid or to protect them and their children from themselves–helmet laws, seat belt laws and car seats come quickly to mind. We do pass lots laws regarding reckless decisions that people might make.

When you think about it–it is really quite commical and quite sad–we keep our kids in car seats until they are rather large, require them to wear bike helmets etc in order to “keep them safe” at the same time we teach them all about sex, want to give them condoms, and allow minors to get abortions without parental notification–yet the school cannot give my child an advil for a headache. Go figure. It would appear, to me at least, that we actually tolerate very little in this society anymore–unless it relates to sex. And anyone who thinks this train is stopping at same sex marriage is just kidding themselves–and should maybe go back and take a look at some of the historical ancient practices that we seem to be ____ bent on returning to.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

True.
It’s odd that the government makes laws to limit smoking because it shortens the lifespan 7 years, but some governments are promoting homosexuality in spite of it shortening the lifespan 24 years.

 

[Viewer]

True.
It’s odd that the government makes laws to limit smoking because it shortens the lifespan 7 years, but some governments are promoting homosexuality in spite of it shortening the lifespan 24 years.

This I think iss hookum, there’s a gay man on my road who’s 96 this year. He’d be gunning for worlds oldest human if this was true.

I’ve yet to find a peer-reviewed scientifically and statistically valid report of this thesis, and the fact that this research is directly funded by an avowed anti-gay organization casts it further into doubt.

It’s poorly researched conjecture, I’d be wary of using it as evidence against anyone with access to google.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This I think iss hookum, there’s a gay man on my road who’s 96 this year. He’d be gunning for worlds oldest human if this was true.

I’ve yet to find a peer-reviewed scientifically and statistically valid report of this thesis, and the fact that this research is directly funded by an avowed anti-gay organization casts it further into doubt.

It’s poorly researched conjecture, I’d be wary of using it as evidence against anyone with access to google.

Your neighbor’s age does not say anything how he lived the adult phase of his 96 years. If he took care of his health, did not have unhealthful habits, stayed away from risky homosexual sex practices, why should he not live a long life?

I have not come across a credibly independent and bias free so called scientific study defending homosexual behavior and lifestyle choices that is not politically backed or funded by pro-gay organizations and individuals.
,