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.
In the end same-sex marriage all comes down to one fact: the death of common sense.

Lunatics are running the asylum.
 
weller2 said:
  1. It is in the interest of the state that people have children.
  2. Heterosexual marriages are an optimal way of producing and raising children.
  3. Therefore, the state should support heterosexual couples (marriages getting tax breaks etc.)
  4. If you give tax breaks etc. to homosexual couples than this defeats the whole purpose of marriage, as far as the state is concerned (reproduction).
Click to expand...
I hate this argument. We don’t NEED lots and lots of babies. ESPECIALLY since people have a huge life expectancy. We’re going to run out of resources. My mother always said she just replaced her and Dad with my brother and me. We have plenty of people.
 
Lokadottir said:
I hate this argument. We don’t NEED lots and lots of babies. ESPECIALLY since people have a huge life expectancy. We’re going to run out of resources. My mother always said she just replaced her and Dad with my brother and me. We have plenty of people.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that will not reassure those nations which are experiencing drastic drops in fertility rates leading to depopulation and economic contraction. The next big global crisis will be the crisis of depopulation. We are already seeing the leading edge of it.
 
JimG said:
I’m afraid that will not reassure those nations which are experiencing drastic drops in fertility rates leading to depopulation and economic contraction. The next big global crisis will be the crisis of depopulation. We are already seeing the leading edge of it.
Click to expand...
But not here. I believe Japan has that problem and the main reason is business men aren’t home long enough to do the do.
More importantly legalizing gay marriage won’t effect the birth rate. Gay guys don’t just go make babies because they can’t marry the man they love.
 
Lokadottir said:
But not here. I believe Japan has that problem and the main reason is business men aren’t home long enough to do the do.
More importantly legalizing gay marriage won’t effect the birth rate. Gay guys don’t just go make babies because they can’t marry the man they love.
Click to expand...
They don’t make babies because they are not capable of marital sex. That’s why the relationship can never be marital.

But depopulation will be a growing problem nonetheless. It already is. A great many nations are experiencing fertility rates below replacement level. That’s bad news socially and economically. It will be the next big global problem.

But as you say, we can’t blame gays for that. We can blame the widespread acceptance of contraception, as a starting point.
 
JimG said:
They don’t make babies because they are not capable of marital sex. That’s why the relationship can never be marital.

But depopulation will be a growing problem nonetheless. It already is. A great many nations are experiencing fertility rates below replacement level. That’s bad news socially and economically. It will be the next big global problem.

But as you say, we can’t blame gays for that. We can blame the widespread acceptance of contraception, as a starting point.
Click to expand...
But my argument is about a particular argument against gay marriage because of reproductive reasons.
"1. It is in the interest of the state that people have children.
  1. Heterosexual marriages are an optimal way of producing and raising children.
  2. Therefore, the state should support heterosexual couples (marriages getting tax breaks etc.)
  3. If you give tax breaks etc. to homosexual couples than this defeats the whole purpose of marriage, as far as the state is concerned (reproduction). "
By that logic the state would not allow a women whose ovaries had been removed due to cancer to marry.
 
Lokadottir said:
But my argument is about a particular argument against gay marriage because of reproductive reasons.
"1. It is in the interest of the state that people have children.
  1. Heterosexual marriages are an optimal way of producing and raising children.
  2. Therefore, the state should support heterosexual couples (marriages getting tax breaks etc.)
  3. If you give tax breaks etc. to homosexual couples than this defeats the whole purpose of marriage, as far as the state is concerned (reproduction). "
By that logic the state would not allow a women whose ovaries had been removed due to cancer to marry.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see your point, but ultimately I disagree with it. It seems to me that the State’s primary interest in marriage has to be that as an institution, it will help to ensure the next generation of citizens. The propagation and education of the next generation is something that the state must take an interest in. It need not dictate that every marriage must produce children. The mere fact that man and woman together are capable of bringing up a new generation is sufficient for it to take an interest. In that respect it has no particular interest in supporting liaisons which have no possibility of producing such a result.
 
Lokadottir said:
I hate this argument. We don’t NEED lots and lots of babies. ESPECIALLY since people have a huge life expectancy. We’re going to run out of resources. My mother always said she just replaced her and Dad with my brother and me. We have plenty of people.
Click to expand...
This is an argument about state support of marriage, not an argument about what marriage is. They are two different arguments.
 
Stephen168 said:
This is an argument about state support of marriage, not an argument about what marriage is. They are two different arguments.
Click to expand...
acknowledged. I’m pointing to the failings in a specific argument given towards the start of this thread. Which I referenced earlier.
 
Lokadottir said:
But my argument is about a particular argument against gay marriage because of reproductive reasons.
"1. It is in the interest of the state that people have children.
  1. Heterosexual marriages are an optimal way of producing and raising children.
  2. Therefore, the state should support heterosexual couples (marriages getting tax breaks etc.)
  3. If you give tax breaks etc. to homosexual couples than this defeats the whole purpose of marriage, as far as the state is concerned (reproduction). "
By that logic the state would not allow a women whose ovaries had been removed due to cancer to marry.
Click to expand...
That is not where the logic leads because there may be other compelling reasons to allow a woman without ovaries to marry. In fact, it is this same faulty conclusion on your part that some have used to argue that because infertile couples are allowed to marry that gay partners should be, as well.

The difficulty with the argument is that it fails to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions, and that exceptions to a principle can function to prove the principle.

Mammals give birth to live young. The fact that two egg-laying mammals (platypus and echidna) exist is not a sufficient reason to argue that, therefore, all egg-laying animals should henceforth be included in the class mammalia.

The questions regarding mammals - and a similar set can be constructed regarding marriage - is: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an animal to be classed as a mammal? What exceptions can be included without rendering the word completely meaningless?

To include all egg laying animals means that the word “mammal” is rendered completely devoid of meaning because birds, amphibians, reptiles and insects would all become mammals, making all other distinctive mammalian characteristics worthless.

That is precisely the problem with opening the definition of marriage to any inherently sterile pair just because some sterile heterosexual pairs could exist, like egg-laying mammals, as exceptions.

To redefine “marriage” as a “loving and permanent commitment” makes the word “marriage” utterly USELESS as a legal or descriptive term because any friendship or committed relationship becomes, de facto, a “marriage.” The relationship between an elderly woman and her caregiving daughter would be a marriage. Ditto with two brothers who look after each other. Ditto with Platonic friendships, fishing buddies, comedy teams, folk singing duos, etc. etc.

If sex is irrelevant to a marriage, then it is irrelevant and ANY committed relationship becomes a marriage. If it IS relevant, then why is it? Because, perhaps, it is the capacity to create new human beings - that is fundamentally why marriage IS important to human society.
 
This thread sure exploded overnight. In response to the op I say aside from statistical arguments as to quality of life/life expectancy, etc … there is not a “good” secular argument against. Like many have said, there are many things that are morally wrong that the law allows. I get cornered on this issue from time to time with my wife (she has no issue with gay marriage). My go to response now is, “God’s Word says its wrong and your beef is with Him not me”.
 
Mr_Clean said:
there is not a “good” secular argument against.
Click to expand...
I guess this depends a bit on how you defend “good”, but there is one argument that I think should be considered - but it will probably be unpopular with many LGB activists and “conservative” religious alike:

Marriage has, in most (if not all) cultures been a religious institution. While states acknowledged them, states weren’t secular, and hence the “secular marriage” was simply a reflection of the religious marriage - in Catholic countries, marriage and annulments of such could only be done by the Church (but I think Jews were allowed to govern their own marriage laws, most places?).

But in a secular society, the state shouldn’t have any part in religious institutions. Hence, the state has no business redefining marriage. Actually, the state shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage; that should be up to the individual religions. If a religion wants to redefine marriage, fine. That’s up to them. But the state should not. Having a secular state governing marriage registries is like having it govern baptism registries - it should not be the state’s business.

I think the best thing to do for the secular state would be to remove marriage from the law, and replace it with recognition of unions between two people, to make sure the legal framework around marriages still exists. Also, unions should be registered directly with the state - it should be completely separate from the Church. That way, no one will ever be allowed to try and force the Church into doing something She cannot do, and other religions can do as they want, too. In addition, for those who see the civil part of their marriage as a forced recognition of same-sex unions (I’ve seen some people in my country complain about this after SSM was introduced), there would be the added bonus of being able to enter a Catholic marriage without having it registered by the state. Canon law already allows for this, but as an exception that has to be given on a national basis, if I remember correctly.

Note that I’m not necessarily a proponent of a completely secularized state, but I’m pragmatic. The Western world is secularized, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. I think the best way to ensure religious freedom then is to remove religious institutions from secular law. It would also be a recognition of the fact that the state has no authority to redefine marriage.
 
It’d be too hard to read everything already written in this topic, so I’ll just post a secular argument I heard and used a lot.

As stated already in ancient Rome (where sodomy, pedophilia etc were considered quite normal), man and woman enter a marriage with a wish of having children. That’s not the only reason, but most common. The state has an obligation to defend everything that is good for society, and children definitely are, therefore state should defend marriage. Of course, there are people who can not or don’t want to have children, but that is their private matter, which has nothing to do with the government. Second reason for state to defend traditional marriage is the fact that a vast majority of people share a view in which a monogamous heterosexual marriage is considered normal and natural, in accordance with their faith and culture.
There is no real reason why gay marriage should be allowed, except that certain people (a very small group) want it. No one forbids you to love who you want, but the state (government) should not be obliged to legalize each and every union. There is an obvious state interest in traditional marriage, while gay “marriage” is only submitting to popular trend and interest of a certain group.
 
I am going to repost this argument against same sex marriage because I do think it is a strong argument against redefinition of marriage precisely because it is “gay” individuals who are the ones doing the actual discrimination and the prejudices of one group ought not receive state sanction.

No one commented on it when it was first posted, but I would like to hear any possible rebuttals.
Peter_Plato said:
One issue that never is raised is the fact that a same sex oriented individual is formally guilty of discrimination against persons of the opposite sex merely because of a distaste with regard to an identifiable physical feature - their gender.

Just like any card carrying white KKK member in good standing who will not live beside black families because of his “personal distaste” for members of the black race, same sex oriented individuals will not live with or bear children with persons of the opposite sex because of a personal physical abhorrence towards them. Being unwilling to have sex and have children with opposite sex individuals seems very like discrimination against other classes of “people” based upon an identifiable physical trait.

Perhaps the reason many right thinking people find this “ploy” concerning redefining marriage on the part of SSM advocates disconcerting is that implicit in its justification is that “personal aversion” is being invoked as a warrant for allowing institutional discrimination by gays and lesbians against the opposite sex, when we rightly cringe at the same “personal aversion” reasoning being invoked to justify other forms of discrimination.

Same sex orientation itself, perhaps, should be viewed in terms of being discriminatory against a whole class of people because of “personal aversion.” Seems to be a very inadequate and, in fact, indefensible reason for advocating same sex marriage.

Perhaps the baker [in Colorado] is “fighting the good fight” against discrimination after all. It’s just that now the class (SSM advocates) doing the discriminating, like pre-civil war slave owners, have the judicial system on their side. They have succeeded in blinding the majority behind a smoke screen of pity in order to squirrel in their prejudices and make them appear licit, when, in fact, they are not.
Click to expand...
 
Peter_Plato said:
I am going to repost this argument against same sex marriage because I do think it is a strong argument against redefinition of marriage precisely because it is “gay” individuals who are the ones doing the actual discrimination and the prejudices of one group ought not receive state sanction.

No one commented on it when it was first posted, but I would like to hear any possible rebuttals.
Click to expand...
That would be like saying I’m discriminating against males because I’m straight or against horses because I’m not into beastiality? I think this is more “little man syndrome” than anything else. Take any minority group - they all desire something the majority has. The minority will always try to be equal or superior to the majority. It is a power play on the part of gay activist to obtain a union that is equal to a hetero marriage. The Church definition is only important to God and those who obey him. The lost don’t care what you or I or God thinks.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I am going to repost this argument against same sex marriage because I do think it is a strong argument against redefinition of marriage precisely because it is “gay” individuals who are the ones doing the actual discrimination and the prejudices of one group ought not receive state sanction.

No one commented on it when it was first posted, but I would like to hear any possible rebuttals.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but this is nonsensical! There is no distaste for the opposite sex outside of the sexual attraction! Thats not a prejudice its a preference. Do you have a distaste for being around the same sex no, you just don’t want to do them! AND THAT IS FINE! This is far more like claiming blacks against segregation were discriminating against whites! Not true! They just wanted to sit at the same d*mn counter!!!
 
Mr_Clean said:
This thread sure exploded overnight. In response to the op I say aside from statistical arguments as to quality of life/life expectancy, etc … there is not a “good” secular argument against. Like many have said, there are many things that are morally wrong that the law allows. I get cornered on this issue from time to time with my wife (she has no issue with gay marriage). My go to response now is, “God’s Word says its wrong and your beef is with Him not me”.
Click to expand...
The argument for or against homosexual acts is not the same argument about marriage per se. Just as the arguments for or against government support of marriage is also a different argument. The secular argument “against same sex marriage” is the argument about the question: What is marriage? And, Are same sex unions marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top