Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[LeafByNiggle]

Yet this maxim seems not to hold when others’ opinions are applied to you via the democratic process, as seen in the case of the Colorado baker or the Catholic schools being required to inform students about contraception.

I realize that you are involved with many discussions at once, so I can understand how you might get confused as to who said what. Also it is more convenient for you to lump people into simple groupings and assume everyone in a certain group supports the same points. But I am not the one who is objecting to the ruling in the Colorado baker case. I agree that he should have at least sold them the cupcakes, or any other off-the-shelf item he had for sale. And information about contraception has nothing to do with the core argument about gay marriage. Is this a desperate attempt to change the subject because you have no case in the core argument? I would appreciate, when you are arguing with me, to refer only to positions that I have taken, and not try to get me to support everything anyone has ever said against gay marriage.

Either the majority (or even a vocal minority) always has the right to impose its will on others, willy nilly,…

…whether it is “willy nilly” or “after due consideration” is a matter of debate. I’m not going to give this one to you are a freebie.

… in which case this applies even to liberals…

Of course. I never said it didn’t.

… or they have a duty to consider whether or not their beliefs should be imposed on others, even if they have the ability to do so, in which case this applies even to you.

Yes, and I have done so, and concluded that in this case the decision I am in favor of should be adopted by the society. And I still object to your use of the word “impose” as if it applies only when gay marriage is denied. I maintain it is much more applicable when gay marriage is granted, since the recognition of gay marriage is an obligation on the rest of society more than it is a license for the gay couple.

You have one view on marriage, Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews and others (including me) have another.

I dispute your implication that " Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews" as a group support your view. There are some in those groups that may support gay marriage, but that support is not universal. Anyway, this argument is not about how many support it. It is about whether anyone, even if in the minority, should voluntarily give up his voice in the democratic process. Even if opposition to gay marriage were reduced to a small minority, that minority would still have right, legally and morally, to argue for their view. I don’t understand why you want me to give that right up, just like I would never deny you the right to push for gay marriage as much as you wanted to.

The obvious and normal approach in such situations is for the State to remain neutral, allowing Catholics to implement their restrictive definition of marriage and others to implement a more liberal one, while the State recognises both. As is done with divorcees who want to remarry, or with religions recognising female priests.

That might be possible if the question being decided had no implications beyond those gays who get married. But that’s not the kind of question this is. So for the state to remain “neutral” you would somehow have to define a way to implement gay marriage so that those who did not believe in it did not have support it in any way. That is clearly not possible. So with respect to this question, the state cannot stay neutral in the sense you mean it.

So, to rephrase the question yet again:
If an impartial Judge were ruling on this, what argument could you possibly offer him to justify him imposing your beliefs on others, rather than the impartial solution offered above?
Justifying why you believe what you do is clearly not sufficient…

Why not? That is clearly what the pro gay marriage side has done. No objective proof has ever been offered that society would be better off if gay marriage were adopted. And as I said above, the solution offered could not be impartial as you said. It has to come down on one side or the other - to inconvenience one side or the other.

As for the why in this particular question, I gave my reason, which you didn’t bother to quote or respond to, in the previous position. I refer you back to that posting if you want to know why.

Your conclusion that only couples who actually are raising children should be considered ‘married’ is indeed the obvious end result of your claim that marriage is all about producing the next generation.

Not true. I explained that in my previous posting. The fact that marriage is granted for those not actually raising children is a necessary imperfection in the implementation of societal marriage, whose ideal goal is fostering child raising by the biological parents. Your solution is even less perfect in that it does even less to foster that ideal goal.

 

[JimG]

(It should be pretty clear by now that I put no faith or hope in the modern liberal/enlightenment democratic state and the culture(s) it produces.)

It seems rather ironic then, that with your jaded view of the state as amoral at best, you would advocate for a deconstruction of the institution of marriage which will have the effect of even further destabilizing the state.

Nevertheless, as a Christian I can, and do, take the view that though a society may fall into social and civilizational chaos as a result of such cultural absurdities as same sex marriage, it will ultimately be the Church which begins the job of rebuilding. I don’t relish the thought of living through such social chaos, but I have hope that the Church will rebuild from the ashes, as it has done in the past.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Yes it does appear you two agree. Marriage is for the creation and raising of children. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, and procreate just like heterosexuals can.

I don’t think you’re reading very closely or carefully, Stephen, so I’ll clarify. I did not agree that marriage was for the creation and raising of children (as I indicated earlier, I see this as a provisional purpose, not an essential purpose of marriage). I agreed that neither attraction nor love were required for either procreation or marriage to occur. Homosexuals or heterosexuals can indeed marry other heterosexual or homosexual people of the opposite sex to whom they are not attracted and with whom they are not in love, and in such marriages, they may procreate as much as they please while working out whatever other arrangements (ahem) might be deemed necessary in order for each spouse to feel like their various “needs” are being met.

It sounds like what your saying is this rather desperate thing: it doesn’t matter who you are, whom you love or whom you marry, the only thing that matters for marriage is the desire to procreate. I don’t think such a view actually does marriage any real justice.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Stephen168]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t think you’re reading very closely or carefully, Stephen, so I’ll clarify. I did not agree that marriage was for the creation and raising of children (as I indicated earlier, I see this as a provisional purpose, not an essential purpose of marriage). I agreed that neither attraction nor love were required for either procreation or marriage to occur. Homosexuals or heterosexuals can indeed marry other heterosexual or homosexual people of the opposite sex to whom they are not attracted and with whom they are not in love, and in such marriages, they may procreate as much as they please while working out whatever other arrangements (ahem) might be deemed necessary in order for each spouse to feel like their various “needs” are being met.

It sounds like what your saying is this rather desperate thing: it doesn’t matter who you are, whom you love or whom you marry, the only thing that matters for marriage is the desire to procreate. I don’t think such a view actually does marriage any real justice.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Peter said

There should be no problem then, with **the existing definition of marriage **since, as you claim, homosexual men and women have no real impediment to procreating and raising children.

You provided no reason to disagree.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It seems rather ironic then, that with your jaded view of the state as amoral at best, you would advocate for a deconstruction of the institution of marriage which will have the effect of even further destabilizing the state.

I’m not advocating for the deconstruction of marriage, Jim. But I do think it best to acknowledge the present reality that marriage has been deconstructed for some time now. I don’t think living in marriage fantasy land is particularly productive. If marriage can devolve, it can also improve, but it won’t improve if we mis-diagnose why it’s devolved, or if we persist in treating a symptom as if it’s the illness.

Nevertheless, as a Christian I can, and do, take the view that though a society may fall into social and civilizational chaos as a result of such cultural absurdities as same sex marriage, it will ultimately be the Church which begins the job of rebuilding. I don’t relish the thought of living through such social chaos, but I have hope that the Church will rebuild from the ashes, as it has done in the past.

Cultural absurdities do not appear out of nowhere, Jim. The stage must be set well in advance for such things. Same-sex marriage in itself will not create any sort of civilizational chaos, but the things that set the stage for it (i.e, the cultural forces that allowed marriage to become about the couple and no longer about the society/culture in which the couple lived) will continue to wreak their havoc where they will.

To be honest, I have only ever known marriage to be about “being with the person you love.” That’s the definition I grew up with and that’s the definition that prevails in the culture currently. That’s also the definition that allows for something like same-sex marriage. From my perspective, if we’re to repair the institution of marriage, we don’t start with abolishing same-sex marriage–we start with where marriage is and attempt to reclaim a greater social responsibility for marriage from within. We need to start with how marriage is currently understood by acknowledging first that it’s important to be able to build a life with the person you love, but that if your love is just for the two of you, or just for your family, however you might define “family,” then it’s not good enough. It’s not enough to be for ourselves: we must be for others as well–that includes children, of course, but it also includes neighbors and strangers. I think that if a social dimension is to be consciously added back into marriage, that it not be about whether or not a marriage is producing kids, but whether or not the marriage, the family, however big or small, is for anything apart from itself.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Peter said
You provided no reason to disagree.

Stephen, I suppose you can believe what you like. I’ve clarified my position to you, and the other posts I’ve made in this thread should suffice regarding my reasoning. If you choose to persist in attributing meanings to what I’ve written that are directly contrary even to how I have expressly interpreted what I’ve written to you, then I don’t know that it would be profitable for either of us to continue our engagement.

(Also, I didn’t treat Peter’s phrase “existing definition of marriage” very deeply because I wasn’t sure how he was using the term “existing”–was he speaking to the prevailing definition of marriage, i.e., the definition that currently obtains? Was he speaking to an idealized vision of marriage that existed intellectually or historically? Something else? Ultimately, I went with the literal: “the definition of marriage that currently obtains as understood by the state.” I thought that was clear, given what I wrote re: the federal government. Also, it does not follow that simply because I agreed with him on one point that a subsequent agreement on a separate point was inevitable. I.e., the use of the word “since” implied a consequentiality that I clearly rejected. But regardless…)

Vade cum Deo.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JimG]

To be honest, I have only ever known marriage to be about “being with the person you love.” That’s the definition I grew up with and that’s the definition that prevails in the culture currently.

Well, that’s the ‘definition’ I grew up with too, but it’s not quite complete.

I was always with the persons I loved: mom, dad, brothers, sisters. I didn’t marry any of them.

Marriage as ‘being with the person you love’ always implied other things as well—lifelong permanence, fidelity, openness to life. When as a young man I was about to propose to my wife, I paused briefly to think about whether I could be happy with her at age 65 or 70, because marriage was until death. Could I recite vows that permanent and mean them? Yes, I could. Then I popped the question.

But being “in love” has to be more than a feeling or the marriage is doomed. Nothing permanent can be based solely on feelings. Loving another person means wanting what is best for them and being willing sacrifice oneself in order to make it happen. Willing self-sacrifice leads to joy.

This was not an unusual view of marriage. During my entire childhood and up till the time I married, I never knew a couple who had been divorced. On my street, there were a few Catholics, some protestants, some with no religion. Not one of the kids I knew growing up ever had a divorced parent. Because marriage was for life. Being “in love” is a start, and a necessary one. Being committed for life by an act of the will turns that into a marriage. And the nature of man and woman means that marital love is possible only between man and woman.

 

[Stephen168]

Grace & Peace!

Stephen, I suppose you can believe what you like. I’ve clarified my position to you, and the other posts I’ve made in this thread should suffice regarding my reasoning. If you choose to persist in attributing meanings to what I’ve written that are directly contrary even to how I have expressly interpreted what I’ve written to you, then I don’t know that it would be profitable for either of us to continue our engagement.

(Also, I didn’t treat Peter’s phrase “existing definition of marriage” very deeply because I wasn’t sure how he was using the term “existing”–was he speaking to the prevailing definition of marriage, i.e., the definition that currently obtains? Was he speaking to an idealized vision of marriage that existed intellectually or historically? Something else? Ultimately, I went with the literal: “the definition of marriage that currently obtains as understood by the state.” I thought that was clear, given what I wrote re: the federal government. Also, it does not follow that simply because I agreed with him on one point that a subsequent agreement on a separate point was inevitable. I.e., the use of the word “since” implied a consequentiality that I clearly rejected. But regardless…)

Vade cum Deo.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

No, you have not clarified your position. Your posts are verbose and seem to be to the contrary, yet when I search for your reasoning, it is not there. As I pointed out in post #376. This is why attributing ideas to you which you don’t agree is so easy to do; you don’t say what you mean.

You seem to me, to believe there is no such thing as marriage. By that I mean it is anything you want it to be with no reason to believe it. It is anything the government says it is. Do you believe marriage is something or anything/nothing? Is a chair really a chair or anything the government says it is? Does a ham sandwich have ham or anything the government says it does?

Note: Most states in the USA do not give marriage licenses to same sex couples. The federal government does not issue marriages licenses and has no definition of marriage. So even in this post; what is current? What is historical? What is existing? Just say what you mean.

 

[GEddie]

Has the USG even recognized same sex marriage?

Last I heard, foreign same-sex spouses could not get a permanent US visa to be with their US spouse, because the marriage while legal in the state was not recognized at the USG level; has that changed?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, I suppose you can believe what you like. I’ve clarified my position to you, and the other posts I’ve made in this thread should suffice regarding my reasoning.

The secular argument against same sex marriage is to know what marriage is. I would summarize Marriage as:

A) the purpose of marriage is to create, nourish, and educate the next generation.
B) children have a human right to be raised by their biological parents as a matter of justice.

A & B are natural human conditions which reflect human biology and have been part of humanity forever everywhere, and not an inventions of the Catholic Church.
A & B are why sociality/governments care about marriage and not baptism, communion, confirmation, feelings held between room mates, holy orders, or anointing of the sick.

I showed you it was reasonable in post #285 which I concluded with

Yes, a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents. When for whatever reason that does not happen; the child’s rights have been violated. Society’s recognition of marriage is to ensure, as much as possible, the child’s rights are maintained or it is made as whole as possible. To have a child’s rights violated by accident is sad, but to have them violated by design should be a crime.

Which you ignored in post #286 and offered nothing about your understanding of marriage.

In your next post (#352) You tell us that children are not ends in themselves, which nobody claimed they were. Still you offer nothing on your understanding of marriage.

So, no you have not clarified your position. But I will admit, I do believe that people on the “same sex unions can be marriage” side of the argument have never offered a coherent understanding of marriage. They attack marriage as it has been understood in every society in every time and fail. ‘Appeal to law’ seems to be all they have and it is a fallacy. You are more against something then you are for something.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not advocating for the deconstruction of marriage, Jim. But I do think it best to acknowledge the present reality that marriage has been deconstructed for some time now. I don’t think living in marriage fantasy land is particularly productive. If marriage can devolve, it can also improve, but it won’t improve if we mis-diagnose why it’s devolved, or if we persist in treating a symptom as if it’s the illness.

How is allowing gay marriage an improvement?

To be honest, I have only ever known marriage to be about “being with the person you love.” That’s the definition I grew up with and that’s the definition that prevails in the culture currently. That’s also the definition that allows for something like same-sex marriage.

This aspect of marriage does not need official societal approval. In most places, even without official marriage, same sex couples can live together, “be with the one they love”, and share their life without interference. The aspect of marriage that is in question in only that aspect that binds society to give special recognition to that union. So if we are discussing civil marriage, we should be focusing on aspects of marriage that relate to that wider societal commitment. What objective reason is there for society to confer that commitment?

From my perspective, if we’re to repair the institution of marriage, we don’t start with abolishing same-sex marriage–we start with where marriage is and attempt to reclaim a greater social responsibility for marriage from within. We need to start with how marriage is currently understood by acknowledging first that it’s important to be able to build a life with the person you love, but that if your love is just for the two of you, or just for your family, however you might define “family,” then it’s not good enough. It’s not enough to be for ourselves: we must be for others as well–that includes children, of course, but it also includes neighbors and strangers. I think that if a social dimension is to be consciously added back into marriage, that it not be about whether or not a marriage is producing kids, but whether or not the marriage, the family, however big or small, is for anything apart from itself.

So, in the case of gay marriage, how does societal recognition of the union promote that union to be for something apart from itself?

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, and I have done so, and concluded that in this case the decision I am in favor of should be adopted by the society.

Yet you refuse to say why. Instead you merely assert that “society has decided…]” as though that were the end of the discussion.

In which case, ‘Society has decided’ all sorts of things, including supporting gay marriage in many many places, so those decisions should be at least as barred from debate as any other. So we end up not communicating, not trying to find a reasonable accomodation that (for example) allows gays to live their lives and beliefs and allow you lot to live yours.

Which is why “society has decided, end of discussion” seems a silly response to me.

And I still object to your use of the word “impose” as if it applies only when gay marriage is denied. I maintain it is much more applicable when gay marriage is granted, since the recognition of gay marriage is an obligation on the rest of society more than it is a license for the gay couple.

Rubbish. Not being able to legally marry will affect a couple far far more than your life will ever be influenced by legalising gay marriage. (Assuming, as seems safe, that you never end up in a gay marriage!)

I dispute your implication that " Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews" as a group support your view.

As a group, they do. Its on their websites! Of course this doesn’t mean that every single individual Quaker believes this - even Catholicism, which tries to dictate what all ‘Catholics’ must believe on this topic, fails to do so. Given the polls in various places showing a majority of Catholics supporting gay marriage, my statement is more justifiable than the equivalent statement that “Catholics oppose same sex marriage”!

So with respect to this question, the state cannot stay neutral in the sense you mean it.

Of course it can, in the way I suggested. It allows both groups to celebrate the marriages their beliefs embrace, and recognises both sets of marriages equally.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

How is allowing gay marriage an improvement?

I never said it was, but I did suggest that we need to start with where we are and move from there.

This aspect of marriage does not need official societal approval.

I’m sure it doesn’t, but what part of marriage needs societal approval? What about marriage as it currently stands either implicitly or explicitly suggests that the approval of society was both necessary and has subsequently been granted?

So if we are discussing civil marriage, we should be focusing on aspects of marriage that relate to that wider societal commitment.

As you know (because you quoted me saying as much), I’m all in favor of bringing a greater consciousness of social commitment back to marriage (which I see as, currently, lacking in such a consciousness). But if your argument is that the social good of marriage is either dependent upon or solely constitutive of the ability of spouses to engage in vaginal intercourse…then I think we need to re-evaluate what social good or social commitment actual means or is.

Children, of course, are potential goods to a society. (They’re also, of course, potential threats, depending on how they’re educated, their capacity for moral judgment, etc.) But if they are the only good or the sine qua non good that any marriage (or marriage generally) has to offer society in terms of social commitment, then I don’t quite see the point. I mean, why not offer the benefits of marriage only to people who have demonstrated that they’ve already produced productive citizens? That seems more logical if society actually believes having more useful children on hand are important, no?

But we’re not even talking about children actually being produced in a marriage–we’re one step removed: the potential ability to produce potentially beneficial children has somehow become the definitive social good marriage has in terms of any sort of social commitment. And if that’s the case, then whole thing’s a bit absurd to me–it doesn’t seem to amount to much *actual *social good or any real social commitment. It’s just not enough.

So, in the case of gay marriage, how does societal recognition of the union promote that union to be for something apart from itself?

The whole point of receiving a blessing of any sort is to figure out how it can also be a blessing to others. If marriage is a blessing, even if only by the state, then it is up to each married couple to be a blessing to others in some way–it could be, yes, by raising some children to be extraordinary citizens. It could be by opening their new home to the poor or the destitute in some capacity. There are a million ways to give back, but how a specific couple does return the blessing will depend on their talents, capabilities and experience.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yet you refuse to say why. Instead you merely assert that “society has decided…]” as though that were the end of the discussion.

In order to have any meaningful debate, it is necessary to find some starting point that both sides agree on. If either side keeps asking “why” for every single assertion, nothing can be proved. In this case, I was asserting something that I thought you might agree with as a starting point. That is the assertion that it is a good societal ideal to strive to have children raised by their biological parents. If you disagree with this assertion, then I can prove nothing to you, and I will simply stop trying. But if you do agree with this assertion, then I can proceed. Note that I am not asserting that all children must be raised by their biological parents, or that all children who are not so blessed will turn our badly. I am merely stating that as a valid and desirable goal. So can we start there, or must we quit?

Rubbish. Not being able to legally marry will affect a couple far far more than your life will ever be influenced by legalising gay marriage.

I disagree with this on two ground. The first is that the lack of legalized gay marriage affects the gay couple much less than you make it out to be. As I said before, gay couples can already live together, share their lives, their finances, etc. The day-to-day lives of gay couples would not have to change at all. The second point is that legalization of gay marriage does affect everyone else in ways that have been listed my me and others many times. Even if I am not a baker or a florist or a wedding photographer, I can still be concerned about the message this is sending to our children about the acceptability of what I consider perverted sex. Do you have an argument for why the effect would be so much greater on gay couples? You have asserted as much, but have given no reasons. I have at least tried to give some reasons why the affect is greater on the non-gay segment of society.

As a group, they do. Its on their websites!

If you read the next sentence in my posting you will see that I went on to show how this statistic is irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course it can, in the way I suggested. It allows both groups to celebrate the marriages their beliefs embrace, and recognises both sets of marriages equally.

This level of neutrality and equality is already a fact, even without gay marriage. There is nothing preventing a gay couple from celebrating their union all they want. It is only when they need to drag others into their “celebration” that the lack of legalized gay marriage would even be a factor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I never said it was, but I did suggest that we need to start with where we are and move from there.

You did say *** it [marriage] won’t improve if we mis-diagnose why it’s devolved, or if we persist in treating a symptom as if it’s the illness.*** as a reason (I suppose) of why gay marriage should be legal. If this is indeed a statement in support of gay marriage, then it seems fair to ask how allowing gay marriage would improve marriage. For if you claim that marriage in general is somewhat broken (devolved), and if you believe it is in everyone’s interests to fix it, then why would you want to make a change to marriage that had no reasonable chance to improve marriage? Wouldn’t a random change to the institution be more likely to make it worse rather than better?

I’m sure it doesn’t, but what part of marriage needs societal approval? What about marriage as it currently stands either implicitly or explicitly suggests that the approval of society was both necessary and has subsequently been granted?

I am all for allowing gay marriage that does not need societal approval. If societal approval is not needed, then there is no need to get a license from the government. There would be no need to bind the government (acting on behalf of society) to grant any special privileges that any random couple does not have. There would be no need for the rest of society to treat this couple as married. But if you want all those things, then you want societal approval.

As you know, I’m all in favor of bringing a greater consciousness of social commitment back to marriage (which I see as, currently, lacking in such a consciousness).

You are right. It should be better. But ironically it is just this kind of commitment to the good of society that might prompt some married couples to become active in opposing same sex marriage, along with saving the giant redwoods and sheltering the homeless.

But if your argument is that the social good of marriage is either dependent upon or solely constitutive of the ability of spouses to engage in vaginal intercourse…then I think we need to re-evaluate what social good or social commitment actual means or is.

Let me give you an analogy to explain this. What if someone were to assert that the social good of person X is that he is capable of pushing things into the ground. That would sound a little silly. But then let me stipulate that person X is a farmer, and the things he pushes into the ground are seeds. Now his social good is apparent, since we recognize that in pushing seeds into the ground, he grows food to feed society. So it is not clear to me why it should be invalid to consider the role that men and women play in bringing up the next generation. That seems like a pretty fine social good to me.

Children, of course, are potential goods to a society. (They’re also, of course, potential threats, depending on how they’re educated, their capacity for moral judgment, etc.) But if they are the only good or the sine qua non good that any marriage (or marriage generally) has to offer society in terms of social commitment, then I don’t quite see the point. I mean, why not offer the benefits of marriage only to people who have demonstrated that they’ve already produced productive citizens? That seems more logical if society actually believes having more useful children on hand are important, no?

First of all, it is not the sheer numbers of children that are the good. It is the subsequent nurturing that goes on. Secondly, the reason that the benefits of marriage are given to childless couples is because it is an unavoidable imperfection in society’s implementation of marriage, as I explained in greater detail in post #305 in this thread.

But we’re not even talking about children actually being produced in a marriage–we’re one step removed: the potential ability to produce potentially beneficial children has somehow become the definitive social good marriage has in terms of any sort of social commitment. And if that’s the case, then whole thing’s a bit absurd to me–it doesn’t seem to amount to much *actual *social good or any real social commitment. It’s just not enough.

It may be enough if you consider the statistics. According to the 2010 census, 41% of married couples at that time already had children. And if you consider that many of those remaining 59% were young couples that would subsequently have children, the statistic for how many couples had children at some time in their lifetime would be even higher than 41%. So if a benefit is given that serves its purpose about half the time, that is not too bad. Now consider adding in gay couples to the mix. What is the statistic for the percentage of gay couples who serve the function of raising children? To make it easier, I’ll let you restrict the statistic to areas where gay marriage is already legal, so as to remove the effect of legal restrictions on adoption from the equation as much as possible. I doubt you will come up with anything close to 41%. So if granting marriage benefits to all heterosexual couples is imperfect in meeting its stated goal, granting marriage benefits to gay couples too is even less perfect in meeting that goal.

But I want to get back to your excellent point about encouraging people to make the world a better place. I am all for this. But why should that get all mixed up with coupleness? Couldn’t a single individual also do great things, like opening his home to the homeless, or offering free music lessons to disadvantaged youths? There is no reason that people in groups of two should be specially selected to receive this encouragement - except for the one thing that always does happen only with groups of two: conceiving children.

 

[JimG]

As you know (because you quoted me saying as much), I’m all in favor of bringing a greater consciousness of social commitment back to marriage (which I see as, currently, lacking in such a consciousness). But if your argument is that the social good of marriage is either dependent upon or solely constitutive of the ability of spouses to engage in vaginal intercourse…then I think we need to re-evaluate what social good or social commitment actual means or is.

Let me rephrase this somewhat. The capacity to engage in marital relations is what makes marriage marital. It’s what makes marriage conjugal. Sexual complementarity is of the essence of marriage. Honestly, questioning this basic aspect of marriage always boggles my mind a little. It’s like someone asking, “Why do trains always have to go on tracks? Why do trucks have to go on roads? Why can’t airplanes travel down the highway?” Man and woman are made to be sexually complementary.

Children, of course, can only be generated by a man and a woman. Children are more than “potential goods;” they are actual human beings with human potential. They are the future of the society, the future of social security, the future of economic prosperity. Setting them aside as an optional accessory is one of the major reason society finds itself in the midst of devolving families.

 

[DrTaffy]

If either side keeps asking “why” for every single assertion, nothing can be proved.

Unless, for example, at least one side actually can justify its assertions!

I’ve had some very productive conversations where the other side kept asking ‘why’ - one of the fun things about teaching somebody a subject you know very well is how it forces you to revisit and clarify things you have taken for granted.

What does kill a conversation, however, is when someone does not answer the questions he/she is asked, but instead stonewalls or answers a different question that better advances their rhetorical goal. Like those politicians who respond to the interviewer’s question with what is obviously a prepared statement with no obvious connection to the question.

In this case, I was asserting something that I thought you might agree with as a starting point. That is the assertion that it is a good societal ideal to strive to have children raised by their biological parents.

Which does not answer the fundamental question of why your view should, in this case, be espoused by the State and forced on those who do not agree.

Which is the real question here: I have no problem with you believing what you do about marriage, or about you stating that opinion. These both come firmly under the heading of “not my business”. It is only when you start lobbying and campaigning to have that view legally forced on those who do not share it that I feel you are held to a higher standard of evidence and need to justify why the state should impose your view on others, rather than allowing each side to live and let live.

So can we start there, or must we quit?

Why must we quit, as opposed to agreeing on what society should do when two groups do not agree on issues such as what ‘marriage’ means, who can be priests, or which religion if any is true? Do you not agree that in general the State should allow both sides to live according to their own beliefs and recognise each equally?

After all, why else is a Catholic site talking about “strictly secular argument” if not because you accept that the State should not be imposing one group’s subjective beliefs on another one?

As far as your original claim, that it is good to have children raised by their biological parents, sure. But before you proceed any further with this strawman, please show me who here has denied this?

I disagree with this on two ground. The first is that the lack of legalized gay marriage affects the gay couple much less than you make it out to be. As I said before, gay couples can already live together, share their lives, their finances, etc. The day-to-day lives of gay couples would not have to change at all.

I think you have very little feeling for the day-to-day life of a gay couple. Apart from anything else, refusal of married status is a government-endorsed slap in the face to a minority that are already bullied and persecuted. Every time they have to put their marital status as ‘single’, they are reminded of this. And the government should not be used in this way, not even by you.

Further, the legal institution of marriage is far from trivial. As documented in the movie Bridegroom, gay couples already suffer very concretely as a result of being denied the legal recognition of their couple that heterosexuals take for granted. In that case by having the body of his lover taken away from him and being denied the right to be present at the funeral.

Do you have an argument for why the effect would be so much greater on gay couples?

You are not a persecuted minority. You are not required to live your life affirming every day that your relationship is somehow second-class and abhorred by the state. Your life is not directly affected by this, and trying to claim that you are somehow more effected by whether or not a couple can marry than they are is ridiculous!

DrTaffy;11649935:

It allows both groups to celebrate the marriages their beliefs embrace, and recognises both sets of marriages equally

.

This level of neutrality and equality is already a fact, even without gay marriage. There is nothing preventing a gay couple from celebrating their union all they want. It is only when they need to drag others into their “celebration” that the lack of legalized gay marriage would even be a factor.

See the bit highlighted in red. You are not “dragged into” anything, you just have to keep your nose out of their business!

 

[Stephen168]

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?

There is no good secular argument FOR same sex “marriage.”

 

[DrTaffy]

There is no good secular argument FOR same sex “marriage.”

Same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality in same sex couples.

Unless you argue that gay men dying is a good thing!

 

[Stephen168]

Same sex marriage

What is it?