Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[Peter_Plato]

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.

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!

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

The problem here is that you are framing the issue as if two equally valid perspectives on human nature are being considered. You take it for granted that gay sex is as valid and as justifiable as the “default” purpose for sex - a purpose that IS clearly derived from the natural biological point of why sex exists in nature to begin with. Making such an assumption indicates to me that you are playing a strategic “game” of subterfuge. You are attempting to tear down the “default” position by pretending the “default” view is nothing more than your presentation of it - that sex is merely a personal physical expression. Yet, such an assault is undertaken in order to fundamentally change the default view by pretending it is less than it is and then attempts to rewrite what it is to BE human in order to force everyone else to accept your alternative view as if it were as valid as the default one.

The argument in your post is ultimately an argument from pity - that gay couples SHOULD be accepted because they have had a hard go of it. That is not an argument because you assume what it is that you are pretending to show - that a gay relationship is a fundamentally valid one. The fact that homosexuals feel they are not accepted begs the question of whether their behaviour IS acceptable as a valid form of human sexual expression.

Certainly, every human being has a right and a responsibility to love and cherish other human beings, but why does that entail a concomitant right to engage in sexual behaviour with others indiscriminately just because we choose to and are not prohibited by them?

Clearly, humans have a responsibility to continue the species and pass on the gift of life to their offspring, just as the current generation has a responsibility to care for the environment and keep it a livable place for future generations to live. But where does such an obligation to future generations entail a right to take license with sexual expression and beguile future generations with the sophistry that deep and abiding friendships between two male or two female friends must, can or even should involve sexual activity? Why do we have any reason to think such a notion is one that ought to be transmitted by coercive educational means which mold impressionable minds and by laws that insist it must be so?

It seems to me that SSM advocates have a two tiered burden in terms of building their case, neither of which has been met, despite the fact that the thoughtless masses are being beguiled into believing that the case for SSM is rock solid. It isn’t.

1. SSM advocates have a burden to show objectively that homosexual behaviour is a valid form of human sexual expression and not merely BECAUSE they want or desire to express their sexuality in that way but because it is demonstrably “good” for humanity. This is, after all, a rewriting of what it means to be human. Not merely that a behaviour ought to be tolerated, but that it is demonstrably and definitively GOOD for humanity to positively embrace and promote it to subsequent generations. That burden has NOT been met.
2. They also have a burden to demonstrate objectively that marriage redefinition itself, is fundamentally good for humanity. Not merely that it won’t harm existing marriages, not merely that gay couples want it, nor that it will be good for promoting gay relationships but that fundamentally such a redefinition is, in itself, objectively GOOD for humanity and preferable to the existing one. That has not been done precisely because SSM advocates do not understand, cannot agree to what the existing definition is AND have not properly depicted what the existing definition is or why it exists in the first place. Certainly, there is a lot of nonsense about current marriage laws being “civil” in nature, based on property rights and created for political or economic expediency, but such a presentation is clearly intended to portray the most crippled and base view of marriage possible in order to substitute an equally disfigured SSM view as a qualifying alternative.

An effigy of marriage can be burned, buried and replaced with a drag queen, but that doesn’t mean this little performance is of any lasting worth or meaning even if you can draw a crowd to applaud the spectacle.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality in same sex couples.

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

Perhaps if they gave up same sex behaviour their “mortality rate” would be even better improved. You haven’t proven your case.

If that were proven to be the case would you start advocating for gay men to give up the troublesome behaviour?

Or do YOU think gay men dying is a good thing?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Perhaps if they gave up same sex behaviour their “mortality rate” would be even better improved. You haven’t proven your case.

If that were proven to be the case would you start advocating for gay men to give up the troublesome behaviour?

Or do you think gay men dying is a good thing?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality in same sex couples.

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

You really should read the study you cited…

Conclusions. Despite recent marked reduction in mortality among gay men, Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population.

During 60 316 person-years of observation starting 1 year after a same-sex marriage, 618 deaths (518 in men, 100 in women) occurred in the cohort, yielding crude mortality rates of 13.5 and 4.6 per 1000 person-years among men and women, respectively. These mortality rates were significantly higher than corresponding rates in the general Danish population (for men: SMR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.63, 1.94; for women: SMR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.63; Table 1). **In terms of excess deaths, persons in same-sex marriages experienced 5.92 and 1.15 extra deaths per 1000 person-years among men and women, respectively, compared with death rates in the general Danish population. **

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The problem here is that you are framing the issue as if two equally valid perspectives on human nature are being considered. You take it for granted that gay sex is as valid and as justifiable as the “default” purpose for sex - a purpose that IS clearly derived from the natural biological point of why sex exists in nature to begin with. Making such an assumption indicates to me that you are playing a strategic “game” of subterfuge. You are attempting to tear down the “default” position by pretending the “default” view is nothing more than your presentation of it - that sex is merely a personal physical expression. Yet, such an assault is undertaken in order to fundamentally change the default view by pretending it is less than it is and then attempts to rewrite what it is to BE human in order to force everyone else to accept your alternative view as if it were as valid as the default one.

The argument in your post is ultimately an argument from pity - that gay couples SHOULD be accepted because they have had a hard go of it. That is not an argument because you assume what it is that you are pretending to show - that a gay relationship is a fundamentally valid one. The fact that homosexuals feel they are not accepted begs the question of whether their behaviour IS acceptable as a valid form of human sexual expression.

Certainly, every human being has a right and a responsibility to love and cherish other human beings, but why does that entail a concomitant right to engage in sexual behaviour with others indiscriminately just because we choose to and are not prohibited by them?

Clearly, humans have a responsibility to continue the species and pass on the gift of life to their offspring, just as the current generation has a responsibility to care for the environment and keep it a livable place for future generations to live. But where does such an obligation to future generations entail a right to take license with sexual expression and beguile future generations with the sophistry that deep and abiding friendships between two male or two female friends must, can or even should involve sexual activity? Why do we have any reason to think such a notion is one that ought to be transmitted by coercive educational means which mold impressionable minds and by laws that insist it must be so?

It seems to me that SSM advocates have a two tiered burden in terms of building their case, neither of which has been met, despite the fact that the thoughtless masses are being beguiled into believing that the case for SSM is rock solid. It isn’t.

1. SSM advocates have a burden to show objectively that homosexual behaviour is a valid form of human sexual expression and not merely BECAUSE they want or desire to express their sexuality in that way but because it is demonstrably “good” for humanity. This is, after all, a rewriting of what it means to be human. Not merely that a behaviour ought to be tolerated, but that it is demonstrably and definitively GOOD for humanity to positively embrace and promote it to subsequent generations. That burden has NOT been met.
2. They also have a burden to demonstrate objectively that marriage redefinition itself, is fundamentally good for humanity. Not merely that it won’t harm existing marriages, not merely that gay couples want it, nor that it will be good for promoting gay relationships but that fundamentally such a redefinition is, in itself, objectively GOOD for humanity and preferable to the existing one. That has not been done precisely because SSM advocates do not understand, cannot agree to what the existing definition is AND have not properly depicted what the existing definition is or why it exists in the first place. Certainly, there is a lot of nonsense about current marriage laws being “civil” in nature, based on property rights and created for political or economic expediency, but such a presentation is clearly intended to portray the most crippled and base view of marriage possible in order to substitute an equally disfigured SSM view as a qualifying alternative.

An effigy of marriage can be burned, buried and replaced with a drag queen, but that doesn’t mean this little performance is of any lasting worth or meaning even if you can draw a crowd to applaud the spectacle.

This gets to the pith of the matter, and the post is so eloquent. Frame worthy, worthy of publication!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You have a double standard. When it comes to my side lobbying and campaigning against same-sex marriage, you demand a “higher standard of evidence”. In previous postings you called it “objective evidence”. You have said that it is not good enough to say I believe it is better this way. But when it comes to those who support same-sex marriage, that standard is thrown out the window. You do not demand that they produce any such evidence. All they have to do to lobby for their point of view is assert that they believe it is right to allow same-sex marriage. If you demand such objective evidence from me, discounting all of my beliefs for the purpose, then you should be willing to do the same for your side. Don’t demand that I do what you have refused to do.

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?

Why do you keep asking this question that I have answered directly many times? The question of gay marriage is not a question of allowing both sides to live according to their own beliefs. It is about adopting a view binding on all of society. That’s the difference between letting a gay couple live together and treating the gay couple as married in civil matters.

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?

I don’t see how that follows. Why is asking for secular argument inconsistent with having the State impose views on those in that State who do not agree?

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.

As Peter Plato so eloquently explained in his posting, just because gay people have had a hard go of it, that does not mean this particular remedy is appropriate.

As for people feeling like second class citizens, consider a single women who is having a hard time finding a mate. Suppose she really would like to get married, but due to some problems (perhaps her appearance, or personality, or even a birth defect), no guy has expressed an interest. Every year when she does her taxes, she has to check the box “single”. Given her desires, this is a slap in the face to be reminded of her failure to find a guy. So by your argument, we should just change the law and let her declare herself married. You see, it doesn’t make much sense in my example, and it makes no more sense in yours.

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 suspect you will deny it when I develop my argument from it, so I just want you to go on record as agreeing with it before I waste my time developing it into an argument. But I still am not convinced that you do agree on this starting point because your restatement of my assertion was so watered down. I was asking if you agree, not only that it is good, but that the raising of children by their biological parents is a valid societal goal - something that could be used to justify public policy. If you can’t agree to that fundamental assertion, then we are indeed done.

 

[DrTaffy]

The problem here is that you are framing the issue as if two equally valid perspectives on human nature are being considered.

Your ‘problem’ here would seem to be with the Golden Rule. I would say, rather, that the State should treat the two subjective viewpoints equally, unless and until one is either shown to be objectively true, or can at least provide an objective argument that it should be treated preferentially.

Do you disagree? If so, which subjective viewpoint should be promoted by the State and why? :ehh:

You take it for granted that gay sex is as valid and as justifiable as the “default” purpose for sex

Why are you talking about sex, suddenly? Gay sex is already legal anywhere that is considering gay marriage.

I was talking about marriage. Which, I would argue, is about two people who are in love and are pledging to spend the rest of their lives together, sharing their home, their property, their money and their lives. Why you think this is cheap and tawdry compared to your glorious and noble definition of marriage being solely about male genitalia ejaculating (at least potentially) inside female genitalia is beyond me.

1. SSM advocates have a burden to show objectively that homosexual behaviour is a valid form of human sexual expression and not merely BECAUSE they want or desire to express their sexuality in that way but because it is demonstrably “good” for humanity.

Like it or not, homosexuals are part of humanity, and being allowed to express their sexuality is clearly good for them and has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

1. They also have a burden to demonstrate objectively that marriage redefinition itself, is fundamentally good for humanity.

A) It is not ‘redefinition’ so much as not accepting you forcing your definition on all the groups who do not agree with yours. When Christians marched into North and South America and bullied the locals into a heterosexual-only definition of marriage, did they “demonstrate objectively that marriage redefinition itself, is fundamentally good for humanity”? Nope.
B) There are clear objective benefits. To the couples in question, clearly, and in the objective evidence provided above that same sex marriage reduced mortality in same sex couples. On the other hand, the only obvious ‘harm’ to legitimising same sex marriage is to those who will no longer have a government-endorsed statement that same sex couples are second class citizens with which to torment gays. I hardly think such sadistic pleasure is deserving of government support!
C) Righting an injustice, such as unjustified oppression of a minority by a larger group, is a worthwhile end in itself. If you cannot show why your view of marriage should be forced on those who do not share it, nothing more is required to show that that law should be changed.

 

[DrTaffy]

Perhaps if they gave up same sex behaviour their “mortality rate” would be even better improved.

And if you gave up your Catholic Faith and objections to homosexuality, this issue would be resolved.

Do you think that that is a reasonable accomodation between your beliefs and theirs?

If that were proven to be the case would you start advocating for gay men to give up the troublesome behaviour?

I already do advocate, actively, against abuse of drink and drugs, and risky sexual behaviour. All you demonstrate here is your ignorance of me.

You really should read the study you cited…

I did. And more to the point, I understood it. What do you not understand?

Homosexuals, and gay men in particular, have a higher mortality rate than the general population. The obvious explanation being STDs from risky behaviour, and higher stress and abuse of drinks and drugs. This study showed that after same sex couples were married, this higher level of mortality eventually returned to the same rate as the general population - rapidly for lesbians, more slowly for gay men.

So marriage presumably caused homosexuals to give up the self-destructive behaviour that is causing this mortality.

So the anti-gay-marriage lobby, by opposing same sex marriage and spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on that goal, is directly contributing to the deaths of gay men. That, to me, requires a lot of moral justification.

 

[DrTaffy]

You have a double standard. When it comes to my side lobbying and campaigning against same-sex marriage, you demand a “higher standard of evidence”.

When you are trying to enforce your views on others, yes. Noone is trying to force any views on you. You will not be forced to marry another person of the same sex just because it becomes legal. Nor will your life change at all just because Adam and Steve across town get the legal recognition and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.

(Also, again, I am mainly here to understand your views, not to promote or explain mine)

All they have to do to lobby for their point of view is assert that they believe it is right to allow same-sex marriage. If you demand such objective evidence from me, discounting all of my beliefs for the purpose, then you should be willing to do the same for your side. Don’t demand that I do what you have refused to do.

I am very happy for the law to allow you to live your lives according to your beliefs.
If the gay lobby started trying to force the Catholic Church to carry out same sex weddings I would be at least as strict with them as I have been with you.

Why do you keep asking this question that I have answered directly many times?

Because you have not answered it. You avoid it, as you do again here:

The question of gay marriage is not a question of allowing both sides to live according to their own beliefs. It is about adopting a view binding on all of society. That’s the difference between letting a gay couple live together and treating the gay couple as married in civil matters.

Of course it is about allowing both sides to live according to their own beliefs. If Quakers can marry gay couples and have that legally recognised, that is in no way ‘binding’ anything on you. No more than allowing Protestants to have female priests ‘binds’ you to reject the Catholic belief that only males can be priests.

On the other hand, refusing legal reconition to such Quaker marriages is a very clear imposition of your beliefs onto Quakers. And a clear state-endorsed slap in the face to an already-mistreated minority.

I don’t see how that follows. Why is asking for secular argument inconsistent with having the State impose views on those in that State who do not agree?

It is more that looking for a secular explanation implicitly suggests that you accept that a religious one doesn’t cut the mustard.

As for people feeling like second class citizens, consider a single women who is having a hard time finding a mate.

Utterly invalid comparison.
A) Unlike the gay couple, the State is not preventing her from gettying married. Private individuals are not held to the same standard, and are certainly not required to marry her!
B) This example was to show that marriage does make a huge difference to couples. Your hypothetical woman’s life is also dramatically effected by not being married, wouldn’t you say?
You cheapen marriage by asserting that it would make no difference to gay couples - it would. As shown very dramatically by the poor boy who had his boyfriend’s body taken away by his homophobic family and was even barred from the funeral.

I suspect you will deny it when I develop my argument from it, so I just want you to go on record as agreeing with it before I waste my time developing it into an argument. But I still am not convinced that you do agree on this starting point because your restatement of my assertion was so watered down.

I have answered your question, but you refuse to answer mine.

But before you proceed any further with this strawman, please show me who here has denied this?

Or, if you prefer, what has this to do with why you should be allowed to force your view of marriage on others? Has, for example, anyone here presented a view of marriage that would bar fertile heterosexual couples from marrying?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When you are trying to enforce your views on others, yes. Noone is trying to force any views on you. You will not be forced to marry another person of the same sex just because it becomes legal. Nor will your life change at all just because Adam and Steve across town get the legal recognition and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.

This is not true. The acceptance of gay marriage is an enforcement on me. It requires me individually, and through my government to treat Adam and Steve as married. Individually, in the case of providing wedding-related services, if I happen to be in that business. And through my government in that whatever benefits (financial and otherwise) the government grants to married couples, will be done with my tax money. You asked why your taxes should go to support heterosexual marriages. Then unless you subscribe to the double standard you should be willing to say why my taxes should go to support gay marriages. Clearly a double standard.

Of course it is about allowing both sides to live according to their own beliefs. If Quakers can marry gay couples and have that legally recognised, that is in no way ‘binding’ anything on you.

I explained how it is binding on me above.

Utterly invalid comparison.

A) Unlike the gay couple, the State is not preventing her from gettying married. Private individuals are not held to the same standard, and are certainly not required to marry her!
B) This example was to show that marriage does make a huge difference to couples. Your hypothetical woman’s life is also dramatically effected by not being married, wouldn’t you say?
​

Yes, it does make a huge difference in her life, but that particular difference is not one that the State should solve for her.

You cheapen marriage by asserting that it would make no difference to gay couples - it would. As shown very dramatically by the poor boy who had his boyfriend’s body taken away by his homophobic family and was even barred from the funeral.

That is sad, but allowing gay marriage is not the appropriate remedy.

I have answered your question, but you refuse to answer mine.:
**But before you proceed any further with this strawman, please show me who here has denied this?
**

No one has denied it. So will you go on record as accepting it or not?

Or, if you prefer, what has this to do with why you should be allowed to force your view of marriage on others? Has, for example, anyone here presented a view of marriage that would bar fertile heterosexual couples from marrying?

That is the argument I am going to make. But it is useless to make it if you don’t accept the starting point. Still no answer, eh?​

 

[JButky]

Of course it is about allowing both sides to live according to their own beliefs. If Quakers can marry gay couples and have that legally recognised, that is in no way ‘binding’ anything on you. No more than allowing Protestants to have female priests ‘binds’ you to reject the Catholic belief that only males can be priests.

On the other hand, refusing legal reconition to such Quaker marriages is a very clear imposition of your beliefs onto Quakers. And a clear state-endorsed slap in the face to an already-mistreated minority.

This is a not the case however. It is not simply about living according to one’s beliefs or desires. That is a cheap, strawman argument. What is currently be sought is equality of “gay” marriage. Inherently a homosexual and hetereosexual union are from the start, not inherently equal. A “just” state recognizes that for it to continue and replenish its population for the good of society, it requires the inherent trait of procreation. Circumstances of infertility in this inherent trait do not detract from what it is. They are merely imperfect forms by degree. Procreation in homosexual unions is inherently impossible. There is therefore no equity that a State can grant for homosexual unions. To even attempt it is absurd.

It is also just as important that Society not merely be propagated through polygamy, fornication, etc. It must be propagated justly or it will consume itself (counterproductive to the purpose of societal existence). Offspring outside of the inherent marital unit or failed marriages are problems working against a just society Inherently, Success is best accomplished by the basic monogamous one man, one woman relationship which is the most effective for the resulting propagation and responsible upbringing of the continuing members of that society. The State therefore supports not just any marriage for its greatest chance of success, but a specific type of marriage IF it intends its society to remain a just society. Without that, a non just society is propagated and subsequently made further unjust by equating lifestyles that are in direct contradiction to the inherent form of marriage as inherently intended.

So it is not as you say, This is a very important secular matter and it can’t simply be determined merely by everyone being allowed to follow their set of contradictory beliefs about it. And that is especially true when those beliefs are contradictory to inherent forms and essences. Gay marriage is an illogical proposal currently being sought in the secular arena. For society to continue to be a just society (it’s greatest chance for continued success), beliefs contrary to the inherent form of society must be resisted rather than codified.

 

[Lokadottir]

This is a not the case however. It is not simply about living according to one’s beliefs or desires. That is a cheap, strawman argument. What is currently be sought is equality of “gay” marriage. Inherently a homosexual and hetereosexual union are from the start, not inherently equal. A “just” state recognizes that for it to continue and replenish its population for the good of society, it requires the inherent trait of procreation. Circumstances of infertility in this inherent trait do not detract from what it is. They are merely imperfect forms by degree. Procreation in homosexual unions is inherently impossible. There is therefore no equity that a State can grant for homosexual unions. To even attempt it is absurd.

Men and women are inherently different. Is one more equal than the other?

It is also just as important that Society not merely be propagated through polygamy, fornication, etc. It must be propagated justly or it will consume itself (counterproductive to the purpose of societal existence). Offspring outside of the inherent marital unit or failed marriages are problems working against a just society Inherently, Success is best accomplished by the basic monogamous one man, one woman relationship which is the most effective for the resulting propagation and responsible upbringing of the continuing members of that society. The State therefore supports not just any marriage for its greatest chance of success, but a specific type of marriage IF it intends its society to remain a just society. Without that, a non just society is propagated and subsequently made further unjust by equating lifestyles that are in direct contradiction to the inherent form of marriage as inherently intended.

Ah yes the “cats and dogs with live together” argument. If you look for any amount of time there are BOOKS discussing different societal structures for propagation.

So it is not as you say, This is a very important secular matter and it can’t simply be determined merely by everyone being allowed to follow their set of contradictory beliefs about it. And that is especially true when those beliefs are contradictory to inherent forms and essences. Gay marriage is an illogical proposal currently being sought in the secular arena. For society to continue to be a just society (it’s greatest chance for continued success), beliefs contrary to the inherent form of society must be resisted rather than codified.

The inherent form of society in the US from the past include slavery and women being a man’s property. Both of these had more ground to stand on in the bible than that of not allowing same sex marriage.

Society has been very very wrong in the past and I doubt that isn’t true now.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This study showed that after same sex couples were married, this higher level of mortality eventually returned to the same rate as the general population - rapidly for lesbians, more slowly for gay men.
:

That isn’t what the study showed at all. The rates were reduced but remained significantly higher than the general population. I suggest you read the study again.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The inherent form of society in the US from the past include slavery and women being a man’s property.

I don’t think you are using the word “inherent” correctly here, whereas JButky was using it correctly.

Both of these had more ground to stand on in the bible than that of not allowing same sex marriage.

Really? You think there are more quotes justifying slavery than quotes against homosexuality?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your ‘problem’ here would seem to be with the Golden Rule. I would say, rather, that the State should treat the two subjective viewpoints equally, unless and until one is either shown to be objectively true, or can at least provide an objective argument that it should be treated preferentially.

Do you disagree? If so, which subjective viewpoint should be promoted by the State and why? :ehh:

Here you go “framing” again. This isn’t about two subjective viewpoints. One viewpoint is biological and inherent in the physiological nature of what it means to be a human being ordered as it is to the possibility of creating real flesh and bone objectively and undeniably required for new life. The other, IS a subjective perspective that purports to be as valid, but clearly is impotent to produce anything but bluster.

It isn’t about which “subjective” viewpoint the state should promote, it is about the state waking up from its denial of reality and doing something to curtail the sudden onset of its tragic blindness with regard to objectivity. A malaise of impotency spawned by fear of intimidation from those who have convinced themselves that their stunningly incoherent subjective viewpoint - i.e., that all perspectives are ONLY subjective - is the only “objective” (albeit inconsistently so) consistent viewpoint. (Just ignore the logical absurdity that smacks you squarely between the ears whenever this nonsense is gussied up and paraded as “the truth.”)

 

[DrTaffy]

That isn’t what the study showed at all. The rates were reduced but remained significantly higher than the general population. I suggest you read the study again.

Right back at you.

For men, mortality was 165% higher than in the general male population during the 1- to 3-year period after the marriage (SMR = 2.65; 95% CI = 2.28, 3.06; n=187 deaths) but gradually diminished to general population levels in the 13 to 14 years after the marriage (SMR=1.02; 95%
CI = 0.70, 1.42; n = 34 deaths). For women, mortality was 91% higher in the period 1 to 3 years after the marriage (SMR=1.91; 95% CI=1.36, 2.60: n=40 deaths), but mortality rates did not deviate significantly from those of the general female population in subsequent periods 4 or more years after the marriage (n=60 deaths).

Now, it is past Taffy’s bedtime. More tomorrow.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is more that looking for a secular explanation implicitly suggests that you accept that a religious one doesn’t cut the mustard.

I was not giving a religious argument. I was giving an argument based on morality. You do believe there is such a thing as morality independent of religion, don’t you? Suppose one group decides that it is OK to murder someone outside their group. That is their view. But the state steps in and imposes on them the morality of the larger society that says murder is wrong. Then suppose a thread was started here that asked for “Good strictly secular argument against murder”. Would you object to someone answering that thread with “I think murder is immoral, and it should be outlawed.” on the grounds that it was religiously based? It is true that many religions do have a belief that murder is wrong. But that does not mean that all arguments against murder are based in religion, and are therefore not secular. Similarly, it is fair game to consider arguments against same sex marriage that are based in morality. Or course people may still argue whether this or that is moral. But their arguments can still be consider secular. So I hope that has put to rest once and for all the issue of secularity of arguments.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

(Also, again, I am mainly here to understand your views, not to promote or explain mine)

If that were true, you wouldn’t take such pains to object to those views when they are not to your liking.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right back at you.

Now, it is past Taffy’s bedtime. More tomorrow.

Thanks for pointing out my oversight. However, we can focus on a few other problems inherent in the study.

1. Given that in Denmark only 1-6% of the gay population is married, the marriage statistics in the study could be biased towards those gay individuals who are substantially more conscious of and committed to behaviours and habits conducive to their welfare. In other words, it may be that civil marriage acts as a “selection” mechanism that has filtered those gay individuals who are more likely to care about their well-being (and therefore live longer) and is not indicative of how much the remaining gay population will benefit from marriage. It may be that as those who are “less inclined” to marry become married due to social pressure, convention, acceptance, etc., the larger, more random, sampling of the data - incorporating as it will the increasingly “less committed” to marriage - there may be a correlative decline in life expectancy. In other words, those first “responders” to marriage may be, by the very fact of their inclination to be the first to marry, those markedly more likely to benefit from it. As more and more gay individuals get married, the death rate may spike up again since a less “elite” sample will provide the data base.
2. By comparing the numbers of gay married males and females to the general population in terms of death rates, the authors are not showing that gay marriage is of positive benefit overall, since the death rate is no different from the general population. My challenge to you was to show not merely that gay individuals themselves are better off in gay marriages but that gay marriage is objectively good for society. Gay individuals may, in fact, be better off in heterosexual marriages. These statistics do not show that. In fact, one of the authors from your study presents data in another study that death rates for the general population are markedly higher than death rates for those in heterosexual marriages.

Results HRs for overall mortality changed markedly over time, most notably for persons in same-sex marriage. **In 2000–2011, opposite-sex married persons (reference, HR = 1) had consistently lower mortality than persons in other marital status categories in women (HRs 1.37–1.89) and men (HRs 1.37–1.66). **Mortality was particularly high for same-sex married women (HR = 1.89), notably from suicide (HR = 6.40) and cancer (HR = 1.62), whereas rates for same-sex married men (HR = 1.38) were equal to or lower than those for unmarried, divorced and widowed men. Prior marriages (whether opposite-sex or same-sex) were associated with increased mortality in both women and men (HR = 1.16–1.45 per additional prior marriage).

Source: ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/03/08/ije.dyt024.short?rss=1

Clearly, the data shows that heterosexual marriages are far better for promoting longevity than any other tested factor and that divorce and remarriage increases mortality per incidence.

You haven’t demonstrated a positive benefit for same sex marriage, merely that it is not detrimental as far as the general population goes. However, lasting heterosexual marriages do have significant positive benefit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Society has been very very wrong in the past and I doubt that isn’t true now.

How would you know that society was “very very wrong” in the past when you are so uncertain about the present condition?

What would you know what “wrong” is (especially of the very very variety) without a coherent and explicit idea of what “right” is?

Define what “right” is as a clearly defined measuring instrument so we can make sense of how society was “very very wrong” in the past.