Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[JButky]

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

Strawman Argument, and as has already been stated, your use of inherent is incorrect. Marriage refers to a pairing in the given inherent context. An individual woman or man is not a pairing where marriage is. So yours is not a valid reference for comparison. Your objection is therefore invalid as a non-sequitur.

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.

As I acknowledged and even explained in my original post regarding forms of societal propagation. You missed the point since you have not addressed it given that this reference was included in my point and my subsequent reasoning was ignored.

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.

Again misuse of “inherent”, confusing circumstances with essence. Your objections are not relevant to the arguments I presented and therefore dismissed as such.

Unfortunately, this is why these issues become difficult to discuss, you need to address the actual argument presented and point out any logical errors. Without having done so, your objections are easily dismissed.

 

[DrTaffy]

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.

No it doesn’t. At most you have to accept that the state recognises same sex marriages as valid, just as I have to accept the fact that the state recognises your religion as valid.

Compare that to the gay couple who have to live every day of their lives without being married in the eyes of the law and all that that entails. I have already cited the case of the boy who had to see his lover’s body stolen away by a homophobic family, and who was denied access to his funeral. Or the evidence that gay men are dying who could have been saved by the effects of recognising same sex marriage. Or this post about various other rights that heterosexual couples take for granted.

The assertion that you are effected by whether or not they can marry anything like as much as they are is arrogant and self centered in the extreme!

Individually, in the case of providing wedding-related services, if I happen to be in that business.

As explained in many recent threads, this is about anti-discrimination law, not legal recognition of same sex marriage. Most of the recent contraversial examples took place in states where same sex marriage is not legally recognised!

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

But it does show that marriage makes a “huge difference in her life”, which is what it was supposed to show.

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

The deal was that I would answer yet again if you showed that it was relevant, such as by showing that someone has denied it. You have not done this.

Despite that I will clarify:
The raising of children is a ‘valid societal goal’, assuming that you mean something that society should actively support.

Certainly the biological parents should have first crack. Others should only step in if necessary, such as if the biological parents are unable, unwilling or incompetent.

Conceiving children on the other hand does not require societal intervention, unless maybe to persuade people not to do it when it is inappropriate. Nor is marriage required or even helpful to do so.

 

[DrTaffy]

Here you go “framing” again. This isn’t about two subjective viewpoints.

It is clearly about two viewpoints, both of whom have many adherents.

Until and unless you can show that one of them is objective, it is necessarily about two subjective viewpoints. You want the state to give yours preferential treatment, which is where the golden rule hits you hard between the eyes.

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.

Really, you can show objectively that the legal institution of marriage must ‘biologically’ be what you claim and not what I claim?

Please do. This would finally be an answer to my question.

 

[Lokadottir]

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.

how bout slavery?

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11656638:

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. …] 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?

You seem confused. I am not objecting to the call for secular arguments, just pointing out that this seems to imply that you accept that the state should not be imposing religious views of one group on another. And by extension, therefore, that it should not impose the subjective views of one group on another.

Do you disagree with this? Would a liberal majority have the right (as well as the evident ability) to force its religious and subjective views on you?

(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.

Unless I were challenging those parts of your beliefs that seem not to make sense to me? Do you at least see that what I claim would explain why my posts are short of justification of my beliefs?

 

[DrTaffy]

Thanks for pointing out my oversight.

Well, given that that was the main point of the whole article, that is a doozy of an ‘oversight’. But let it lie.

Do you now accept that the study implies that same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality in the homosexual population, especially gay men?

If so, how is this not an objective benefit? You seemed (appropriately) insulted by the suggestion that you might argue that the death of gay men was a good thing.

1. 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.

It is better than the rest of the homosexual population. How is this not a good thing?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No it doesn’t. At most you have to accept that the state recognises same sex marriages as valid, just as I have to accept the fact that the state recognises your religion as valid.

But the state is acting on my behalf, so if the state recognizes it, I have to recognize it.

The assertion that you are effected by whether or not they can marry anything like as much as they are is arrogant and self centered in the extreme!

No name calling, please. And assertions are not arrogant. They are only true or false.

As explained in many recent threads, this is about anti-discrimination law, not legal recognition of same sex marriage. Most of the recent contraversial examples took place in states where same sex marriage is not legally recognised!

But it is much easier to make the anti-discrimination case if they are legally recognized marriages.

Despite that I will clarify:
The raising of children is a ‘valid societal goal’, assuming that you mean something that society should actively support.

OK, with that in mind, go back and read my posting #305 where I started from this principle and developed the justification for societal marriage in general - a justification that does not apply to gay marriage.

Certainly the biological parents should have first crack. Others should only step in if necessary, such as if the biological parents are unable, unwilling or incompetent.

I addressed all three of these cases in my posting #305.

Conceiving children on the other hand does not require societal intervention, unless maybe to persuade people not to do it when it is inappropriate. Nor is marriage required or even helpful to do so.

No, but conceiving children is what establishes who the biological parents are. So if society has an interest in promoting the raising of children by biological parents, it must have at least some interest in the fact of their conception.

 

[Lokadottir]

No name calling, please. And assertions are not arrogant. They are only true or false.

Well I’m asserting I’m better than you in every way. Is that arrogant?

But it is much easier to make the anti-discrimination case if they are legally recognized marriages.

Gods forbid they love each other in public.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You seem confused. I am not objecting to the call for secular arguments,…

No, you are using the fact that this thread is supposed to be about “secular arguments” to discount arguments made on moral (but not religious) grounds. My response is that there are moral considerations that can still be called “secular”.

Do you at least see that what I claim would explain why my posts are short of justification of my beliefs?

On the contrary, your posts do attempt to justify your beliefs. For example, you brought up the issue of gays in general suffering injustice as a reason for gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with trying to justify your beliefs. Everyone here does it. So I don’t know why you are taking such pains at several points to mention that you are not doing it, especially when you are.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well I’m asserting I’m better than you in every way. Is that arrogant?

No, it’s probably just true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, given that that was the main point of the whole article, that is a doozy of an ‘oversight’. But let it lie.

Do you now accept that the study implies that same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality in the homosexual population, especially gay men?

If so, how is this not an objective benefit? You seemed (appropriately) insulted by the suggestion that you might argue that the death of gay men was a good thing.

It is better than the rest of the homosexual population. How is this not a good thing?

No actually, because the data shows that they would be better off in a stable heterosexual marriage because even a stable gay marriage leaves them no better off than divorced, widowed or single individuals whereas stable heterosexual relationships are positively conducive to lower death rates than found in the general population.

The fact that the study has severe deficits in terms of claims regarding the actual benefit of gay marriage renders your “main point,” pointless, actually. Which is why you do want to let it lie.

The point being that gay marriage only mitigates the actual harm of a gay lifestyle but does nothing to make a gay lifestyle of positive benefit to human society. That is THE POINT you haven’t addressed.

 

[Lokadottir]

No, it’s probably just true.

Aw! Thank you!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well I’m asserting I’m better than you in every way. Is that arrogant?

Given that arrogance is an exaggerated evaluation of one’s abilities and you are making the rather exaggerated claim that you are better “in every way,” it would be rather startling to discover such a claim to be completely true. Which means it is probably false and therefore you are very likely to have made an arrogant claim. Certainly arrogant with regards to your ability to self-assess your abilities vis a vis the abilities of others.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you now accept that the study implies that same sex marriage dramatically reduces mortality in the homosexual population, especially gay men?

If so, how is this not an objective benefit? You seemed (appropriately) insulted by the suggestion that you might argue that the death of gay men was a good thing.

It is better than the rest of the homosexual population. How is this not a good thing?

Let me give you an analogy that I realize is imperfect. But it does make the point. Consider public policy toward drug legalization. It is likely true that drug legalization would reduce the mortality among drug addicts, since their drugs would be made under safer conditions, and the use of the drugs would be removed from the criminal element. Despite this fact, drug legalization remains a very controversial subject. Why? Because it is feared (rightly or wrongly) that drug legalization would also increase the number of drug users on the margins who might otherwise not get into drugs if they were not legal.

Now I am not making the “Dogs and Cats will Live Together” argument, but merely pointing out that one ought to do a study of the effect of legalized gay marriage on the not-yet-gay population before assuming that the only effect of gay marriage will be on the already gay population. Of course the vast majority of non-gays are not going to suddenly turn gay just because gay marriage is legalized. But there are going to be some marginal confused or troubled youngsters who might be more likely to turn to homosexuality if society presents it as a valid alternative. And many young people are confused and troubled. We can’t just assume that none of them will be affected by such a change in social norms.

 

[Lokadottir]

Given that arrogance is an exaggerated evaluation of one’s abilities and you are making the rather exaggerated claim that you are better “in every way,” it would be rather startling to discover such a claim to be completely true. Which means it is probably false and therefore you are very likely to have made an arrogant claim. Certainly arrogant with regards to your ability to self-assess your abilities vis a vis the abilities of others.

So assertions are just true or false but can be arrogant.

 

[Peter_Plato]

how bout slavery?

What about it?

If you want to claim that slavery is wrong you need to present a case for why it is wrong.

You also need to assess radically different forms of slavery (indentured or debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic service, bonded, chattel, etc) and conclude that we have reason to treat them all the same, morally speaking. You also would have to demonstrate precisely what it is that makes slavery in the form in question morally wrong and indisputably so from any legitimate moral perspective.

Do you, for example, have a case for thinking that the “slavery” permitted in the Old Testament is identical to the chattel slavery that was the proximate cause of the American Civil War? That permitting the first necessarily entails permission of the latter?

If you choose not to then you are merely making an undefended subjective claim that you feel slavery is wrong. Fine. YOU feel that it is, but YOU haven’t given anyone else a good reason for them to agree with you, nor even what they are actually agreeing to.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So assertions are just true or false but can be arrogant.

Assertions are not arrogant, though the person making them might be because the exaggerated assessment is made by the person. The assertion does not make an assessment. It does not have the kind of agency required to actively make a judgement. An assertion is a passive entity made by the asserter, who may be arrogant as the agent making it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Let me give you an analogy that I realize is imperfect. But it does make the point. Consider public policy toward drug legalization. It is likely true that drug legalization would reduce the mortality among drug addicts, since their drugs would be made under safer conditions, and the use of the drugs would be removed from the criminal element. Despite this fact, drug legalization remains a very controversial subject. Why? Because it is feared (rightly or wrongly) that drug legalization would also increase the number of drug users on the margins who might otherwise not get into drugs if they were not legal.

Now I am not making the “Dogs and Cats will Live Together” argument, but merely pointing out that one ought to do a study of the effect of legalized gay marriage on the not-yet-gay population before assuming that the only effect of gay marriage will be on the already gay population. Of course the vast majority of non-gays are not going to suddenly turn gay just because gay marriage is legalized. But there are going to be some marginal confused or troubled youngsters who might be more likely to turn to homosexuality if society presents it as a valid alternative. And many young people are confused and troubled. We can’t just assume that none of them will be affected by such a change in social norms.

Precisely. Law is instructive. If it is legal, the youth are likely to think active homosexuality must be okay.

I can already hear the counter : But but but … we need to see empirical evidence first! Let’s have the gay affirming APA rubber stamp a ‘scientific’ study that indicates or suggests gay ‘marriage’ will not affect or influence our troubled youngsters this way.
,

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let me give you an analogy that I realize is imperfect. But it does make the point. Consider public policy toward drug legalization. It is likely true that drug legalization would reduce the mortality among drug addicts, since their drugs would be made under safer conditions, and the use of the drugs would be removed from the criminal element. Despite this fact, drug legalization remains a very controversial subject. Why? Because it is feared (rightly or wrongly) that drug legalization would also increase the number of drug users on the margins who might otherwise not get into drugs if they were not legal.

Now I am not making the “Dogs and Cats will Live Together” argument, but merely pointing out that one ought to do a study of the effect of legalized gay marriage on the not-yet-gay population before assuming that the only effect of gay marriage will be on the already gay population. Of course the vast majority of non-gays are not going to suddenly turn gay just because gay marriage is legalized. But there are going to be some marginal confused or troubled youngsters who might be more likely to turn to homosexuality if society presents it as a valid alternative. And many young people are confused and troubled. We can’t just assume that none of them will be affected by such a change in social norms.

It seems to me that if “gayness” is genetically based then the quickest way to eradicate it would be to let gay individuals marry, and since they would not reproduce, the “genetic factors” would soon disappear. According to a “gayness is genetic” paradigm, the trait would have been carried on “genetically” because gay individuals have married heterosexuals and, thereby, have passed on the “gene.” Promoting gay marriage would very quickly bring an end to the attribute, if this were true.

However, if “gayness” is epigenetic (as research seems to indicate) then to publicly promote it means that such promotion COULD radically affect the numbers of individuals who self-identify as gay, essentially changing the nature human sexual relationships simply by permitting an anomaly to persist and become accepted.

The question still to be answered is whether the extent of that possible increase in prevalence is a “good” thing. Gay individuals would argue that it is a good thing because they say it is a good thing, but that is merely begging the question of whether it really is.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

~ Dr. Trayce Hansen, psychologist