Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter lux_in_tenebris_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
Gender IS an objectively relevant feature in terms of reproduction and the sex organs of any individual ARE physiologically and objectively known to be used in reproduction. It is the same sex marriage advocate who is reframing the question as a “subjective” one by trying to rewrite what sex is for, when clearly sex IS FOR reproduction no matter how prejudiced the same sex advocate’s subjectivity is against that fact.

This is an abuse of the question of subjectivity on the part of the same sex marriage advocate because clearly gender and sex are REAL features in the REAL world and play an essential role in human reproduction, which IS their essential biological function.

Again, it is the gay individual who parallels a racist because it is they who are using personal abhorrence or distaste against known facts and making their subjective preference an issue against what is decidedly objective reality.

The gay individual is not “neutral” on the issue of gender as an unbiased person ought to be.

An unbiased individual would look at skin colour (because it is irrelevant) as a non-issue in civil rights. Likewise, an unbiased individual who has no stake in the matter would look at gender as crucially important in terms of sexuality and reproduction. It is only when reproduction is oxymoronically dismissed as irrelevant to marriage that the issue phantasmically arises. Objectivity should be solidly based upon the hard facts of reality not upon deluded wet dreams about it.
 
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.
The only answer I can give to this is that if Adam and Steve did not adopt the unreasonable expectation that they should be considered married, it would not feel like a slap in the face when they are reminded that they are not.
 
It is the capacity to have vaginal sex that is important because by that capacity children are born into the world.
Vaginal sex cannot bring children into the world when the newly married couple is too old, yet we allow the elderly to marry. Should the elderly be banned from marrying because they lack such ability? If not, then why should the government use the capacity to engage in vaginal sex as a criteria for civil marriage when age can be just as much as an impediment to making new children?
Marriage is merely the acknowledgement that there is no barrier on the part of the government to prevent the couple from having children if they so choose.
If that were the case, that should include same-sex couples because two women can conceive with a donor and two men can have a child with the help of a surrogate.
Your claim that same sex partners are as capable of raising children as any healthy heterosexual couple is questionable.
Why do you suppose that same-sex couples are less capable of raising children than mixed-sex couples?
An important aspect of loving another human being is to be willing to “go beyond” one’s own desires, wants and needs for the sake of the other.

Yet, a hallmark of same sex oriented individuals is that these individuals, themselves, claim to be incapable of rising above their desires. Their choice is to refrain from creating and loving their OWN offspring ostensibly BECAUSE they cannot overcome an orientation that keeps them from the natural act of creating their own offspring.
So you’re saying that sex without making a new child, even if one lovingly raises a child irresponsible made by someone else, is failure to love! That’s absurd. Raising a child made by some other couple is just as selfless, and arguably more selfless, than making a new child and raising him/her.

Plus, persons in a same-sex relationship can make new babies with outside help.
Why should gay couples be permitted to raise children if they cannot muster the consistent control over their own psychological and emotional state that would, if they did successfully master their sexual drives, allow them to naturally create their own flesh and blood offspring?
What I think this pile of words translates to is, “Why should same-sex couples be permitted to raise children if they can’t have children with each other?”

Why should the government use the ability to generate new children as a criteria for being allowed to raise children?

Additionally, why should the government then use that as a criteria for allowing people to marry given that he government already allows those unfit to raise children, such as death row inmates, to marry.
There is something more than a little odd about someone who claims to want to love and raise children but refuses to participate in the natural process of doing so with another complimentary human person who could create with them flesh and blood offspring which would, in fact, share the physical and genetic makeup of both.
What about Joseph and Mary, who according to Catholic tradition never had vaginal sex, yet were perfectly good parents? Would you doubt their claim to want to love and raise children and therefore lobby the government to ban them and similar couples from marrying?
The problem here is that you forget that an elderly couple in their 80s who choose to get married are in exactly the same position relative to each other as a lifelong married couple in their 80s who have birthed and raised numerous children. Are you claiming the lifelong married couple should have their marriage legally terminated when they can no longer bear children?
You are the one who claimed that, “the purpose of marriage is to create, nourish, and educate the next generation,” and want to impose that view on everyone else by legislation. I do not claim that the government should impose that view upon others, so I do not think that people in their 80s should be banned from entering marriage or stripped of their already existing marriage, even though the former is arguably a logical application of imposing your opinion on others.
Just like any card carrying white KKK member in good standing who will not live beside black families because of his “personal distaste” for members of the black race, same sex oriented individuals will not live with or bear children with persons of the opposite sex because of a personal physical abhorrence towards them. Being unwilling to have sex and have children with opposite sex individuals seems very like discrimination against other classes of “people” based upon an identifiable physical trait.
I find it amazing that someone would consider a comparison between not having sex with someone you’re incompatible with to a member of the KKK. Would you compare voluntary celibacy with a KKK member as well?
Perhaps the baker is “fighting the good fight” against discrimination after all. It’s just that now the class (SSM advocates) doing the discriminating, like pre-civil war slave owners, have the judicial system on their side.
…because we all know that choosing to not to consent to sex with someone is equivalent to enslaving someone without their consent! sarcasm
 
No, it doesn’t disprove it because as explained ad nauseam in these theads, the mock marriage of an insane emperor was not recognised by the society as the same as regular marriage.
If the emperor is in charge of deciding what unions are officially considered marriages in that society, and he decided that his own union with another man was officially considered a marriage, then his relationship with another man was officially considered a marriage in that society.

Besides, even if I disregard both of those Roman emperor’s marriages to other men for the sake of the argument, the many Native American tribes considered same-sex unions to be marriages. Therefore, the assertion that, “Marriage has always and everywhere been established as a recognition of opposite sex unions,” is false.
Then why do you bother bringing up historical nuggets that are basically red herrings?
Because many people, including Rau, want to use the (false) assertion that “Marriage has always and everywhere been established as a recognition of opposite sex unions” as an excuse to bar same-sex couples from getting a civil marriage. If people didn’t want to use the force of government to impose their beliefs on others, I would care nearly as much about those beliefs.
 
At the end of the day, the State has long valued opposite sex unions for reasons that we all understand and have been stated many times in the thread. Introducing distractions such as - what if they don’t have vaginal sex, what if they get too old (or are too old), kind of suggests the debate has run its course.
We have not come to an agreed upon reasons why the state should value opposite sex unions in general that cannot also apply to same-sex couples. That’s the point of what you consider to be ‘distractions’. Those ‘distractions’ show that the reasons for the state allowing opposite-sex civil marriage has nothing to do with pumping out new children.
A question that I do think has merit is: "For what reason ought the State to value and recognise same sex unions? "
Besides the lower mortality rates among married same-sex couples according to the study cited by DrTaffy, I think the best reason for the government to not use the sexes of the couple as a criteria for banning them from civil marriage is because the government shouldn’t use conditions of one’s birth (such as race, sex, etc.) as a criteria for discrimination without a very good secular reason.
 
It is not marriage.
So you don’t think that “a committed, lifelong relationship between two people of the same-sex” is not marriage. The question is why should the government impose your view of what marriage is on others?
You seem to believe marriage can be whatever the government decides it is…
While the word marriage isn’t defined by the government (or any other singular institution), the government does get to define which unions can have the legal status of a civil union. I think the government shouldn’t exclude couples from this legal status without a sufficiently good secular reason.
 
But the state is acting on my behalf, so if the state recognizes it, I have to recognize it.
No, it does not because:

1 The state does not act personally on your behalf. The government’s allowance of a civil marriage between divorcees in no way hinders your ability to believe and profess to believe that a union between divorcees is not a real marriage.

2 The government only ‘recognizes’ a marriage insofar as the government treats them as if they were married, which is different from the government taking the official position that their civil marriage is a real marriage™. In case this distinction isn’t clear, the government may recognize thousands of different registered religions, including the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this recognition is not the same thing as the government taking the position that the deities of those religions are real.

You, on the other hand, want to ensure a lower quality of life for same-sex couples by banning them from marriage.
 
Vaginal sex cannot bring children into the world when the newly married couple is too old, yet we allow the elderly to marry. Should the elderly be banned from marrying because they lack such ability? If not, then why should the government use the capacity to engage in vaginal sex as a criteria for civil marriage when age can be just as much as an impediment to making new children?
Read my Post #330. I’ve already dealt with this.

Exceptions do not provide sufficient reason to amend principles, otherwise all egg-laying animals would be classed as mammals simply because the platypus and echidna are. This is a weak argument.
 
So you don’t think that “a committed, lifelong relationship between two people of the same-sex” is not marriage. The question is why should the government impose your view of what marriage is on others?

While the word marriage isn’t defined by the government (or any other singular institution), the government does get to define which unions can have the legal status of a civil union. I think the government shouldn’t exclude couples from this legal status without a sufficiently good secular reason.
Why does the Church of the Secular have special privilege?

The existence of civil marriage as a legal entity is entirely based upon marriage as a biological reality - the procreation and care of new human beings. That reality was not invented by any civil authority. Without that biological reality, civil marriage would be a non-entity. There would have been no reason to invent it, which is why, to have any meaning whatsoever, its original purpose cannot be ignored.

There was never a need to legalize friendships precisely because friendships between two men or two women, even when they got close and personal, were never fecund by their very nature. If civil authorities were so concerned about stabilizing societies they would have legalized and controlled all kinds of “friendly” relationships. They never saw the need to do so, except where those relationships led to the creation of new lives, new citizens with rights that needed protection that were never party to the original “agreement.”

One has to be in deep historical denial not to see this.
 
BOProof;11661987:
Vaginal sex cannot bring children into the world when the newly married couple is too old, yet we allow the elderly to marry. Should the elderly be banned from marrying because they lack such ability? If not, then why should the government use the capacity to engage in vaginal sex as a criteria for civil marriage when age can be just as much as an impediment to making new children?
Read my Post #330.
The core of your argument in that post is, “To redefine “marriage” as a “loving and permanent commitment” makes the word “marriage” utterly USELESS as a legal or descriptive term because any friendship or committed relationship becomes, de facto, a “marriage.””

This post doesn’t answer my question because such Platonic marriages (including the marriage between Joseph and Mary) can already be done with opposite-sex marriage, since there is no requirement for the couple to have sex or even like each other to obtain a civil marriage.

So this leaves my original question unanswered. Why should the government use the ability to engage in vaginal sex as a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license?
Exceptions do not provide sufficient reason to amend principles, otherwise all egg-laying animals would be classed as mammals simply because the platypus and echidna are. This is a weak argument.
Exceptions do provide sufficient reason to amend universal claims. For example, if you said, “all egg-laying species are mammals,” then all it would take is an example of an egg-laying species that is not a mammal to disprove that statement.

Also, if someone claimed that the only reason why the government instituted civil marriage is for procreation, then one only needs to point to cases in which the government permits civil marriages between people who are known to be unable to procreate to disprove that assertion.
Why does the Church of the Secular have special privilege?
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say, “Church of the Secular.” It may not be on-topic anyways.
The existence of civil marriage as a legal entity is entirely based upon marriage as a biological reality - the procreation and care of new human beings. That reality was not invented by any civil authority.
To skip a longer discussion, lets just say for the sake of argument that the first governments to instituted civil marriages did so for “the procreation and care of new human beings.” Why should we then ban same-sex couples from marrying given that:

1 Just because a society was the first to implement a new innovation doesn’t mean they did it well. We don’t say things like, “Well, the first society to implement a republican form of government defined a voter as a male, therefore we should ban women from voting!”

2 Those in a same-sex relationship often do procreate (albeit, with help) and raise children.
 
How would the parties feel if the State agreed to recognise same sex unions through an institution called something other than Marriage, but which provided the same set of legal rights and obligations? If this is not satisfactory to anyone, then please state exactly why not.
 
The core of your argument in that post is, “To redefine “marriage” as a “loving and permanent commitment” makes the word “marriage” utterly USELESS as a legal or descriptive term because any friendship or committed relationship becomes, de facto, a “marriage.””

This post doesn’t answer my question because such Platonic marriages (including the marriage between Joseph and Mary) can already be done with opposite-sex marriage, since there is no requirement for the couple to have sex or even like each other to obtain a civil marriage.

So this leaves my original question unanswered. Why should the government use the ability to engage in vaginal sex as a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license?

Exceptions do provide sufficient reason to amend universal claims. For example, if you said, “all egg-laying species are mammals,” then all it would take is an example of an egg-laying species that is not a mammal to disprove that statement.

Also, if someone claimed that the only reason why the government instituted civil marriage is for procreation, then one only needs to point to cases in which the government permits civil marriages between people who are known to be unable to procreate to disprove that assertion.

I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say, “Church of the Secular.” It may not be on-topic anyways.

To skip a longer discussion, lets just say for the sake of argument that the first governments to instituted civil marriages did so for “the procreation and care of new human beings.” Why should we then ban same-sex couples from marrying given that:

1 Just because a society was the first to implement a new innovation doesn’t mean they did it well. We don’t say things like, “Well, the first society to implement a republican form of government defined a voter as a male, therefore we should ban women from voting!”

2 Those in a same-sex relationship often do procreate (albeit, with help) and raise children.
Clearly, you don’t understand the analogy, because your counter argument misses the point.

Those in same sex relationships must “procreate” with another person which raises a whole new set of issues, especially concerning the rights of the other person as the real parent. This leaves the child in an unnatural and potentially very vulnerable position, sufficient to question the wisdom of allowing the “procreation” in the first place, that is IF real concern for the child’s rights were even present.
 
No, it does not because:

1 The state does not act personally on your behalf. The government’s allowance of a civil marriage between divorcees in no way hinders your ability to believe and profess to believe that a union between divorcees is not a real marriage.
This does not refute my statement. It is still true that if the state recognizes a marriage, I have to recognize that marriage in all legal matters, and to the extent that the state subsidizes it, I have to subsidize it with my taxes. This has nothing to do with any religious notion of true marriage. It is an entirely secular argument.
You, on the other hand, want to ensure a lower quality of life for same-sex couples by banning them from marriage.
If those people suffer a lower quality of life, it is because of their own actions and choices, not because of something I have imposed on them.
 
So this leaves my original question unanswered. Why should the government use the ability to engage in vaginal sex as a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license?
See my post 407

Basically it is inherent in heterosexual unions with procreation as the final cause of marriage and its place for the good of society. Degrees of defect or un-natural interference do not change its inherent nature. Other reasons are explained in my post. Your objection does not address the substance of the matter. Your objection only addresses certain effects, defects by degree, which do not change the natural essence rendering your objection as false. There is no similar defect in homosexual unions, it is inherently not procreative and that defines the difference and inequality between the two types of unions…
2 Those in a same-sex relationship often do procreate (albeit, with help) and raise children.
Again this is false due to the different inherent nature of a homosexual union which renders procreation impossible. “With help” as you call it, demands a heterosexual union.
 
The core of your argument in that post is, “To redefine “marriage” as a “loving and permanent commitment” makes the word “marriage” utterly USELESS as a legal or descriptive term because any friendship or committed relationship becomes, de facto, a “marriage.””
My background is in education and before retiring a few years ago, I had worked with children between 8 and 12 years old, for longer than I care to divulge.
I began at a time when separated and divorced families made up less than 10% of the population, today the numbers exceed 60%. When I began the numbers of students who had severe emotional, behavioural or academic issue WAS about 10% of the students, the rest were normal, competent and confident individuals. In my last few years of teaching the number of students presenting severe emotional, behavioural or academic issues grew larger than half of the classroom population, some years approaching 70%.

Ask any teacher with 30+ years experience in the trenches and get first hand reports before you go spouting ideological nonsense. Don’t pick the curmudgeons or the chronically angry, burned out ones. Pick those who have retained a sense of empathy and concern through their career. The first hand anecdotal evidence WILL shock you.

You think one way to repair social ills is to further destabilize society by further eroding “the pillar” that forms the basis for stability. I can assure you it won’t.

We are beginning to have the offspring from broken and dysfunctional families raising our next generation. Many of these new parents have not a clue about how to love, nurture and support their children BECAUSE their parents abandoned the task somewhere in midstream. The next generation will not “magically” become stable and functional precisely because their role models were incapable of doing so.

The two most tragic cases in my career were…
  1. A young boy being raised by a mother and her lesbian lover. The mother decided she was gay after giving birth to the child. The boy was chronically angry, insecure and emotionally crippled.
  2. A young boy suffering from “attachment disorder” brought on by a mother who abandoned him and his brother when they were under 3 years old. She kept enough contact with them to let them know she didn’t love them, just the opposite, actually. They were being raised by their paternal grandmother and the father when he cared enough to show up in their lives a few times a month. You have no idea what dealing with their emotional and behavioural instability is like for the grandmother, for their teachers and for anyone they encounter. The oldest of the two broke into a neighbor’s house and spray painted furniture, walls, appliances and windows when he was six years old.
You have all the ideological reasons for your position. What you are missing is front line data regarding the toll on society that destabilized families are having. It will only get worse - much worse - precisely because those now parenting were the products of relationships where one or both could not distinguish narcissistic love from true self-giving agape love.

Same sex “love” is by its very nature narcissistic because the individuals so engaged are seeking reflection, not complimentarity. They are seeking a love “like their own” that reflects back to them their own love for themselves.

Your advocacy will bear fruit - and it won’t be pretty. I fear for my own children because their expectations regarding what constitutes a healthy personal relationship will be constantly challenged and rarely fulfilled.

Your “grand social experiment” will come to a screeching end some 20-40 years hence. Be prepared. Those making political decisions will have not a clue what the well-being of society involves because for any right to obtain requires a concomitant responsibility on the part of others. When those “others” are an endangered species, “rights” will disappear quickly.

Wait and see.
 
Read my Post #330. I’ve already dealt with this.

Exceptions do not provide sufficient reason to amend principles, otherwise all egg-laying animals would be classed as mammals simply because the platypus and echidna are. This is a weak argument.
I find YOUR argument is more like saying platypuses and echidnas lay eggs they are NOT mammals. Never mind lactation, fur, and being warmblooded, they don’t give birth to live young so their not mammals.
Gay marriage is not marriage because they can’t have babies. Never mind it being two people who love each other, want to legally share everything, and are capable of RAISING children, they can’t produce offspring that is a blend of the two of them so it isn’t marriage.
 
My background is in education and before retiring a few years ago, I had worked with children between 8 and 12 years old, for longer than I care to divulge.
I began at a time when separated and divorced families made up less than 10% of the population, today the numbers exceed 60%. When I began the numbers of students who had severe emotional, behavioural or academic issue WAS about 10% of the students, the rest were normal, competent and confident individuals. In my last few years of teaching the number of students presenting severe emotional, behavioural or academic issues grew larger than half of the classroom population, some years approaching 70%.

Ask any teacher with 30+ years experience in the trenches and get first hand reports before you go spouting ideological nonsense. Don’t pick the curmudgeons or the chronically angry, burned out ones. Pick those who have retained a sense of empathy and concern through their career. The first hand anecdotal evidence WILL shock you.

You think one way to repair social ills is to further destabilize society by further eroding “the pillar” that forms the basis for stability. I can assure you it won’t.

We are beginning to have the offspring from broken and dysfunctional families raising our next generation. Many of these new parents have not a clue about how to love, nurture and support their children BECAUSE their parents abandoned the task somewhere in midstream. The next generation will not “magically” become stable and functional precisely because their role models were incapable of doing so.

The two most tragic cases in my career were…
  1. A young boy being raised by a mother and her lesbian lover. The mother decided she was gay after giving birth to the child. The boy was chronically angry, insecure and emotionally crippled.
  2. A young boy suffering from “attachment disorder” brought on by a mother who abandoned him and his brother when they were under 3 years old. She kept enough contact with them to let them know she didn’t love them, just the opposite, actually. They were being raised by their paternal grandmother and the father when he cared enough to show up in their lives a few times a month. You have no idea what dealing with their emotional and behavioural instability is like for the grandmother, for their teachers and for anyone they encounter. The oldest of the two broke into a neighbor’s house and spray painted furniture, walls, appliances and windows when he was six years old.
You have all the ideological reasons for your position. What you are missing is front line data regarding the toll on society that destabilized families are having. It will only get worse - much worse - precisely because those now parenting were the products of relationships where one or both could not distinguish narcissistic love from true self-giving agape love.

Same sex “love” is by its very nature narcissistic because the individuals so engaged are seeking reflection, not complimentarity. They are seeking a love “like their own” that reflects back to them their own love for themselves.

Your advocacy will bear fruit - and it won’t be pretty. I fear for my own children because their expectations regarding what constitutes a healthy personal relationship will be constantly challenged and rarely fulfilled.

Your “grand social experiment” will come to a screeching end some 20-40 years hence. Be prepared. Those making political decisions will have not a clue what the well-being of society involves because for any right to obtain requires a concomitant responsibility on the part of others. When those “others” are an endangered species, “rights” will disappear quickly.

Wait and see.
This post sets out the destruction already being done to families by the attack on marriage, which did not begin with the push for same sex marriage—a contradiction in terms in any case. No, family structure has been under attack especially since the sexual revolution and the results are not pretty.

If one is lucky enough to live in a very good school district, your kids might have a chance at normalcy. But I have a relative who is a counselor in an inner city urban district filled with dysfunctional families. When I ask her about her job, she says it’s like working in a third world nation.

It’s amazing to me that anyone advocates for the further destruction of families. This is going to end very badly.
 
So you don’t think that “a committed, lifelong relationship between two people of the same-sex” is not marriage.
No, it is not. See Posts 274, 285, and 302.
While the word marriage isn’t defined by the government (or any other singular institution), the government does get to define which unions can have the legal status of a civil union. I think the government shouldn’t exclude couples from this legal status without a sufficiently good secular reason.
As I said in post #387:

“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.”
 
Gay marriage is not marriage because they can’t have babies. Never mind it being two people who love each other, want to legally share everything, and are capable of RAISING children, they can’t produce offspring that is a blend of the two of them so it isn’t marriage.
It is not that they are incapable of raising children. It is that they shouldn’t be raising children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top