Homosexual "marriage" -- secular & natural law arguments against

[mbryanbooks]

What arguments can I use in this situation…

One of my co-workers asked me tonight what I thought about homosexual “marriage.” When I told him I opposed it, he was perplexed. He’s very intelligent, well-educated, heterosexual, happily married, with two teenage sons. Although his current job is not in the legal field, he’s a licensed attorney in another state, and has a keen analytical mind. I don’t believe he professes any Christian faith, but I know him to be at least sympathic to the ethical teachings of Christianity, especially regarding the poor. In his view, if one cannot show how an action of a private individual harms the life, limb, or property of others, then the state has no business intervening or regulating that action. Hence, with homosexual “marriage,” why should he (or the state) care whether two men or two women, or for that matter, a man and a horse, want to get “married.” It has no effect on him. He may think it very odd, may even be personally repulsed by it, but it does not harm his life, limb, or property, or that of others, therefore, the state has no grounds to prohibit it.

I did not have time to get into a long discussion, but I said the short answer is, marriage is not a purely private act or contract. It has societal implications, and therefore the state does have a legitimate interest.

His brief rebuttal was to make a parallel between the position, once widely legislated in the USA (and held by some Christians), that inter-racial marriage was illegal and immoral, on the one hand, and opposition to homosexual marriage, on the other. For him, it was the scales of bigotry blinding the eyes in both cases.
In time, state legislatures overcame that earlier bigotry, and it ought to be obvious that it is mere bigotry in the latter.

I’d like to talk with him further on this. This was a good article in Crisis magazine a while back on the topic, and I’m going to do some research. In the meantime, what are the arguments I can use? It’s no good raising moral objections based in Catholic teaching. That would have no standing as far as he is concerned when it comes to state or federal law. In order for any argument in opposition to have any weight with him it would have to proceed from the logic of “harm to life, limb, or property,” or else in some logic that does not depend on appeals to religious faith or morals.

In previous conversations, I’ve mentioned natural law, but to my surprise, he seems to be unfamiliar or at least suspicious of the the concept.

I’m not posing a hypothetical situation here. This fellow is for real and the discussion is for real. I respect him greatly and we get along wonderfully at work, but simply asserting that homosexual marriage is immoral or “contrary to historical experience,” etc. won’t cut the mustard.

Any ideas?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

What would be the consequences if our society legalized and encouraged an institution whose asherents engaged in such medically lethal behaviors?

 

[mercygate]

Aside from the “religious” reasons, which might have no weight for your respondent, you can argue that traditional marriages provide citizens to the State (which is good), that traditional marriages provide decades of education and socialization to those young citizens (which benefits the State), that stable marriages stabilize the State, that statistically, the well-being of children and of couples is ranked higher among children and partners of stable one-man/one-woman marriages than in other domestic arrangements, that the only reason same-sex couples have for desiring so-called “marriage” is to obtain the benefits society has legislated to married people with families, who are providing society with a valuable public service in raising children.

Good luck – and peace.

 

[martino]

Well your first response was correct. The state absolutely has an interest in any matter that effects the overall good of society. The truth is that homosexual marriage would be no more beneficial to society than two heterosexual guys living as roomates; or do use his own example a man and a horse! What benefit is there in these types of arrangements? Why would the state be inclinded to give benefits for those that choose these types of arrangements?

I also read a really good article on the subject but now I cannot remember what magazine it came from. It was two priests emailing back and forth on the pros and cons of same sex unions. They were basically vetting the idea as openly as possible with one priest taking the devil’s advocate role. If anyone knows where I may find this article please let me know because I have been looking for it ever since I first saw it.

His brief rebuttal was to make a parallel between the position, once widely legislated in the USA (and held by some Christians), that inter-racial marriage was illegal and immoral, on the one hand, and opposition to homosexual marriage, on the other. For him, it was the scales of bigotry blinding the eyes in both cases.
In time, state legislatures overcame that earlier bigotry, and it ought to be obvious that it is mere bigotry in the latter.

 

[Ken]

mercygate:

Aside from the “religious” reasons, which might have no weight for your respondent, you can argue that traditional marriages provide citizens to the State (which is good), that traditional marriages provide decades of education and socialization to those young citizens (which benefits the State), that stable marriages stabilize the State, that statistically, the well-being of children and of couples is ranked higher among children and partners of stable one-man/one-woman marriages than in other domestic arrangements, that the only reason same-sex couples have for desiring so-called “marriage” is to obtain the benefits society has legislated to married people with families, who are providing society with a valuable public service in raising children.

Good luck – and peace.

OK. How would any of that change with gay marriage?

 

[Ken]

martino:

Well your first response was correct. The state absolutely has an interest in any matter that effects the overall good of society. The truth is that homosexual marriage would be no more beneficial to society than two heterosexual guys living as roomates; or do use his own example a man and a horse! What benefit is there in these types of arrangements? Why would the state be inclinded to give benefits for those that choose these types of arrangements?

I also read a really good article on the subject but now I cannot remember what magazine it came from. It was two priests emailing back and forth on the pros and cons of same sex unions. They were basically vetting the idea as openly as possible with one priest taking the devil’s advocate role. If anyone knows where I may find this article please let me know because I have been looking for it ever since I first saw it.

His brief rebuttal was to make a parallel between the position, once widely legislated in the USA (and held by some Christians), that inter-racial marriage was illegal and immoral, on the one hand, and opposition to homosexual marriage, on the other. For him, it was the scales of bigotry blinding the eyes in both cases.
In time, state legislatures overcame that earlier bigotry, and it ought to be obvious that it is mere bigotry in the latter.

What is the benefit to society from the marriage of a sixty year old man and a sixty year old woman? What is the benefit to society from the continued marriage of two sixty year olds after all their children have left home? Should they enjoy any benefits from being married? How is their marriage any more or less beneficial to society than a marriage of two men?

 

[mercygate]

Ken:

OK. How would any of that change with gay marriage?

Same-sex partners do not produce children together as husband and wife. Those who wish to raise children are a minority. Statistically, same-sex relationships (at least among men) are notoriously unstable.

 

[mercygate]

Ken:

What is the benefit to society from the marriage of a sixty year old man and a sixty year old woman? What is the benefit to society from the continued marriage of two sixty year olds after all their children have left home? Should they enjoy any benefits from being married? How is their marriage any more or less beneficial to society than a marriage of two men?

The continued marriage of an elderly couple contributes to social stability, and if they have children, as any parent will tell you, their “value” as parents in a family goes on until death.

The marriage of an elderly same-sex couple? Check the marriage canons and the rationale used there.

 

[mercygate]

martino:

Well your first response was correct. The state absolutely has an interest in any matter that effects the overall good of society. The truth is that homosexual marriage would be no more beneficial to society than two heterosexual guys living as roomates; or do use his own example a man and a horse! What benefit is there in these types of arrangements? Why would the state be inclinded to give benefits for those that choose these types of arrangements?

I also read a really good article on the subject but now I cannot remember what magazine it came from. It was two priests emailing back and forth on the pros and cons of same sex unions. They were basically vetting the idea as openly as possible with one priest taking the devil’s advocate role. If anyone knows where I may find this article please let me know because I have been looking for it ever since I first saw it.

His brief rebuttal was to make a parallel between the position, once widely legislated in the USA (and held by some Christians), that inter-racial marriage was illegal and immoral, on the one hand, and opposition to homosexual marriage, on the other. For him, it was the scales of bigotry blinding the eyes in both cases.
In time, state legislatures overcame that earlier bigotry, and it ought to be obvious that it is mere bigotry in the latter.

 

[mercygate]

martino:

I also read a really good article on the subject but now I cannot remember what magazine it came from. It was two priests emailing back and forth on the pros and cons of same sex unions. They were basically vetting the idea as openly as possible with one priest taking the devil’s advocate role. If anyone knows where I may find this article please let me know because I have been looking for it ever since I first saw it.

Was this the article: catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0066.html

 

[Hananiah]

Here’s one: personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/gaymarriageessay.htm

 

[Newvert]

If you’re looking for a farily sophisticated argument, pick up a copy of Princeton legal scholar Robert P. George’s *A Clash of Orthodoxies *(ISI Books). He gives the issue a considerable amount of space.

 

[Ken]

mercygate:

Same-sex partners do not produce children together as husband and wife. Those who wish to raise children are a minority. Statistically, same-sex relationships (at least among men) are notoriously unstable.

I asked how anything you listed would change. How would anything change?

 

[Ken]

mercygate:

The continued marriage of an elderly couple contributes to social stability, and if they have children, as any parent will tell you, their “value” as parents in a family goes on until death.

The marriage of an elderly same-sex couple? Check the marriage canons and the rationale used there.

Does that mean you don’t know the value to society from the marriage of an elderly couple? Society doesn’t care what the canon says.

What is the value to society of the continued marriage of a childless couple who have no adopted children?

 

[martino]

Ken:

What is the benefit to society from the marriage of a sixty year old man and a sixty year old woman? What is the benefit to society from the continued marriage of two sixty year olds after all their children have left home? Should they enjoy any benefits from being married? How is their marriage any more or less beneficial to society than a marriage of two men?

Sixty year old men and women have already served society, they are the grandparents of today, hopefully living out their golden years and watching their grandchildren grow up. And yes they should enjoy all the benefits our society has to offer. You may be one of the ones that is in favor of euthenasia, so that once they get old and are no longer “useful” we can discard them. I can see your mindset, you are most likely pro-choice because after all what use is a helpless baby?

Would you consider old age to be a disorder? Neither can you compare this issue with a civil rights issue. You belittle the plight of the African-Americans of this country that suffered under unjust laws when you parallel that to homosexuality. And further more it has never been considered sinful or disordered to be any certain skin color, we are talking about sin here, we are talking about heaven and hell. This is a different issue altogether and its wrong to disguise it as some form of civil liberty.

 

[Ken]

martino:

Sixty year old men and women have already served society, they are the grandparents of today, hopefully living out their golden years and watching their grandchildren grow up. And yes they should enjoy all the benefits our society has to offer. You may be one of the ones that is in favor of euthenasia, so that once they get old and are no longer “useful” we can discard them. I can see your mindset, you are most likely pro-choice because after all what use is a helpless baby?

Would you consider old age to be a disorder? Neither can you compare this issue with a civil rights issue. You belittle the plight of the African-Americans of this country that suffered under unjust laws when you parallel that to homosexuality. And further more it has never been considered sinful or disordered to be any certain skin color, we are talking about sin here, we are talking about heaven and hell. This is a different issue altogether and its wrong to disguise it as some form of civil liberty.

I take it you don’t know the social value of the marriage of two sixty year olds.

Does anyone know the social value of two sixty year olds getting married?

Does anyone know the social value of the continued marriage of childless couples who did not adopt?

 

[martino]

Ken:

I take it you don’t know the social value of the marriage of two sixty year olds.

Does anyone know the social value of two sixty year olds getting married?

Does anyone know the social value of the continued marriage of childless couples who did not adopt?

I can see that you think this is a clever argument. I believe as a Christian that we are all responsible for taking care of the elderly, which is to say that they are no longer obligated to contribute in the way that you are implying, which is why I reject the premise of your argument. I believe that they contrubute in ways that we will never know of in this life. Certain groups of people are basically exempt from the social value scale you wish to burden them with (the young, the old, the sick, the poor, the cripple…so on and so forth).

Now you tell me how you will manage to place homosexuals within that group!

 

[Ken]

martino:

I can see that you think this is a clever argument. I believe as a Christian that we are all responsible for taking care of the elderly, which is to say that they are no longer obligated to contribute in the way that you are implying, which is why I reject the premise of your argument. I believe that they contrubute in ways that we will never know of in this life. Certain groups of people are basically exempt from the social value scale you wish to burden them with (the young, the old, the sick, the poor, the cripple…so on and so forth).

Now you tell me how you will manage to place homosexuals within that group!

I see that you still don’t know the social value of the marriage of two sixty year olds. Can anyone help him?

OK. How about two fifty year olds where the woman is post menopause. What is the social value if they marry?

 

[RobbyS]

Ken:

I see that you still don’t know the social value of the marriage of two sixty year olds. Can anyone help him?

OK. How about two fifty year olds where the woman is post menopause. What is the social value if they marry?

If you are dealing with hypotheticals, what about the advantage to each of combining fortunes and obligations? You are by implication arguing the same for gay couples of the same age. But why should the contract between the two take the form of marriage, which is regulated by a whole body of law into which gay couples make an awkward fit? One must look at the reasons for the form that law takes, the model for marriage being a man and woman, with the understanding that the two are distinct and that their union poses certain consequences including of course the bearing of children, their rearing and their eventual inheritance of the fruits of the couple’s labor. Homosexual relations are by definition the joining of two persons of the same sex, and whatever pecularities of the law that arise from the distinction of sex are simply not applicable to them without distorting the mold. Many of the claims of homosexuals are based on the assumption
that there are no real disitinctions between the sexes. This is contrary to fact, but that does not prevent gays and lebians from asserting this dogma and demanding everyone to agree with them.

 

[luckyirishguy14]

Ken:

I see that you still don’t know the social value of the marriage of two sixty year olds. Can anyone help him?

OK. How about two fifty year olds where the woman is post menopause. What is the social value if they marry?

The point of marriage is to raise children and to live your lives in love. Two fifty year olds can adopt children and still be considered “fruitful”. They still have “social value.” When you have a homosexual couple adopting, then you have the absence of a certain parent. 50 year olds are still capable of raising children; it’s just more difficult in the earlier years.