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

[rschampine]

rschampine wrote:

Second: the word “civil” in the phrase “civil unions” implies a governing power authorizing such a union. If we truly live in a democracy, than this issure should be placed for vote. Since a majority dissagree with such unions, that should be reason enough against their instution.

Most polls find those who support gay marriage, plus those who oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, exceeds 50%.

The issue is moving to the voters. I think Missouri has a vote on an amendment in early August. Other states are moving towards votes depending on the requirments of their individual constitutions.

Will you accept the results of these votes?

From a political standpoint, would I have a choice? However, the truth is something that must never be abandoned. It must be witnessed to, no matter what the cost. Remember, it was a majority who crucified the truth 2000 years ago.

 

[rschampine]

wolpertinger:

Are you willing to discuss the shortcomings of your argument?

Please, enlighten me you most humble brother in Christ.

 

[JesusIsTheWay]

I dont really believe there is a “gay Marriage”… What is the definition of marriage… where did it come from? It is the joining of a man and woman both in the eyes of God and in the flesh. If you join a man and a man or a woman and a woman it does not meet the requirements of a marriage, by definition.

So if you want to give homosexuals the opportunity to have the same social and finiancial rights as married people, fine… let em have it. Society isn’t getting any better anyway. But don’t call it marriage. It isn’t. And it’s insulting to God.

 

[wolpertinger]

rschampine:

Please, enlighten me you most humble brother in Christ.

I believe you misapprehend my reason for asking… Before you read the following, please be aware that I am exclusively commenting on your argument.

You start with an equivocation. The topic under discussion is a legal issue and in the legal sense, a marriage is what the law defines it to be.

Your main argument is:

Most people are opposed to a same-sex marriage.
Therefore, it should not be allowed.

This is fallacious, because the correctness of your conclusion does not depend on the number of people that believe it to be. Following your line of reasing, slavery and segregation should not have been abolished, because they had the support of the voting majority.

As another poster noted, it is even doubtful that your premises hold.

Your fallback argument is:

Heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society (1-3).
Same-sex marriage is beneficial to the individual spouses, but not to society as such (4).
Therefore, same-sex marriage should be rejected.

Or, more bluntly:

Heterosexual marriage is good.
Same-sex marriage is bad.
Therefore, same-sex marriage should be rejected.

This is another fallacious (if even valid) argument; you introduce irrelevant material (1-3) that you never explicitely connect to any subsequent proposition and your conclusion begs the question.

Finally, with point 5 is you abandon any claim to the moral high ground.

In summary, what you present is an appeal to emotion:

Disfavorable emotions are associated with same-sex marriage.
Therefore, same-sex marriage should be rejected.

 

[DuMaurier]

Why does the government differentiate between a marriage and a common law relationship? Both entail a couple living together. Does it see marriage as being something more than a simple common law relationship? If yes, then what?

You could say the married couple has a greater committment to each other. So what? Why should the government care about that? It’s also not necessarily true these days either.

The way the left has defined marriage today is that it is only an expression of love and nothing to else. No potential for children is ever acknowledged. Marriage has become an empty shell of a word, entirely devoid of meaning.

Why should the government offer support to a gay couple and not say, my roomate and I? Because they say they love each other? My roomate happens to be my brother, I love him very much too.

Marriage has always been defined as a “potential” for family. Gay couples have next to zero potential for family. Even if you can site adoption or artificial insemination for lesbian couples, the total contribution to society is still next to nil.

If you say marriage is only a simple expression of a couples’ love as the left would have you believe then the government has no business recognizing any marriages at all. It’s not in the business of validating people’s love. It would be forced to do away with marriage recognition altogether and just lable people as being in a common law relationship or not. And that’s what in effect the gay lobby and atheists ultimately want.

 

[Ken]

DuMaurier:

Why does the government differentiate between a marriage and a common law relationship? Both entail a couple living together. Does it see marriage as being something more than a simple common law relationship? If yes, then what?

You could say the married couple has a greater committment to each other. So what? Why should the government care about that? It’s also not necessarily true these days either.

The way the left has defined marriage today is that it is only an expression of love and nothing to else. No potential for children is ever acknowledged. Marriage has become an empty shell of a word, entirely devoid of meaning.

Why should the government offer support to a gay couple and not say, my roomate and I? Because they say they love each other? My roomate happens to be my brother, I love him very much too.

Marriage has always been defined as a “potential” for family. Gay couples have next to zero potential for family. Even if you can site adoption or artificial insemination for lesbian couples, the total contribution to society is still next to nil.

If you say marriage is only a simple expression of a couples’ love as the left would have you believe then the government has no business recognizing any marriages at all. It’s not in the business of validating people’s love. It would be forced to do away with marriage recognition altogether and just lable people as being in a common law relationship or not. And that’s what in effect the gay lobby and atheists ultimately want.

Laws regarding tax, inheritance, support, asset allocation, and parentage all depend on identifying people who are married. That’s why the government takes an interest. Civil marriage is simply a declaration by the couple that they are married. It’s then recorded as official. I agree; it’s no big deal, and I wonder why people think it is such a big deal.

 

[DuMaurier]

Ken:

Laws regarding tax, inheritance, support, asset allocation, and parentage all depend on identifying people who are married. That’s why the government takes an interest. Civil marriage is simply a declaration by the couple that they are married. It’s then recorded as official. I agree; it’s no big deal, and I wonder why people think it is such a big deal.

Have to disagree there. All those things could be accomplished without getting married simply by going to a lawyer. The government offers support to married couples because of the “potential” to produce and raise the next generation of hard working citizens. Parents put alot of effort into raising the next generation so the government tries to make it a little easier for them, as they should.

Gay couples have zero potential to produce families so giving them support would be like asking for social security at the ripe ol age of 25 because you pay into it. Sorry, but you don’t qualify. It’s absurd.

Legalizing gay marriage is an appeal to emotion and is not based on any sort of logic but a twisting of the definition of marriage. It is being no more discrimatory against gays then it is to deny social security to a gen-xer.

Instead of changing marriage laws I would just change common law relationship laws. If you live with a person X amount of years then you are entitled to everything a married couple would receive. But the gay lobby would want nothing less than calling it a marriage. A law based on a lie would be certain to self destruct, which is what they want.

 

[mlaforme]

I don’t think you can remove the “natural” aspect. Everything affects our environment. Also, when you speak of the good of society you speak of the common good ( that which everyone can participate in and it not be diminshed) Among these life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Homosexual union is opposed to life. It is not a fruitful union. If 90% of the world were gay where would our population be in say 50 years? Life would suffer.

 

[Ken]

DuMaurier:

Have to disagree there. All those things could be accomplished without getting married simply by going to a lawyer. The government offers support to married couples because of the “potential” to produce and raise the next generation of hard working citizens. Parents put alot of effort into raising the next generation so the government tries to make it a little easier for them, as they should.

Gay couples have zero potential to produce families so giving them support would be like asking for social security at the ripe ol age of 25 because you pay into it. Sorry, but you don’t qualify. It’s absurd.

Legalizing gay marriage is an appeal to emotion and is not based on any sort of logic but a twisting of the definition of marriage. It is being no more discrimatory against gays then it is to deny social security to a gen-xer.

Instead of changing marriage laws I would just change common law relationship laws. If you live with a person X amount of years then you are entitled to everything a married couple would receive. But the gay lobby would want nothing less than calling it a marriage. A law based on a lie would be certain to self destruct, which is what they want.

Sure they could do it just by going to a lawyer. But the state makes it much cheaper and easier. Many people decry the decline in marriage in the Netherlands. But they are doing just what you suggest. They go to a lwayer and use one of several available options. It seems to work for them.

And while we are speculating on changes, how about offering benefits only to married couples who have children? If the government is giving benefits because of the value of children, then why bother if there are no children? If no kids live at home, then they get no benefits. Once the kids are out of the house, cut them off.

 

[mlaforme]

The state didn’t establish the institution of marriage. It was a result of God setting nature in motion. Governed by natural laws. It is, what it is. This man not embracing the natural law arguments is like him not accepting the law of gravity.

 

[DuMaurier]

Ken:

Sure they could do it just by going to a lawyer. But the state makes it much cheaper and easier. Many people decry the decline in marriage in the Netherlands. But they are doing just what you suggest. They go to a lwayer and use one of several available options. It seems to work for them.

And while we are speculating on changes, how about offering benefits only to married couples who have children? If the government is giving benefits because of the value of children, then why bother if there are no children? If no kids live at home, then they get no benefits. Once the kids are out of the house, cut them off.

Well child benefits are usually doled out whether you’re married or not anyways. Marriage is an institution created to promote an evnrionment condusive to the begatting and raising of children. Sure not everyone fits perfectly into that evnvrionment such as infertile couples or those who do not want children but the institution has that goal in mind nonetheless. So allowing gay marriage would be completely nonsensical not to mention dangerous.

The warpping of the true meaning of marriage has led to massive declines in birth rates in europe. Countries like France were forced to increase immigration from the arab world to compensate. Now they are having a cultural crises with Imams openly calling for the establishment of an Islamic state in France. The french are trying to counter this with a secularization policy like banning religious symbols such as headscarves. It won’t work.

 

[Ken]

DuMaurier:

Well child benefits are usually doled out whether you’re married or not anyways. Marriage is an institution created to promote an evnrionment condusive to the begatting and raising of children. Sure not everyone fits perfectly into that evnvrionment such as infertile couples or those who do not want children but the institution has that goal in mind nonetheless. So allowing gay marriage would be completely nonsensical not to mention dangerous.

The warpping of the true meaning of marriage has led to massive declines in birth rates in europe. Countries like France were forced to increase immigration from the arab world to compensate. Now they are having a cultural crises with Imams openly calling for the establishment of an Islamic state in France. The french are trying to counter this with a secularization policy like banning religious symbols such as headscarves. It won’t work.

Child benefits are doled out regardless of marriage, but should marriage benefits be doled out regardless of children?

 

[DuMaurier]

Ken:

Child benefits are doled out regardless of marriage, but should marriage benefits be doled out regardless of children?

I would put it this way, if the couple contributes to a stable environment which is condusive to the begatting and raising of children then they should receive benefits.

Unfortunately today, that would probably rule out most couples.

I think you may be on to something though, only give benefits to those who have children. But this would exclude couples who through no fault of their own may be childless. But I would argue they still contribute to a stable envirnoment in the insitution by acting as role models. Some would argue that gay couples could also be role models but the fact that their sexual organs are incompatible would make this notion out to be a farce. I refuse to buy into any politically correct circular logic.

The problem is that no one yet has been able to draw up a clear line of demarcation for marriages yet. There’s no fine line but rather a fuzzy grey area. I feel homosexual couples are beyond even this grey area. There comes a time when you go from the stupid (like britney spears’ one day marriage) to the absurd (gay marriages).

No, I still think the best alternative would to simply change rules governing common law relationships. If a gay couple manages to stay together for a certain amount of time then they can get the benefits afforded married couples with the stroke of a pen. But the gay lobby would be against this because they want us to pretend gay couples are married too.

 

[Ken]

**DuMaurier wrote:

“No, I still think the best alternative would to simply change rules governing common law relationships. If a gay couple manages to stay together for a certain amount of time then they can get the benefits afforded married couples with the stroke of a pen. But the gay lobby would be against this because they want us to pretend gay couples are married too.”**

Gays may be aginst the common law arrangement as social policy. That’s OK. Many heterosexuals would also be against it.

However, if your idea were implemented, it would be applied to all, both straights and gays. Gays would then accept their equal treatment under the law. Whatever the resulting institution was called, they would be part of it. They would be satisfied.

 

[mbryanbooks]

Many thanks to all who have contributed. Since making the original post, I’ve come across an article on the Envoy magazine web site that offers just the kind of argumentation I’ve been looking for. I encourage everyone to read Dr. Mark Lowery’s article:

envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/072604-TheKnotThatCantBeTied-Full.htm

It approaches the question purely on the grounds of reason without appealing to divine revelation. I found it very compelling. What do you think?

 

[Poisson]

Ken:

Why is it good for two people who cannot procreate to marry? What is the benefit to society?

The benefit is that it continues to encourage marriages between men and women and it’s this type of marriage that encourages procreation. It’s this type of marriage that conforms to the natural order of things.

 

[Ken]

Poisson:

The benefit is that it continues to encourage marriages between men and women and it’s this type of marriage that encourages procreation. It’s this type of marriage that conforms to the natural order of things.

Marriage reduced to cheerleading?

 

[martino]

Ken:

OK. “Order” is a valid point, but it is still a generality that would be strengthened by some particulars. What is it about a married couple that is more orderly than two single people?

By “order” I am referring to “natural order”, which is the built-in arrangement that belongs to things inherently, and that develops them according to the very natures they possess. So the married couple conforms to this arrangement that is given us by God. He created men and women for each other, complimentary emotionally as well as physically.

Two single people (gay or straight) are therefore less oriented towards this order and do not provide anything to society that they would not provide living alone.

 

[wolpertinger]

martino:

By “order” I am referring to “natural order”, which is the built-in arrangement that belongs to things inherently, and that develops them according to the very natures they possess.

You speak of evolution?

 

[wolpertinger]

Okay, the above post was unnecessarily laconic.

A lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is predicated on the rejection of homosexuality. Between what I understand the Pope to have granted concerning evolution, what can be reasoned from evolution, and if one accepts the comcept of “natural law” to begin with, any argument grounded on “natural law” against homosexuality would seem a lot less compelling.