T
tom.wineman
Guest
If you are a bird watcher how many same sex nest have you seen ? What would be the purpose ?
Homosexual "marriage" -- secular & natural law arguments against
- Status
W
wolpertinger
Guest
I am not and I do not know.
However, your response misses the point. There is no denying that exclusive homosexuality is incompatible with direct procreation (ignoring for the moment that homosexuals can and do procreate), but there has to be an offsetting advantage that allows a trait that isn’t all that infrequent to survive. We can discuss this further in a dedicated thread or by private message.
In a nutshell, I see problems with the arguments from “natural law”, but you may beg to differ.
V
Vitus
Guest
K
Ken
Guest
OK. So we should be able to list what is provided to society by two married heterosexuals vs the same two single heterosexuals. Children are an obvious answer, and I certainly accept that. That’s why I steer the issue towards infertile heterosexuals.
If the married heterosexuals are following a natural order, then can we observe the social benefit their union provides? It may be that living by this order does provide benefit, but let’s list the benefits.
I would offer:
- Two people forming a union support each other physically and emotionally. This increases the probability that they can be more productive members of society in their professions, asset management, and volunteer efforts.
- Two people forming a union support each other financially. This eliminates the need for society to support either one or the other.
- To the extent that the union is monogamous, it decreases the probability of spreading sexual disease.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Vitus said:
Whoa.
D
DuMaurier
Guest
Didn’t know penguins had marriages. Who officiated, the zookeepers? 
I felt my IQ level drop 3 points reading that propaganda.
I felt my IQ level drop 3 points reading that propaganda.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
You are free to independently investigate the veracity of this article – it shouldn’t be too hard.Didn’t know penguins had marriages. Who officiated, the zookeepers?
I felt my IQ level drop 3 points reading that propaganda.
I believe what you were trying to say is that the contents of this article don’t fit your world view, therefore it is safe to ignore.
Okay.
D
DuMaurier
Guest
No I am saying there is a difference between “marriage” and “cohabitation”. The author does a polemical sleight of hand by saying these penguins were “married”. Maybe these penguins were unitarians.
It’s so completely absurd that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
M
martino
Guest
I am not so sure that we can dismiss the “procreative” aspect of this discussion so easily. I see where you are leading me, and I do not deny that you have made a point. However, what I have come to realize more than anything from this discussion is that it would be very difficult to make the natural law argument without maintaining that marriage is primarily ordained toward child rearing. This of course is what the Catholic Church teaches and if I wasn’t totally convinced before, I now have no doubts. But as I said in my earlier post, as a civil reality, marriage is a “potential” and not always an actual provider of the benefits that the state intends to reward.
It’s true that some married couples will have multiple children and some will not have any, but the state rewards both simply as participants in a particular institution, an institution that is oriented towards child rearing. The state doesn’t look to see who is producing children and who is not because the state doesn’t really care which couples have babies or which ones contracept. All married couples are accorded benefits based on the contributions that are made in the “typical” case- and by that I mean the married couples that do what married couples are for-having children. This concept has been all but lost on our culture, but there seems to still remain some lingering gut level understanding that homosexual partnerships are not the same as marriages, even if most people would be unable to explain why.
So in conclusion, I am sticking with my natural law or natural order argument on the grounds that the primary purpose of marriage is to raise children. And even though children are not produced in all marriages, the state has an interest in protecting the “typical case” marriage, because that is the only place children can be raised without depriving them (to some degree) of one of their most inherent rights as human beings, which is the “order” that is built in to their very nature.
D
drakkoby
Guest
There is another benefit of gay marriage.
If you treat gay people with equality and dignity then they will not pick up guns and have a field day exterminating straight people who do not give a damn about them.
It’s the same benefit that the Black Panthers woke white people to… better to yield a little than have the entire pot boil over.
If you treat gay people with equality and dignity then they will not pick up guns and have a field day exterminating straight people who do not give a damn about them.
It’s the same benefit that the Black Panthers woke white people to… better to yield a little than have the entire pot boil over.
T
The_Dead_Bishop
Guest
Holy Writ refers to the act of homosexuality ( sodomy ) as an abomination. Two homosexuals engaged in the "act " of homosexuality can not produce offspring ( desolation ) our Lord has fore-warned " and when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, flee into the mountains… do not turn back to get anything from your dwelling.It will be more lenient in the judgement for Sodom and Gamorrah than for those cities
T
tom.wineman
Guest
Vitus said:
**That penguin tail has been around for some time.
I figured it would come up.
If I were stuck in a zoo I might get perverted also.
Maybe that is it, we are all living in a zoo and it has affected our natural behavior
Dairy cows also have same sex tendencies when
hundreds of them are all herded together but come freshing time I never saw one run off and hide when the ol’ bull was turned in.
Say, you don’t suppose this same sex stuff is why the dinosaurs became extinct.
**
M
mlaforme
Guest
An infertil heterosexual couple is still acting in accordance with natural law.
V
Vitus
Guest
Someone asked about same sex nests and I provided a cite without comment. I find it interesting how people react to something that I considered a humorous reply to a statement.
And speaking of replies, let’s look at some more debate definitions:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc**:**** **** The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.**
Red herring: This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone’s attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
The slippery slope argument: This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
****Carry on.
And speaking of replies, let’s look at some more debate definitions:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc**:**** **** The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.**
Red herring: This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone’s attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
The slippery slope argument: This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
****Carry on.
F
fix
Guest
The Dead Bishop:
The fact that it is a perversion, a violation of the natural order and replusive to any person who possess right reason is more than enough proof to do dismiss such rubbish out of hand.
We live in strange times.
Yes, indeed. The fact that we must try to formulate reasons why society should reject homosexual “marriage” is an indictment of our entire generation. Can you imagine being asked to give a reason why one should not be allowed to marry a stapler? Insane.
The fact that it is a perversion, a violation of the natural order and replusive to any person who possess right reason is more than enough proof to do dismiss such rubbish out of hand.
We live in strange times.
K
Ken
Guest
**Martino wrote:
However, what I have come to realize more than anything from this discussion is that it would be very difficult to make the natural law argument without maintaining that marriage is primarily ordained toward child rearing. **
I agree that the natural law argument is primarily dependent on procreation, and I easily agree that procreation is a benefit to society.
But, if procreation is primary, then something else must be secondary. What else is marriage ordained toward, is it covered under natural law, and does that benefit society?
These secondary characteristics form the baseline for marriage since all marriages share them, while only some marriages procreate.
Also, in terms of social benefit, does society benefit from marriage, or does it benefit from a commited couple producing and rearing children to adulthood? This may be achieved with or without marriage.
I think the natural law argument would have to side with the commited couple rearing children to adulthood. The set of commited couples and the set of marriages intersect, but neither is a subset of the other.
However, what I have come to realize more than anything from this discussion is that it would be very difficult to make the natural law argument without maintaining that marriage is primarily ordained toward child rearing. **
I agree that the natural law argument is primarily dependent on procreation, and I easily agree that procreation is a benefit to society.
But, if procreation is primary, then something else must be secondary. What else is marriage ordained toward, is it covered under natural law, and does that benefit society?
These secondary characteristics form the baseline for marriage since all marriages share them, while only some marriages procreate.
Also, in terms of social benefit, does society benefit from marriage, or does it benefit from a commited couple producing and rearing children to adulthood? This may be achieved with or without marriage.
I think the natural law argument would have to side with the commited couple rearing children to adulthood. The set of commited couples and the set of marriages intersect, but neither is a subset of the other.
D
drakkoby
Guest
Ever hear the saying “there but thanks to God, go I?” You are gloating over the fact that you don’t have this challenge, or so it seems to me.
So… gays repell you? How about drunks? Tax collectors? Whores? Gentiles?
Erm… did you realize that to be a Gentile was itself “TOEVAH”, or abomination, to the orthodox Jews? So all Gentiles are as abominable as a Jewish homosexual. All of us with blond hair and blue eyes are abominations to the tribal god of the Jews.
It’s true. That’s why Peter would not eat with the Romans, and why when there were Gentile christians he stopped eating at their table and Paul had to scold him for that attitude. Jews consider Gentiles an abomination. As much of an abomination as they considered homosexuals.
So unless you are Jewish, you have no right to boast. God has extended Grace to you. Or you’d be “outside looking in”, as well.
You can look these things up in the Bible.
T
The_Dead_Bishop
Guest
" Indictment of our entire generation " or… a judgement of it, perhaps. God will judge it, and I fear the consequences .
God gave us His commandments out of love for us, knowing we are weak and prone to commit sin. And the commandments , if we obeyed them, would keep the evil one from us.
G
George_G
Guest
K
Ken
Guest
And might the difficulty in formulating and presenting cogent reasons why society should reject SSM indicate the weakness of the position? Why can’t people of right reason simply list the particular, observable, and measurable detrimental effects they predict from SSM?
- Status