How do we argue against gay marriage in a secular society?

[TryingToLearn]

When it comes to arguing against government sanctioned same-sex unions I prefer to start with the question that nobody seems to bother with, a question that should be 100% essential in any discussion of government policy…

Why is the government involved in this aspect of life?

Those advocates for same-sex marriage argue that they are entitled to the same protections and rights as hetero couples. Governments are not now, nor ever have been in the habit of just giving away rights and protections. The legal protections afforded a married couple, the tax breaks (generally) enjoyed by married couples, the other rights or privileges that the married enjoy. They are given for a reason. What is the public interest in sanctioning marriage and granting those rights, privileges, or incentives to marry?

Governments around the world, throughout history didn’t just arbitrarily decide to get into the “business” of marriage. They did it with a purpose…

The purpose is economic and cultural survival and an understanding that goes back many millenia that for a tribe, culture, community, country, or nation to survive there must be a next generation, and a next, and a next. And the population must be vibrant and growing relative to those that compete and would seek to replace yours. And they recognized that population growth, economic viability and cultural survival is rooted in the existence of stable families, families that could create children.

Encourage and support marriage and the natural consequence is a next generation raised in a stable economic and social environment with minimal need for governmental involvement. It is the most elegant solution to the problem of survival of a culture, nation, or species…

So, what is the government interest in same-sex unions? Why would the government wish to encourage unions that are incapable of producing the next generation needed for the nation to survive?

Of course, rarely anymore do we have any logic or rational in our government. It’s all about elections and politics and appeasing special interests and not about figuring out what is needed, why the government should be involved, what the desired outcome is, or anything remotely approaching logic and reasoned government for a purpose…

 

[sedonaman]

…Why is the government involved in this aspect of life?
…

This question has been addressed. Some people can’t see the forest for the trees, so they leap to the conclusion that because they can’t, then SS"M" must be OK.
There are many personal reasons for getting married: I want a nice wedding; I want to fit in with the crowd; I love so-and-so, etc. But there is also a public purpose for marriage. Whenever you put men and women together, children result, and it is of great interest to the state to make sure they are protected and cared for. Children also have a great interest in having a mother and a father, since both bring something different to the rearing of the child. This is contrary to the liberal notion that men and women are interchangeable so it doesn’t matter. There are also many tangential question regarding this arrangement, and Dr. Roback-Morse addresses them in her presentation:

Jennifer Roback Morse, Phd
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related

I posted this earlier, so you probably missed it.

 

[TryingToLearn]

This question has been addressed. Some people can’t see the forest for the trees, so they leap to the conclusion that because they can’t, then SS"M" must be OK.
There are many personal reasons for getting married: I want a nice wedding; I want to fit in with the crowd; I love so-and-so, etc. But there is also a public purpose for marriage. Whenever you put men and women together, children result, and it is of great interest to the state to make sure they are protected and cared for. Children also have a great interest in having a mother and a father, since both bring something different to the rearing of the child. This is contrary to the liberal notion that men and women are interchangeable so it doesn’t matter. There are also many tangential question regarding this arrangement, and Dr. Roback-Morse addresses them in her presentation:

I posted this earlier, so you probably missed it.

I think I failed to make clear my comment was more that the public debate rarely goes to the root question. It gets hung up on the civil rights or “don’t force your religion on me” arguments and more of us need to force the discussion to the root public interest questions… I hold to my belief in true marriage chiefly out of my faith, but there is a strong secular argument if we take the discussion to the root that is often conceded without debate. Though not always…

Thanks for reposting these links.

 

[sedonaman]

I think I failed to make clear my comment was more that the public debate rarely goes to the root question. It gets hung up on the civil rights or “don’t force your religion on me” arguments and more of us need to force the discussion to the root public interest questions… … but there is a strong secular argument if we take the discussion to the root that is often conceded without debate. Though not always…

Thanks for reposting these links.

The problem with making an argument for the “root question” is that most people don’t want to spend the time to understand explanations that start with the basics and take an hour, like a coach starting out by saying, “This is a football.” They want one that fits on a bumper sticker, hence slogans that get tossed around endlessly and go nowhere. This is nothing new; the Colonists had a flag that said, “Don’t tread on me.”

---

The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we KEEP saying NO.

 

[rinnie]

I understand why it is wrong, but I don’t see how it’s argued that it shouldn’t be legal.
It’s something that I hear pop up a lot at school, but I’ve never jumped into the debates simply because I don’t think I have enough knowledge about it to defend the Catholic position. and the people arguing against it(all protestants) normally have pretty weak/inconsistant arguements, they’re just stubborn.

I think because you have to stick up for what is right and what is wrong in this world according to Gods commands.

God put us here to testify to his truth.

Marriage in the Catholic Church as a Sacrament. An outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. Marriage is between a Man and Woman.

So in a way to us its like making sin legal. Can you do that? Not according to God.

So you either are with God or Against him. He said you cannot be lukewarm.

 

[CopticChristian]

Kind of how heterosexual actions are out of lust and sinful as well?

August,

You declare that heterosexual actions are out of lust and sinful. This may be. In what context would you say this is so.

Homosexual acts are not motivated by procreation. Homosexual acts are pleasure oriented without purpose in my opinion.

How do you correlate homosexual acts and heterosexual acts as similar as out of lust and sinful without context.

In my opinion Homosexual acts are motivated by lust without purpose no matter what context. In my opinion Homosexual acts are always sinful regardless of context. This opinion is based on theachings of the OHCAC.

What do you base your teachings and beliefs that heterosexual acts are sinful out of lust?

 

[Nec5]

I understand why it is wrong, but I don’t see how it’s argued that it shouldn’t be legal.
It’s something that I hear pop up a lot at school, but I’ve never jumped into the debates simply because I don’t think I have enough knowledge about it to defend the Catholic position. and the people arguing against it(all protestants) normally have pretty weak/inconsistant arguements, they’re just stubborn.

Unless you can engage on the moral underpinnings of society and the Judeo Christian religious tenets that helped shape and define the West, you can’t make the argument. You can point out the logical inconsistencies, but the secularists will simply point out that it’s okay to make arbitrary laws and assumptions as science and society evolve. This is why the culture war is lost. We’ve had generations now cut off from their forebears’ religious roots and then brainwashed that those roots either never existed or were rotten. And yet we still call it education.