Is there a secular argument against civil homosexual marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Startingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Is the fact that human beings come in two sexually complementary types–men and women–is that a religious belief? I thought it was a fact of nature.
Click to expand...
It’s a fact of nature to procreate but not a fact of nature for pleasure or bonding. Don’t stretch biology beyond what it is.
 
Sex is not for pleasure though, it is for procreation. And same-sex bonding is disordered because it lacks procreation.
 
Oh, I wouldn’t want to stretch biology. Anthropology perhaps.
I recall when I asked my future wife if she would consent to form a pair bond.
 
JimG said:
The only reason marriage exists is because humanity consists of men and women, and it takes one of each to generate children. Man and woman are of the essence of marriage, and united they are the essence of family and civilization.

There is nothing marital about two persons of the same sex. It’s a dead end.

Perhaps water should be declared to be a union of hydrogen atoms only. Call it what you want but it is not water. Two persons of the same sex can never constitute marriage.
Click to expand...
This argument fails - and quite badly I have to say, on two points. The first is the claim that ‘You can’t have children, therefore you shouldn’t get married’. Which removes from the equation all women over a certain age (the boys still keep producing the necessary components until a ripe old age - primarily because you didn’t need to be young and virile to make a partner pregnant, but you need to be reasonably young and healthy to maintain a pregnancy). Notwithstanding that gay couples can have children.

Ask your mum if she’d appreciate not being allowed to remarry should she become a widow.

And secondly, there’s this notion that happily married couples are the essence of a stable civilisation. And gay couples aren’t. So we stop them getting married and…well, nothing happens at all. If you don’t think that a gay married couple contributes nothing to this ‘essence’ then a gay unmarried couple contributes…nothing to this ‘essence’. There’s zero benefit according to your argument.

So your argument would only hold water if there was a move to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying. But there isn’t. So it doesn’t.
 
Last edited:
Heterosexual couples can participate in conjugal relations–the marital act–which is the basis of procreation, whether they are fertile or infertile. Same sex couples cannot. There is nothing marital about the union. It is a contradiction to call it marriage.
 
Yes. Marriage create an automatic and legitimate filiation with the father, who is the husband of the wife who is giving birth.
Mariage create a possibility to adopt children as a couple. In some countries it is a need to adopt as a couple.
Mariage give the right or facilitate (depend on the law) to have artificial procreation.

Marriage protects the children who may be born and raised by the man and the woman. That’s why they are given some special rights that protect the whole family unit and the children. It is a recognization of what good the family does to a society. The society is composed by all the families. It’s subsidiarity.

Mariage is not (all) about love. If we cannot defend the marriage by argumenting about love, we can for children.
 
JerryZ said:
How about Biology?
Click to expand...
How come threads like this always need to discuss sex? And how come that almost everyone who brings it up automatically thinks of two men indulging in certain acts? It’s like Pavlov’s dogs. Ring the gay marriage bell and everyone thinks ‘gee, two men doing that is disgusting’.

What people do in the bedroom, gay or straight, has nothing at all to do with you. Bring it up as some sort of argument against ssm in a setting outside this forum and you’ll likely get a very brief and to the point version of ‘Mind your own business, buddy’. Forum etiquette being what it is, I’ll have to make do with the aforementioned ‘nothing to do with you’ and leave it at that.
 
JimG said:
Heterosexual couples can participate in conjugal relations–the marital act–which is the basis of procreation, whether they are fertile or infertile. Same sex couples cannot. There is nothing marital about the union. It is a contradiction to call it marriage.
Click to expand...
That’s then a different argument: ‘They can’t do what we do therefore it shouldn’t be allowed’. Which is another way of saying ‘They are different so we’ll treat them differently’.

Needless to say that is rejected outright.
 
It is not a religious argument. Sex is literally for procreation. It feels pleasurable so that humans do it more. Is an evolutionary technique. As for same-sex pair bonding being disordered, if we all all pair bonded with someone of the same sex our species would go extinct.
 
Anicette said:
Yes. Marriage create an automatic and legitimate filiation with the father, who is the husband of the wife who is giving birth.
Mariage create a possibility to adopt children as a couple. In some countries it is a need to adopt as a couple.
Click to expand...
You might know that it’s not a requirement for at least some Catholic adoption agencies. They feel it’s perfectly acceptable to have a child adopted by one woman (or one man). A family unit is not a requirement.

Your argument would then have to be that either one woman is better than a happily married twosome or…they shouldn’t adopt simply because they are gay.

Which do you prefer?
 
It’s like proclaiming: In the interest of equality applesauce will now be called peanut butter.
But SCOTUS can disorder reality however it likes.
Non-marital is not marriage.
 
Billy76 said:
It is not a religious argument. Sex is literally for procreation. It feels pleasurable so that humans do it more. Is an evolutionary technique. As for same-sex pair bonding being disordered, if we all all pair bonded with someone of the same sex our species would go extinct.
Click to expand...
So we would (unless all the women still became pregnant). Was somebody suggesting that we ban heterosexaul marriages, thus putting civilsation at risk? I missed that.

Or maybe somebody was suggesting that it’s a slippery slope. That if we allow the gay couple down the road to marry then we’ll all want a same sex partner. I missd that as well.
 
JimG said:
It’s like proclaiming: In the interest of equality applesauce will now be called peanut butter.
But SCOTUS can disorder reality however it likes.
Non-marital is not marriage.
Click to expand...
Feel free to call it something else if you like. But don’t think to tell me what I will call it.
 
That wasn’t the argument. The argument is that same sex bond pairings are inherently disorders. And that is why they shouldn’t be promoted by the state.
 
Billy76 said:
It is not a religious argument. Sex is literally for procreation. It feels pleasurable so that humans do it more. Is an evolutionary technique. As for same-sex pair bonding being disordered, if we all all pair bonded with someone of the same sex our species would go extinct.
Click to expand...
Yes, if we all did that we wouldn’t be here. It’s pleasurable whether we are fertile or not so that argument doesn’t really work. It could have been the case that it was only pleasurable during fertile periods, instead, it’s always pleasurable. Gay pairings happen in other species as well…penguins and bonobos for example. With only about 4% of the population being strictly homosexual, there’s no problem with humans dying out. There does seem to be some social benefits to having gay relatives as well. In primitive tribes, gay uncles were the teachers for hunting and protection of the tribe while the husbands were busy with their home duties or acquiring meat for the family.
 
And some others catholic agencies would only elect married couples. Which is the better situation.

You put a false argument that an happily same sex “married” couple is better than a single person. We can be two but no offer a better solution because by essence two people of the same sex cannot procreate and so it is not something close to minic a natural situation that they raise children.

Thhe children will always be exposed to a same sex couple and same sex sexuality as the reference even if they know it cannot be a reference.
 
What you advocate for is not marriage. Call it literally anything else or risk being corrected.
 
amt1985 said:
40.png
JerryZ:
Do you believe that anatomically speaking the rear end is suited to have the conjugal act performed in it?
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure if this is appropriate discussion material for this forum, but there are plenty of straight couples who see no problem with that sort of thing, and we don’t use it as a reason to invalidate their marriages.
Click to expand...
Moreover, the majority of gay men don’t engage in anal sex. Older surveys found that only about a third of gay men did and among younger gay men now it’s even less common. And what about lesbian couples? This doesn’t apply to them either.
 
Last edited:
Billy76 said:
Sex is not for pleasure though, it is for procreation.
Click to expand...
So when couples use contraception or they are past the age of being able to conceive or they have had a hysterectomy or a vasectomy then why do you think they are having sex?

As a couple, my wife and I score three outa four there. She can’t get pregnant, I can’t get her pregnant and neither of us wants her to get pregnant.

Why do you think we have sex?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top