Is there a secular argument against civil homosexual marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Startingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Billy76 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I’m sure your argument was all about procreation. And that gay couples couldn’t. And my response was pretty much ‘So what?’
 
Anicette said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s better. ‘They can’t adopt because they are gay’. Much more honest.
 
Yes, if we all did that we wouldn’t be here.
Click to expand...
So why promote an inherently destructive act against the species?
It’s pleasurable whether we are fertile or not so that argument doesn’t really work.
Click to expand...
It does though. The entire point of it feeling pleasurable is that we do it more, in hopes that sex occurs when fertile. Since human women have no mechanism to show when they are fertile, it was necessary in our evolution.
It could have been the case that it was only pleasurable during fertile periods, instead, it’s always pleasurable.
Click to expand...
See above. The purpose was to have sex more to procreate and not miss fertile windows.
Gay pairings happen in other species as well…penguins and bonobos for example.
Click to expand...
And? If they were a smart species they would eliminate same-sex bond pairings as it prohibits propagation of the species.
With only about 4% of the population being strictly homosexual, there’s no problem with humans dying out.
Click to expand...
It is still disordered for the species though and thus not equivalent to heterosexuals. It may annihilate the species but inhibits full propagation of the species.
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.
Click to expand...
A heterosexual uncle can serve the same function. Homosexuals do not have any intrinsic characteristics that make them valuable to a species.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I had heard that before but was unsure of the source and thus, the reliability of it. It certainly makes sense. I’m glad to know that it was actually studied and thus a good point that they aren’t all sodomites! I have no problem with that either, btw…it’s just useful knowledge.
 
Just because there are ways to avoid pregnancy doesn’t mean the purpose isn’t pregnancy. It is literally called the “Reproductive System” for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Billy76 said:
What you advocate for is not marriage. Call it literally anything else or risk being corrected.
Click to expand...
What I advocate is not what you call marriage. I don’t have the problem here. You are the guys saying it shouldn’t be allowed (it already has) and it shouldn’t be called marriage (it already is).

I fully appreciate and support your right as a Catholic to suggest that homosexual acts are a mortal sin. But I’m not sure what else you want the rest of us to do about that. Most of us don’t care what people do in bed. And I also support your right to complain that when a gay couple gets married then it shouldn’t be called marriage. I’ve no problem with that. But don’t tell me what I can call it thanks very much.
 
No it objectively is not marriage and what you call it is 100% wrong and I will continue to correct you because you are wrong.
 
Billy76 said:
Just because there are ways to avoid pregnancy doesn’t mean the purpose isn’t pregnancy.
Click to expand...
No, it literally means that the purpose is not pregnancy. Literally. It’s a physical impossibility for my wife and I to have children and we don’t want children. Why on earth do you think we have sex?
 
Billy76 said:
It is still disordered for the species though and thus not equivalent to heterosexuals. It may annihilate the species but inhibits full propagation of the species.
Click to expand...
Hogwash… it’s defined by the Catholic Church as disordered, not by biologists. What percent of the population is infertile? It may rival the number of homosexuals. I agree that humans have a hidden estrus thus why we have to have sex all the time to hit that fertile period. Evolution just took that route in us. But, we aren’t biologically required to be married to have children and we certainly haven’t been hamstrung with 4% gay and 4% infertile. For thousands of years we managed to increase in spite of that. Why? Because it’s pleasurable, and it just happens to ensure enough of us get pregnant. Once you start talking about procreation only or disordered, you’re talking theology.

We probably were having pleasurable sex before we even connected it to procreation. We weren’t always as brilliant as we are now! 😂
 
Billy76 said:
The state shouldn’t sponsor behavior detrimental to our species.
Click to expand...
Gay couples who do not get married can’t conceive. Gay couples who do get married can’t conceive.

Now, did you notice any difference in behaviour which might be ‘detrimental to our species’ viz a viz being able to conceive if they marry or not? No, me neither.

So is the state ‘sponsoring behavior detrimental to our species’? Obviously not. I don’t believe that you are thinking this through.
 
Billy76 said:
No it objectively is not marriage and what you call it is 100% wrong and I will continue to correct you because you are wrong.
Click to expand...
On a Catholic forum, yes, you are right. Outside of a Catholic forum, it’s just your opinion against mine. If we were on my forum, I’d be right and you’d be wrong. And I would continue to correct you. Now what?
 
Because you find your wife attractive and want her to carry your offspring. Just because it isn’t technically possible given your constraints does not mean that is not the reason for the drive.
 
I’m not but you clearly do not care about the facts or science so I am done conversing with you.
 
Yes it is. The state is sponsoring a human activity that is intrinsically detrimental to the species. I did not say that the sponsoring caused it to be detrimental. Just a flat out terrible argument.
 
Billy76 said:
Because you find your wife attractive and want her to carry your offspring.
Click to expand...
First part is correct. The second isn’t.

I don’t want her to have children. She doesn’t want to have children. I can’t get her pregnant even if she did. She can’t get pregnant even if I wanted her to. And let’s say for the sake of argument that we indulge in acts that wouldn’t get her pregnant anyway.

Why do you think we do that?
 
The second part is true. The reason you find your wife attractive is because you want to spread your genes and have offspring. Whether you consciously acknowledge it or not is irrelevant.
 
Billy76 said:
Yes it is. The state is sponsoring a human activity that is intrinsically detrimental to the species. I did not say that the sponsoring caused it to be detrimental. Just a flat out terrible argument.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that being gay is detrimental to the species. How is it that two gay people getting married is more detrimental? What is it in the process of being married that makes it detrimental that isn’t detrimental already?

I don’t think that you realise that your argument is an argument against being gay. Not for gay people to get married.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top