Is there a secular argument against civil homosexual marriage?

[Freddy]

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.

You seem to claim that you are able to read my mind. If I say we don’t want children - if I emphatically say that we don’t and I tell you that it’s a physical impossibility and that we only have sex because it feels good then your answer is to say ‘Ah, you do want children. You just don’t realise it’.

I’ll let my wife know, Billy. She’ll be amazed. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was very informative.

 

[bruisedreed]

My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that this issue of gay marriage has overtaken public consciousness in the last few decades at a rate faster than the Church has been able to generate new and fresh arguments for its position.

For me no argument presented here was persuasive.

(1) The state’s definition of marriage is detrimental to the species. Whole laws cannot be based on a conjecture like this. What compelling reasons and data do we have to believe this? It seems to imply that the legalization and recognition of same-sex marriage would itself cause a lower rate of procreation, but I can’t imagine a reason to believe this.
(2)Anal sex is detrimental to human nature. Those who support gay marriage could argue in response either that (a) it is not necessarily physically harmful, but rather merely risky, and it does not follow from something’s being risky that it should be absolutely avoided; and (b)Anal sex is not inevitable in a gay relationship, certainly not between women, but also not that between men.
(3)“Gay marriage attempts to redefine something that is by nature contrary to it.” This argument is not persuasive from a pluralistic, secular point of view, in my opinion. It is one thing for the Church to say: sacramental marriage is between man and woman. But on what grounds could it say that a society is not able to change the conditions under which people marry in the civic sphere?

I am a Catholic. I want to remain faithful to the Church, but I admit I am quite disheartened by the lack of persuasive arguments presented here. We should pray that God may enlighten our minds to better advance the Church’s vision.

 

[Billy76]

It’s not about being more detrimental. Read my statement again slowly: The state should not sponsor an act (homosexual pair bonding) that is detrimental to our species.

Like all disorders, we as humanity should strive cure homosexuality. Whether it is certain genes, neurochemistry, specific environmental effects, or a combination of all and find a remedy that eliminates it from the species (note: I do NOT mean eliminate people).

 

[Billy76]

(1) The state’s definition of marriage is detrimental to the species.

That was not my argument. My argument is not that the state’s definition of marriage is detrimental to the species, but that the state should not sponsor a detrimental act which homosexuality intrinsically. Just like genocide is detrimental but the law against it is not.

 

[bruisedreed]

I included it there in case someone else thought about it, not necessarily because I believed you had stated it. But I hope that (2) summarizes your position? If not, please explain.

 

[BornInMarch]

But because it brought about another bit which is that if there is separation of Church and State in our country. We shouldn’t have issues be decided by our religion there has to be a secular aspect. I don’t really know what to say to this.

I don’t think there is a secular argument for preventing same-sex couples from civilly marrying.

The government never made reproduction a requirement for marriage, so an inability to produce children in the usual way can’t be used as a reason to forbid same-sex marriages unless one also wants to forbid infertile opposite-sex marriages. Even then you wouldn’t have grounds to prevent all same-sex marriages because step-children are a factor; sometimes in a gay marriage one or both of the partners will have biological children from a previous marriage.

Other than reproduction, there’s no scientific evidence to suggest same-sex relationships are mentally or materially harmful to those involved or children raised by such couples. Because of this you can’t really make an argument based on protecting people from themselves.

As for why same-sex couples want access to civil marriages, there are a lot of practical rights that come with that. A civil marriage means if your spouse suffers a medical problem you’re allowed to visit them in the hospital and you get to make medical decisions on their behalf, if your spouse dies you’re considered their first “next of kin” if they haven’t written a specific will, and if your spouse is accused of a crime you can not be forced to testify against them as a witness.

 

[Billy76]

Homosexuality is detrimental to the species because it inhibits our ability to propagate the species. If enough people become homosexual we will cease to become a species. The state, like it does with all things that inhibit human life like murder, genocide, and suicide, should not sponsor it.

 

[Billy76]

You are welcome. I am always happy to educate the ignorant and talk about why the reproductive system is called as such.

 

[BornInMarch]

While some countries are experiencing population decline, in those places the causes tend to be due to birth control. The 10% of homosexual people in the world are less of a factor than the large swaths of heterosexual people who decide they just don’t want children or who wait until 40 to have kids.

Other than that it’s hypocritical of Catholics to condemn a group of people for not doing their part to propagate the species when you remember that our clergy and our religious orders practice celibacy. If enough people become Monks or Priests then we’ll also go extinct.

 

[Billy76]

While some countries are experiencing population decline, in those places the causes tend to be due to birth control. The 10% of homosexual people in the world are less of a factor than the large swaths of heterosexual people who decide they just don’t want children or who wait until 40 to have kids.

Fist of all the homosexual population is no where close to 10% (thank God). This thread is not about birth control but I agree, we should ban birth control and contraceptives.

Other than that it’s hypocritical of Catholics to condemn a group of people for not doing their part to propagate the species when you remember that our clergy and our religious orders practice celibacy. If enough people become Monks or Priests then we’ll also go extinct.

It is not hypocritical because there is no law sponsoring being a priest. I don’t advocate for state sponsored genocide or imprisonment of homosexuals but the state sponsoring of homosexuality.

 

[BornInMarch]

Fist of all the homosexual population is no where close to 10% (thank God). This thread is not about birth control but I agree, we should ban birth control and contraceptives.

Well you’re consistent, which is a good thing.

It is not hypocritical because there is no law sponsoring being a priest.

Religious tax-exemptions can be seen as laws sponsoring priesthood since they apply to parsonages as well as to places of worship. The government telling you that you don’t have to pay property taxes on your home sounds like a sponsorship to me.

 

[FiveLinden]

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.

Well, no. Same-sex activity is very common in other animals, notably in our closest living relations, bonobos. Pair-bonding is a different issue. Gay couples, unburdened by their own children, can make a significant impact on group survival even if they never have heterosexual sex.

 

[o_mlly]

The state passes laws that incentivize behaviors to insure its ongoing existence. Repopulating society is the secular reason that underlies all state laws which reward those who enter into a marriage contract.

A marriage contract that cannot produce new citizens ought not obtain the same rewards as those which do. The adoption argument fails as adopting existing children does not produce new citizens. The pleasure argument fails as there is no ordered human appetite which does not have as its end (telos) the sustenance of human beings. Hedonistic behaviors, pleasures as its own and only end, ought not be supported and, most certainly, not rewarded by the state.

God did not put a fence around the Tree of Life to prevent Adam and Eve from taking the forbidden fruit. Nor should the state forbid those who would do evil to themselves from doing so. However, neither should the state reward such behaviors thereby making us all part of supporting that evil which is anathema to us.

 

[BornInMarch]

The state passes laws that incentivize behaviors to insure its ongoing existence. Repopulating society is the secular reason that underlies all state laws which reward those who enter into a marriage contract.

If that was the case then why would the state allow married citizens to use birth control? There are a lot of heterosexual couples who choose to never have children at all.

 

[o_mlly]

If that was the case then why would the state allow married citizens to use birth control?

Because such a law, as other morality laws, is unenforceable.

 

[Pattylt]

Homosexuality is detrimental to the species because it inhibits our ability to propagate the species. If enough people become homosexual we will cease to become a species.

This sounds like you consider it contagious? There has always been a certain percentage of the human population that are gay. It has never stopped reproduction. We now inhabit every corner of the planet! Some hypothetical idea of not propagating will overtake us is absurd. No culture has experienced decreased numbers due to homosexuals. They have experienced it due to birth control. Your argument is absurd and I understand you’d love to cure gayness but it’s never going to happen. Many gays are very happy with what they are, especially since the general acceptance of them. You can religiously condemn them but not for some biological “our species would die” . It’s obviously not true.

 

[Thorolfr]

BornInMarch:

If that was the case then why would the state allow married citizens to use birth control?

Because such a law, as other morality laws, is unenforceable.

But the state could make the means of birth control unavailable. It could ban the sale of condoms and birth control pills. It wouldn’t prevent those who are determined but would make it more difficult.

 

[o_mlly]

But the state could make the means of birth control unavailable. It could ban the sale of condoms and birth control pills. It wouldn’t prevent those who are determined but would make it more difficult.

Only enforceable laws can prevent immoral conduct. Such a prohibitive law would be moral but unenforceable.

 

[BornInMarch]

That’s right. Just because a ban on something won’t get rid of it 100% doesn’t mean it can’t reduce the amount of that thing in society.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s right. Just because a ban on something won’t get rid of it 100% doesn’t mean it can’t reduce the amount of that thing in society.

It would certainly increase the number of outlaws and spawn organized crime operations in black markets. Sex can be just, as if not more, addictive than illegal drugs.

To be fair, would you also require a law that those who practice NFP have sex during their fertile periods? More to the point, if society imposes morality laws on the private acts of citizens, citizens rebel, courts get backed up, and prisons fill up. There are good reasons that the state does not mandate private morality acts that do not affect society as a whole.