Is there a secular argument against civil homosexual marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Startingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing in favor of banning all birth control, I’m just pointing out that it’d be hypocritical for a state that allows those to argue that marriage is for reproduction and subsequently forbid same-sex marriage on that basis.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
I’m just pointing out that it’d be hypocritical for a state that allows those to argue that marriage is for reproduction and subsequently forbid same-sex marriage on that basis.
Click to expand...
I did not write “forbid”; rather not reward SSM. I do not see the hypocrisy. The state rewards marriages that can re-populate society and does not reward “marriages” that cannot.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
I did not write “forbid”; rather not reward SSM. I do not see the hypocrisy. The state rewards marriages that can re-populate society and does not reward “marriages” that cannot.
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy occurs because same-sex couples frequently have children (not just through adoption but also artificial insemination and surrogacy) while opposite-sex couples frequently use birth control to delay or even outright avoid having children.

“A marriage that won’t produce new children is a dead end … unless it’s an straight marriage, because then childlessness is okay.”
 
Last edited:
I fear unforeseen, unintended consequences. I fear a cause-and-effect relationship between rushing in the direction of gay marriage, and some negative consequences that we cannot yet see or measure due to the relative newness of the movement. As Christians, our concern about possible consequences is rooted in our conviction that God does not arbitrarily issue moral guidelines. He has good reasons, whether or not I currently see those reasons, whether or not I will ever understand his reasons. His moral guidelines are anchored in his love for us. He really does want what’s best for us.

I understand this reasoning doesn’t fly for atheists or agnostics. Still, the possibility of unforeseen consequences is there, regardless of whether you believe there’s a God or not.

Honest question here. Are any sociologists expressing concern about this big a societal change, this fast? But perhaps to express any such concern would be akin to career suicide in the PC culture that embraces us all.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
The hypocrisy occurs because same-sex couples frequently have children (not just through adoption but also artificial insemination and surrogacy) while opposite-sex couples frequently use birth control to delay or even outright avoid having children.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the data on that claim of “frequently”. It would seem that the 2 methods proposed would most likely only involve lesbian relationships. However, if truly frequent then give those special cases a carve out to receive the marriage rewards.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
BornInMarch:
I’m just pointing out that it’d be hypocritical for a state that allows those to argue that marriage is for reproduction and subsequently forbid same-sex marriage on that basis.
Click to expand...
I did not write “forbid”; rather not reward SSM. I do not see the hypocrisy. The state rewards marriages that can re-populate society and does not reward “marriages” that cannot.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that allowing gay people to get married encourages homosexuality? Excuse the double negative, but not allowing gay people to marry doesn’t prevent them not having children.

What’s the actual reward that you want kept from them that impacts population?

You seem to be saying (no, you actually are saying) that you want to stop gay people getting married because they can’t have children. But they can’t anyway. So them getting married changes nothing whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
VeryBlessed said:
I understand this reasoning doesn’t fly for atheists or agnostics. Still, the possibility of unforeseen consequences is there, regardless of whether you believe there’s a God or not.
Click to expand...
You understand this is a very difficult argument to make against giving rights to gay people? You are essentially saying that a class of people should not have the right to marry because even though you can’t point to current concrete secular reason to deny those rights, you fear that there might be some unidentified bad outcome from it, someday. How can a society justify denying rights to people on such thin, and highly speculative reasoning?
 
The problem is that you think your religious/traditional definition of marriage must be accepted by all. The definition of marriage has changed over time and civil marriage is hugely different than a religious marriage. Either way, regardless of whether civil marriage for gays is allowed, gays will be living together and “marrying”. It’s fair to at least give them the same benefits as any other heterosexual gets from the government. They don’t care if you find their marriage “not real” or their lifestyle immoral.
 
rosejmj said:
The problem is that you think your religious/traditional definition of marriage must be accepted by all. The definition of marriage has changed over time and civil marriage is hugely different than a religious marriage. Either way, regardless of whether civil marriage for gays is allowed, gays will be living together and “marrying”. It’s fair to at least give them the same benefits as any other heterosexual gets from the government. They don’t care if you find their marriage “not real” or their lifestyle immoral.
Click to expand...
It seems that the terminology is a bone of contention. As in ‘marriage is what we do and I don’t want you calling it that’. Followed by lots of reasons why the term means so much to them. Followed by examples of why those reasons aren’t applical to ssm.

As far as the first point goes, I can only say I’m sorry - but the rest of us are going to call it marriage as well.

Which discounts any other argument immediately.
 
upant said:
40.png
rosejmj:
The definition of marriage has changed over time and civil marriage is hugely different than a religious marriage.
Click to expand...
Can they create a family in the natural way?

Apples and oranges
Click to expand...
F: ‘We’re going to call this type of food ‘fruit’’
U: ‘But you can’t. We call this fruit. You’ll have to call yours something else’.
F: ‘What you have is an apple’
U: ‘And?’
F: ‘What I have is an orange’
U: ‘So they’re not the same!’
F: ‘True. But they’re both fruit.’
 
TMC said:
You understand this is a very difficult argument to make against giving rights to gay people? You are essentially saying that a class of people should not have the right to marry because even though you can’t point to current concrete secular reason to deny those rights, you fear that there might be some unidentified bad outcome from it, someday. How can a society justify denying rights to people on such thin, and highly speculative reasoning?
Click to expand...
I certainly do understand it! My side is on the ropes and losing badly. But that doesn’t allay my fears and it doesn’t relieve me of the obligation to advocate for a better society no matter how ridiculous and counter-cultural I sound.

God even warned believers that his wisdom would sound like foolishness to the world. For the side I’m on, evangelization is the only answer I can think of. Like this verse says. “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord.” Jeremiah‬ ‭31:33-34‬

God convinces us of truth from the inside out. If we as a society have told him to take a hike and get lost, it is we who will end up lost.

I genuinely want to be wrong about gay marriage eventually being bad for us as a society. But I greatly fear I am not wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top