Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[kenofken]

secular_freedom
I’m very confused by your response to my posting

My point was that we don’t know the consequences so should proceed with caution. I thought I was pretty clear because I was responding to someone who asked me to clarify my position. Why are you being sarcastic and saying “why don’t you enlighten us” it makes no sense.

Since I presume you haven’t spoken to everyone on the planet, that is a blatantly an unprovable statement and completely incorrect because I have spoken to people who call civil unions marriages.

Again, a blatantly unprovable statement since you haven’t spoken to everyone.

Yes they are see posting #45 to which I was responding in an earlier post. Were you following the statements and responses which were before my posting?

Actually that isn 't true either. I didn’t say you got rid of the building blocks entirely, just that you changed them radically. This is a radical change. That is what I find so frustrating. Even in your response, you are making blanket unprovable statements that you are selling as fact. You do not have a historical leg to stand on if you are trying to say this isn’t a radical change. In fact, you agree that it is a radical change when you say “No one is pretending otherwise. What’s your point?” You agree “everyone” would say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and if these pass into law, it won’t be. That is a huge change.

I guess I’ll leave it at that. The OP asked for non-religious arguments against same-sex unions. I gave one. It doesn’t bring in religion. It brings in history and sociology and points out that extreme caution needs to be used because this is a RADICAL change. I’m sorry you don’t like my arguments, but you didn’t actually refute the facts that I used or my logic. I’d certainly like to read your ideas on how this is not a radical change to a fundamental building block of our society.

Of course it’s a radical change. Justice , and progress always is. Allowing mixed race couples to marry was a radical change. The end of apartheid was a radical change, and one far scarier to white South Africans than gay marriage is to you. They worried that the folks they oppressed for 200 years might turn on them with machetes (with good reason). Fortunately more compassionate heads prevailed. The end of slavery was a radical change, one that destroyed an economic engine that allowed us to be an independent nation in the first place. It was so radical a change that it cost well over 600,000 American lives. Would you have had us forgo that change becauase we just couldn’t be absolutely sure how it would pan out?

The printing press was a radical change, and one that had decidedly disastrous results for the Catholic Church. Should we have stuck with mass illiteracy? Allowing people to marry of their own will rather than parental arrangement was a radical change, and one which brought its downsides. The automobile was a radical change, and one that brought in both enormous opportunity and slavery to Middle East oil, untold loss of life in accident and teen promiscuity. Should we have stayed on horseback? The germ theory of disease was a radical change, and one fought tooth and nail by doctors for two centuries AFTER the invention of the microscope. The old theories had to be right you see, because they had served humanity for so long. So we clung to tradition at the cost of 60 percent mortality rates in maternity and surgical wards.

The Internet gives 15-year-olds the power to do university level research but also gives them access to pornography that Larry Flynt could not have imagined in the 1970s. Yet we don’t declare a moratorium on change for fear of what it could do. We make the best of it. We roll with it and mitigate the harm and work on the next improvement. Anyone who’s afraid to confront radical change has no business living in the 21st Century and probably should have stayed in the 14th or before. I will concede the point that I cannot forsee exactly what gay marriage would produce. At the same time, it’s clear that it’s “radical change quotient” is not even on the same scale as the things I’ve mentioned, and society has survived all of them.

No one on this forum or anywhere else has been able to put forward any plausible non-religious scenarios for how gay marriage will cause serious societal harm. The experiment has been running for several years in states and even whole countries, and still no evidence or suggestion of real problems. I’ve heard lots of ludicrous predictions about how people are going to marry horses or their sisters next if we allow gay marriage. I’ve heard lurid tales about Sodom and Gomorrah. But nothing that a grown-up responsible citizen or judge or politician should seriously consider as they make public policy decisions.

The closest thing to a non-religious argument anyone has mustered here is the idea that history is never wrong, so progress of any kind is just too risky.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I will concede the point that I cannot forsee exactly what gay marriage would produce.

But others who are willing to admit to it on a conscious level can see it.

I’ve heard lots of ludicrous predictions about how people are going to marry horses or their sisters next if we allow gay marriage. I’ve heard lurid tales about Sodom and Gomorrah. But nothing that a grown-up responsible citizen or judge or politician should seriously consider as they make public policy decisions.

It’s very convenient to simply dismiss it as ludicrous with no explanation as to what is ludicrous about it, but that’s exactly what society said about Gay marriage. Ludicrous.

The closest thing to a non-religious argument anyone has mustered here is the idea that history is never wrong, so progress of any kind is just too risky.

It’s only risky if you repress the evidence that’s there.

 

[kenofken]

But others who are willing to admit to it on a conscious level can see it.

It’s very convenient to simply dismiss it as ludicrous with no explanation as to what is ludicrous about it, but that’s exactly what society said about Gay marriage. Ludicrous.

It’s only risky if you repress the evidence that’s there.

You give me too much credit if you think I have the time or the juice to repress evidence of any kind. Even when I was a working member of “the media establishment” people grossly overestimated my power to conspire. Mostly I haven’t repressed any evidence because none has been brought forward in nearly 80 posts on this subject. We’ve had lots of religious arguments, “natural law” arguments, which are religious dressed up as philosophy or pseudo-science and revisionist history filtered through a lense of religion. That’s all fine. They’re perfectly valid points to argue from, but they carry no water in a post asking for a truly non-religious argument against gay marriage.

No one has put forth any evidence like peer-reviewed science from mainstream experts in the fields of psychology, medicine, social science or public policy. No one has been able to cite any verifiable instance of how harm has been caused by gay unions in the 20-some nations, states and other jurisdictions which perform or recognize such unions.

For that matter, no one has been able to explain why such an “intrinsically evil” thing has passed muster even in conservative Catholic countries such as Argentina, Mexico and Uraguay. Unless gay people there have attained a majority or developed jedi-like mind powers, it would seem that reasonable people found no harm, and much justice, in allowing gay unions to be recognized.

If someone really has the ace up their sleeve, an argument which doesn’t rely on religion, personal distaste of gays or “marriage has always meant hetero,” let’s see it.

 

[HappyRevert]

Of course it’s a radical change. Justice , and progress always is. …

The closest thing to a non-religious argument anyone has mustered here is the idea that history is never wrong, so progress of any kind is just too risky.

I appreciate that you concede the point that you do not know the effect that changing marriage would have on our society and also, that you are extremely optimistic about our society’s ability to absorb change. However, I don’t think that I have stated that progress of any kind is just too risky. An exaggeration of what I am saying is that people take more time deciding what they want to order at a restaurant, than they do in weighing the repercussions of this issue. I appreciate that you believe that gays are being discriminated against because they cannot marry whomever they please over the age of 18. However, making a massive change to something as fundamental as marriage should cause everyone to pause, even those in favor of it.

No one on this forum or anywhere else has been able to put forward any plausible non-religious scenarios for how gay marriage will cause serious societal harm.

I would state that no one has been able to put forth any plausible non-religious scenarios for how gay marriage WILL NOT cause serious societal harm. You can conjecture, hope and desire, but you have no data. You speak of the past “several years”, but we are talking about issues that will show up in generations, not a few years.
We have shown that all known societies have used marriage as their backbone so by changing it, you will cause harm. You ask for plausible scenarios, I’ve given some but you don’t accept them because I have no future data, only past (which is more than the gay marriage advocates have). You have no plausible scenarios other than conjecture of how this is going to help our society, so at least keep the playing field level. If I am expected to provide arguments and data, so are those supporting gay marriage.

Since you don’t like the historical argument, here’s the sociological one.

1. Marriage is the basis of family structure which is needed by our children. (Society’s future)
2. There is a significant evidence that the breakdown of our family structure is increasing crime, poverty, drug use, depression, suicide, etc. I’m too lazy right now to pull some up for you, but if you really don’t believe that, just ask me to find it and I’ll go get some.
3. By changing the definition of marriage, you change what it is. Therefore in all probability it will be made less stable.
4. There are other ways to provide legal protections without disturbing marriages so why risk harming the backbone of our society, when there are other ways to give the protection gays are seeking (at least from what I’ve read).

As an aside, I know you dislike Catholicism (hence the dig about the printing press), but at least recognize it is the only Christian religion (that I’ve read about anyway) who has a logical leg to stand on. The document Humanae Vitae states that sexual relations should only occur in marriage and are to follow natural law for the transmission of life. If our doctrine clearly states that, then everything (well almost everything) that you have read here flows naturally from our published doctrine. Since you are on a Catholic forum, I would hope that you would expect to hear what Catholics believe. You may not agree with our doctrine, but don’t denigrate it because it does not fit into your world view. We at least are logically following our beliefs.

 

[kenofken]

I appreciate that you concede the point that you do not know the effect that changing marriage would have on our society and also, that you are extremely optimistic about our society’s ability to absorb change. However, I don’t think that I have stated that progress of any kind is just too risky. An exaggeration of what I am saying is that people take more time deciding what they want to order at a restaurant, than they do in weighing the repercussions of this issue. I appreciate that you believe that gays are being discriminated against because they cannot marry whomever they please over the age of 18. However, making a massive change to something as fundamental as marriage should cause everyone to pause, even those in favor of it.

I would state that no one has been able to put forth any plausible non-religious scenarios for how gay marriage WILL NOT cause serious societal harm. You can conjecture, hope and desire, but you have no data. You speak of the past “several years”, but we are talking about issues that will show up in generations, not a few years.
We have shown that all known societies have used marriage as their backbone so by changing it, you will cause harm. You ask for plausible scenarios, I’ve given some but you don’t accept them because I have no future data, only past (which is more than the gay marriage advocates have). You have no plausible scenarios other than conjecture of how this is going to help our society, so at least keep the playing field level. If I am expected to provide arguments and data, so are those supporting gay marriage.

Since you don’t like the historical argument, here’s the sociological one.

1. Marriage is the basis of family structure which is needed by our children. (Society’s future)
2. There is a significant evidence that the breakdown of our family structure is increasing crime, poverty, drug use, depression, suicide, etc. I’m too lazy right now to pull some up for you, but if you really don’t believe that, just ask me to find it and I’ll go get some.
3. By changing the definition of marriage, you change what it is. Therefore in all probability it will be made less stable.
4. There are other ways to provide legal protections without disturbing marriages so why risk harming the backbone of our society, when there are other ways to give the protection gays are seeking (at least from what I’ve read).

As an aside, I know you dislike Catholicism (hence the dig about the printing press), but at least recognize it is the only Christian religion (that I’ve read about anyway) who has a logical leg to stand on. The document Humanae Vitae states that sexual relations should only occur in marriage and are to follow natural law for the transmission of life. If our doctrine clearly states that, then everything (well almost everything) that you have read here flows naturally from our published doctrine. Since you are on a Catholic forum, I would hope that you would expect to hear what Catholics believe. You may not agree with our doctrine, but don’t denigrate it because it does not fit into your world view. We at least are logically following our beliefs.

I would think the burden of proof ought to be on those who propose to deny tens of millions of Americans their 14th Amendment rights. If we have to prove that nothing bad will happen from change 60 years from now as a result of change, we better abandon all research and development. For that matter, we ought to abort all male children, in case one of them is destined to be the next Hitler or antichrist.

I don’t dispute that marriage is a good basis of family and social structure. I also don’t dispute the fact that breakdown has caused significant problems in our society. None of it has anything to do with gay people however. Some of it is the result of straight people deciding they no longer need marriage, or even parental responsibility to bear children. Much of it is the result of poverty and an economy which holds very little future for people, regardless of their hard work or education levels.

It doesn’t follow for me how encouraging a whole class of people to form stable family units will undermine stable family units. For decades, our social and legal marginalization of gays essentially pushed them into fleeting casual, almost disposable relationships. Now that they stand to be socially stable and responsible, that’s a problem?
If anything, married gays and lesbians might just set a decent example for some of their hetero nieces and nephews.

The definition of marriage is changed significantly, if not radically by each new generation. Sometimes it makes it more stable, sometimes less. Baby Boomers married right out of high school or college, then treated it as a disposable lifestyle accessory. My generation decided to marry much later, if at all, but tends to take it more seriously when we do. Life goes on.

Most of the alternatives to marriage are badly deficient for a variety of reasons, mostly because they don’t convey nearly all the same right as real marriage. In addition, most of the Prop 8 crowd and the church actively campaign against even those bare bones rights, so what’s the incentive for anyone to settle for them?

My own position with Catholicism is not a matter of “dislike.” I don’t agree with most of it and don’t follow it, buy my metion of the printing press is just a matter of historical record. It caused enormous disrpution to the church’s traditional authority. Humana Vitae is fine for those sworn to follow the Pope, but it’s not a basis for civil law in this country unless its supporters have the votes to do so, within the bounds of Constitutional Law. It’s certainly no basis for secular argument against Gay Marriage.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I would think the burden of proof ought to be on those who propose to deny tens of millions of Americans their 14th Amendment rights. If we have to prove that nothing bad will happen from change 60 years from now as a result of change, we better abandon all research and development. For that matter, we ought to abort all male children, in case one of them is destined to be the next Hitler or antichrist.

Very well then. If you are concerned about the denial of 14th Amendment rights to tens of millions of Americans, it appears you will also be one of the first, if not already, pressing for marriage of pedophiles to children, or zoophiles to animals, and more. We don’t want to wait to prove that nothing bad will result from that, and deny rights in the meantime.

Perhaps you would also like to remove such paraphilias from the DSM using political lobbying instead of science, as they did with homosexuality. The name “Gay” itself is a repression of the mental illnesses that result from what is itself a mental illness, for whatever “Gay” people are, they are not gay. They are some of the most depressed and antisocial people in society.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

No one has put forth any evidence like peer-reviewed science from mainstream experts in the fields of psychology, medicine, social science or public policy. No one has been able to cite any verifiable instance of how harm has been caused by gay unions in the 20-some nations, states and other jurisdictions which perform or recognize such unions.

I figured Uncle Karl would likely have done a piece on the matter, so I seeked, and found. Of course his references will be inadequate, at the very least, to you, but perhaps some of the other readers of this thread will receive enlightenment from this, if they haven’t already read it:

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

 

[Kevin42]

I would state that no one has been able to put forth any plausible non-religious scenarios for how gay marriage WILL NOT cause serious societal harm. You can conjecture, hope and desire, but you have no data.

**How is one supposed to prove that something will not happen? Besides the numerous scientific studies that have been done showing that gay parents are just as good of parents as straight parents and the studies exploring long term gay relationships, what more do you want? **

Since you don’t like the historical argument, here’s the sociological one.

1. Marriage is the basis of family structure which is needed by our children. (Society’s future)
2. There is a significant evidence that the breakdown of our family structure is increasing crime, poverty, drug use, depression, suicide, etc. I’m too lazy right now to pull some up for you, but if you really don’t believe that, just ask me to find it and I’ll go get some.
3. By changing the definition of marriage, you change what it is. Therefore in all probability it will be made less stable.

**How and why? Change does not necessarily cause instability. **

1. There are other ways to provide legal protections without disturbing marriages so why risk harming the backbone of our society, when there are other ways to give the protection gays are seeking (at least from what I’ve read).

What harm has come from gay marriages in countries that have legalized them?

CatholicBoy1957:

Very well then. If you are concerned about the denial of 14th Amendment rights to tens of millions of Americans, it appears you will also be one of the first, if not already, pressing for marriage of pedophiles to children, or zoophiles to animals, and more. We don’t want to wait to prove that nothing bad will result from that, and deny rights in the meantime.

**Children and animals cannot consent to contracts, so I doubt you have to worry about any of the things you have mentioned happening. Nonetheless, I always appreciate being compared to pedophiles (whose activities do actually cause physical and mental harm, unlike those of gays) and zoophiles. **

Perhaps you would also like to remove such paraphilias from the DSM using political lobbying instead of science, as they did with homosexuality. The name “Gay” itself is a repression of the mental illnesses that result from what is itself a mental illness, for whatever “Gay” people are, they are not gay. They are some of the most depressed and antisocial people in society.

I have yet to meet a gay person who is as depressed an antisocial as you claim. On the contrary, many gay people I know are quite well adjusted.

 

[kenofken]

Very well then. If you are concerned about the denial of 14th Amendment rights to tens of millions of Americans, it appears you will also be one of the first, if not already, pressing for marriage of pedophiles to children, or zoophiles to animals, and more. We don’t want to wait to prove that nothing bad will result from that, and deny rights in the meantime.

Perhaps you would also like to remove such paraphilias from the DSM using political lobbying instead of science, as they did with homosexuality. The name “Gay” itself is a repression of the mental illnesses that result from what is itself a mental illness, for whatever “Gay” people are, they are not gay. They are some of the most depressed and antisocial people in society.

Really? That’s all you got? That’s you “A” game? You, my friend nailed down my point in a way I could never have. I issue a challenge for real, substantive, lucid, secular reasons against gay marriage and this is the best you got. Hysteria.

And can anyone tell my why pedophilia and zoophilia seem to consume the imagination of Prop 8 folks all the time? I consider myself a fairly accomplished pervert, but I never think of these things. Neither do the overwhelming majority of gay people.

 

[ThomasToo]

Very well then. If you are concerned about the denial of 14th Amendment rights to tens of millions of Americans, it appears you will also be one of the first, if not already, pressing for marriage of pedophiles to children, or zoophiles to animals, and more. We don’t want to wait to prove that nothing bad will result from that, and deny rights in the meantime.

Laws against pedophilia has a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest (i.e. preventing children from being raped) while laws preventing gays from seeking the legal protections of civil marriage do not.

Perhaps you would also like to remove such paraphilias from the DSM using political lobbying instead of science, as they did with homosexuality. The name “Gay” itself is a repression of the mental illnesses that result from what is itself a mental illness, for whatever “Gay” people are, they are not gay. They are some of the most depressed and antisocial people in society.

First and foremost, if you are not a trained mental health professional please do not attempt to speak authoritatively on matters of mental health as such attempts are at best misleading and at worst profoundly dangerous.

Maybe the GLBTQ community is composed of ‘some of the most depressed and antisocial people in society’ because people compare their consensual love to child rape, say they are going to condemned to hell because of who they love, are taught from infancy that homosexual desires are disordered and therefore struggle with coming to terms with the fact that they happen to love people of the same sex, and because they live in a society where they can’t be sure their loved one will be able to be there in times of crisis and need (see cases of exclusion of partners being kicked out of hospital rooms because they are not married). Perhaps these societal conditions also begin to explain why GLBTQ teenagers are more than three times as likely to attempt suicide at their straight classmates.

 

[Aramis]

The best argument against “gay marriage” is that the fundamental purpose of marriage is the begetting of children with relative assurance of their male parentage and that male parent investing in his biological offspring so as to ensure the propagation of his genome.

same-sex pseudo-copulation in animals is proportional to population density and is almost always linked to dominance behaviors in lower density, and is seldom exclusive in low density. As population density climbs, the rates of male-male copulation increases, and the number of genetic males pursuing only male partners for copulatory behavior increases; that point is almost always a point where the population is at dangerously high levels.

Applying a little common sense, then: exclusively same-gender-partner seeking appears to be a sign of an unhealthily dense population. It is a form of contraceptive behavior; a behavior which is oriented to prevent offspring, and reduce the breeding population by removing some members from it, but at the same time preventing excess children by not removing the non-breeders from the eating pool.

Studies on rats have been really fun to read… in dense populations, rats exclusively seeking same sex partners will, when placed in a low enough density, turn to normal reproductive behavior of opposite gender attraction.

And when one looks at where the hotbeds of homosexual lifestyles, they tend to be urban high density environments.

 

[inocente]

The name “Gay” itself is a repression of the mental illnesses that result from what is itself a mental illness, for whatever “Gay” people are, they are not gay. They are some of the most depressed and antisocial people in society.

A gay on CAF told me the word stands for Good As You. If they are depressed and antisocial then it may be that society depresses them by exclusion. One way to treat the mental illnesses of people who do no harm is to stop excluding or labeling them. There may be side effects on the rest of society, but medicine is always a balance of risks. What are the harmful side effects that may outweigh the benefits?

 

[colmcille1]

A gay on CAF told me the word stands for Good As You. If they are depressed and antisocial then it may be that society depresses them by exclusion. One way to treat the mental illnesses of people who do no harm is to stop excluding or labeling them. There may be side effects on the rest of society, but medicine is always a balance of risks. What are the harmful side effects that may outweigh the benefits?

Hi inocente,
Good to chat with you again!
I think this topic is particularly difficult to unpick as it seems to me that if one is seeking a non-religious argument against gay “marriage”, one is disabling oneself from arguing a strong case from the gay perspective.
The reason I say this is because the Faith argument is such a strong and cogent one that it practically overrides all other angles. The topic is, to my mind, a purely academic exercise. (Not that I’m against that, you understand; it’s just that people can’t really be “separated” from their Faith.)
Having said that, I still cling doggedly to the benign dictum: hate the sin, love the sinner.

God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Just responding to this last comment:

I don’t think it’s so much that the “Faith argument” is very cogent, most cogent, or even the organizing principle(s) for discussing the issue. On this and on similar threads what I see is this:

• those adhering to a (religious) faith system are mostly (not entirely) those who appreciate that the universe is fundamentally an ordered place. Whether one operates from a ‘creationist’ or evolutionary perspective is immaterial. There is an operational structure to the universe, an operation which includes randomness, btw, because random events themselves are absorbed into that order and/or participate in re-ordering. But the order does not disintegrate and can only be ignored to humanity’s peril. (The orderliness of natural science, of physical science, etc.)

-such acknowledgement of and respect for order often extends to a comfort level with a faith system which reflects such order and/or proceeds from that understanding. (An example, while not exclusive, would be Catholicism, because philosophically it is linked to the natural order.)

-those who reject order as an important principle for humans to consider (and orient their own lives by) are often those who also reject all religious systems as “constricting,” “artificial,” “confining,” “dogmatic,” “oppressive,” etc. because they imagine such systems as impositions from the outside, rather than organic outgrowths of perception and experience (which they are; it’s just that institutional religions have formalized the perceptions and codified them).

The ultimate rejection of cosmic and/or societal order is what anarchy is all about. One doesn’t have to be a violent activist to be an anarchist. One can quietly reject any need or desirability to accept structure in society. This is what extreme individualism leads to, which is the unspoken argument underlying “gay” “marriage.” It is a distortion of the idealism of the Founding Fathers, who were not extreme individualists at all. Anyone who does not understand this is utterly ignorant about U.S. History, which makes it interesting that some of the most pro-“gay”-“marriage” proponents, on and off CAF, love to throw around terms like “rights” and “civil rights” with absolutely no understanding of those definitions and how contextualized and specific these terms are – both originally and over the years of judicial decisions since our founding.

The effort to create and maintain an ordered society and body politic was the chief activity of the Founding Fathers before the military aspects of the Revolution, to long after the bloodshed subsided. The American Revolution was not about unfettered individualism, nor about libertarianism.

The pro-“gay”-“marriage” supporters discard the notion of the primacy of social order. Some of them dismiss it overtly, others indirectly or covertly. Arguments will not be resolved with them – even on threads entittled “non-religious” or “secular,” because their definition of those terms extends beyond belief systems to the very notion that structure is important.

The irony of their many complaints, on and off CAF, is that they are far more into indoctrination than most of the segment of this country who is opposed to “gay” “marriage.” (Note that many calling themselves gay or homosexual are themselves opposed to insitutionalizing “gay” “marriage,” or even informally referring to those two terms in unison.)

The proponents of same-sex “marriage” have an aggressive, doctrinaire Re-education Program which involves new (invisible) dictionaries and radical new perspectives on the individual in society – not any perspective shared by those who understand the relationship between ordered ideals and an ordered society and body politic.

 

[ERose]

I would think the burden of proof ought to be on those who propose to deny tens of millions of Americans their 14th Amendment rights. If we have to prove that nothing bad will happen from change 60 years from now as a result of change, we better abandon all research and development. For that matter, we ought to abort all male children, in case one of them is destined to be the next Hitler or antichrist.

No you are wrong here. The burden of proof is upon you and others who are trying to reinterpret the 14th amendment, which is what is required to win your argument. From what I understand is when an amendment is to be used its orginal intent must be taken into consideration. Thus the 14th amendment was providing racial and ethnic equality not lifestyle equality. To assume as much is a stretch. Also since you have come to a Catholic forum the burden is also on you to convince us why we are wrong and you are right.

I don’t dispute that marriage is a good basis of family and social structure. I also don’t dispute the fact that breakdown has caused significant problems in our society. None of it has anything to do with gay people however. Some of it is the result of straight people deciding they no longer need marriage, or even parental responsibility to bear children. Much of it is the result of poverty and an economy which holds very little future for people, regardless of their hard work or education levels.

Most of this paragraph I can agree with except for the last paragraph, which is truly ludicrious. In this country, if you are will to put in the work and effort and desire you can improve your life financially, emotionally, and spiritually. It is up to you.

It doesn’t follow for me how encouraging a whole class of people to form stable family units will undermine stable family units. For decades, our social and legal marginalization of gays essentially pushed them into fleeting casual, almost disposable relationships. Now that they stand to be socially stable and responsible, that’s a problem?
If anything, married gays and lesbians might just set a decent example for some of their hetero nieces and nephews.

Do you have proof of this? In recent history, gays and lesbians have been basically placed on a pedestal by hollywood and significant marketing to make people believe that gays and lesbians are just like everyone else. Yet, statistics show that a larger percentage of gays and lesbians still participate in fleeting, casual, and almost disposable relationships than heterosexuals
.

The definition of marriage is changed significantly, if not radically by each new generation. Sometimes it makes it more stable, sometimes less. Baby Boomers married right out of high school or college, then treated it as a disposable lifestyle accessory. My generation decided to marry much later, if at all, but tends to take it more seriously when we do. Life goes on.

No the definition hasn’t changed just the viewpoint or opinion of marriage. There is a difference.

Most of the alternatives to marriage are badly deficient for a variety of reasons, mostly because they don’t convey nearly all the same right as real marriage. In addition, most of the Prop 8 crowd and the church actively campaign against even those bare bones rights, so what’s the incentive for anyone to settle for them?

As well as they should be. Marriage should be placed at a higher priority in this society and marginalizing of it should cease.

My own position with Catholicism is not a matter of “dislike.” I don’t agree with most of it and don’t follow it, buy my metion of the printing press is just a matter of historical record. It caused enormous disrpution to the church’s traditional authority. Humana Vitae is fine for those sworn to follow the Pope, but it’s not a basis for civil law in this country unless its supporters have the votes to do so, within the bounds of Constitutional Law. It’s certainly no basis for secular argument against Gay Marriage.

This I agree with as well, but you need to read the title of this forum and understand that Catholics are going to use there beliefs in arguing their point. If you do not want the Catholic view then go somewhere else.

 

[HappyRevert]

I would think the burden of proof ought to be on those who propose to deny tens of millions of Americans their 14th Amendment rights.

This is not a sarcastic statement, but one that truly perplexes me. From my other postings I think you understand that from my position, marriage is between a man and a woman because it has always been so and that is what it means. You say the current laws deny tens of millions of Americans their 14th Amendment rights which is “to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.” Currently, two opposite gender people can marry whether they are gay or not, so how is that discrimination? If a marriage is historically and sociologically between males and females, then that law applies to everyone across the board. I don’t see how that is discriminatory. In fact it is the opposite of discriminatory because it applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

The follow on argument to that would be that you want to be able to marry whomever you please (over 18 of course) or it is discrimination. I understand that most gays supporting this legislation are not desiring future radical changes, but I would hope you can see that the people who oppose it have good reason to be worried. Let’s say that we all agree that changing marriage to mean any two people over the age of 18 should be able to marry. That sounds pretty reasonable at first glance. Why wouldn’t we let any two adults over 18 create a marriage? Unfortunately, now we have changed the definition of marriage to mean something very different in order to satisfy the desires of a subset of the population. We have set a precedent that a particular word’s definition “marriage” can be changed at any time if any subset of the population deems it discriminatory. Flash ahead a few years and let’s say the polygamists feel they have a legitimate claim both religiously and historically that they should be able to to marry as many women as they want, otherwise they are being discriminated against. Depending on the power of the feminists, at a given time this will have to happen. Why? Because the argument is “I should be able to marry anyone over 18 that I want”. All of the parties are over 18, so now to be fair, we include one man with many women, and of course, to be fair one woman with many men. Things settle down for a few years and now another group comes forward and says “I want to marry my adopted son/daughter” because he/she is now over 18 and we are in love. If we apply the over 18 requirement, then of course this must be included because other wise it is discriminatory. etc. etc.

I know it sounds fanciful, but at my age I have seen things happen in a similar vein. What would be unthinkable 30 years ago, now passes with a yawn. I know you hear in the voices of people who support traditional marriage the sounds of our horror at this proposed change. It is because we have been watching the systematic unraveling of families and marriage due to the constant tearing down of traditional values through outright attacks and ridicule. We’ll have to wait for 30 years for the dust to settle, but I can pretty much guarantee what I described above will happen and that is based purely on what I’ve seen happen during my life. I know you don’t intend something like that to happen, but once a precedent is set the rest just will flow out of it eventually.

PS That is why Catholics believe in Humanae Vitae - because if you subscribe to contraception - something that appears completely innocuous and harmless when you first look at it actually opens the door to so many seemingly unrelated things. e.g. abortion - the right to take care of a pregnancy when your contraception fails, male irresponsibility - you can use a woman as a sexual object and then dispose of her without ever learning anything about her, female irresponsibility - treating men in the same manner etc. I personally thought the Pope was out of his mind 30 odd years ago, but have had to eat a ton of crow since then because everything he said would happen has come to pass and his logic was and has been impeccable.

 

[secular_freedom]

A lot of the arguments here are being discussed in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=487605

In that thread, I show how prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Aramis]

A lot of the arguments here are being discussed in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=487605

In that thread, I show how prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

No, you assert rights not actually specified in the EPC, and further demand that the DOMA and states rights must be abrogated for a non-extant right that a couple deluded justices on the bench have decided exists for their own self justification in engaging in what is in fact a criminal act in several states.

 

[secular_freedom]

No, you assert rights not actually specified in the EPC, and further demand that the DOMA and states rights must be abrogated for a non-extant right that a couple deluded justices on the bench have decided exists for their own self justification in engaging in what is in fact a criminal act in several states.

Then contest the argument. Do it in the other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=487605

 

[ThomasToo]

No, you assert rights not actually specified in the EPC, and further demand that the DOMA and states rights must be abrogated for a non-extant right that a couple deluded justices on the bench have decided exists for their own self justification in engaging in what is in fact a criminal act in several states.

What is a criminal act in several states? Sodomy? Those laws were overturned by Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), in which the Court ruled “the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.” Not only are such consensual sex acts between adults not illegal but they are constitutionally protected.