Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[secular_freedom]

Well before “defending” any beliefs, I would submit that anyone who wants to change the status quo carrys the obligation to show why it should change;

The argument is simple: restricting gay marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause because it prevents similarly situated people (i.e. homosexuals) from enjoying the same freedoms as others when there is no justifying basis for the restriction.

So other than gays wanting to have this right as arbitrary choice, what are the reasons?

The reason is that there is no good reason for not extending the equal protection of laws to homosexuals.

 

[secular_freedom]

I addressed this above. Marriage law is concerned with the ability to procreate in principle,

Says so? And even if this were true, it is not necessary that a couple procreate in order to get married. (Besides, there are many heterosexuals who can’t procreate “in principle”)

But there is no way for homosexual couples to procreate in principle.

Again, why should this matter? Many heterosexual couples can’t procreate “in principle.”

 

[secular_freedom]

I addressed this previously. First, there is no way to assess infertility without measures that are either grossly intrusive, inherently arbitrary and subjective, or both. And second, per the Pro 8 proponents’ brief, “even infertile marriages between men and women further the procreative purposes of marriage by decreasing the likelihood that the fertile partner will produce children out of wedlock and by strengthening legal and social norms that seek to channel and confine sexual relationships between men and women to marriage.”

None of this is an argument against same-sex marriage. At most, it’s an argument for traditional marriage, which no one is opposing.

If a homosexual wishes to have a child by means of a third party, there is simply no reason to recognize the involvement of his partner.

There’s plenty. One reason: The gay couple would be the one doing the raising.

 

[secular_freedom]

There are obviously many non-religious reasons. With that in mind, I have a question:

If it is okay to redefine marriage to be any two people, than why can’t marriage be defined to any arrangement (two men and two women, etc.)?

It just isn’t clear that same-sex marriage amounts to a “redefinition” of marriage, rather than a mere extension of the term.

 

[secular_freedom]

Recognizing love, commitment, and unity is a function solely of marriage as a cultural/religious institution; it is no way relevant to the operation of the interests of the state, which promulgates marriage solely as a means of governing the obligations and responsibilities attendant on procreation, and which has no reason whatsoever to legislate on the basis of the fickle human heart.

Again, says who? Who says that the state promulgates marriage “solely” as a means of governing the obligations and responsibilities attendant on procreation? Where are you getting this from?

 

[secular_freedom]

You yourself argue below that marriage is not contingent on procreation. I agree.

Then you concede that procreation is not a necessary condition to being married, which undermines the whole “procreation argument.”

 

[secular_freedom]

I disagree. But it will take a few decades to prove it. You see, even if many believe gays should be able to marry, how many of them honestly are glad they grew up with Mom and Dad? And let’s say if you grew up with Dad1 and Dad2, or Mom1 and Mom2, do you really believe you would be totally psychologically fine?

Pope Benedict XVI said, “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” This is not a religious statement, it is based on observation of what is healthy for people.

So when these kids grow up, they will see that the state systematically allowed their gay parent’s unnatural association. Those who have suffered psychologic harm, having been robbed of a normal childhood and normal family, may well have grounds to sue the state.

What you’re arguing against is not gay marriage, but gay adoption - because raising children in such unions harms them. Are you against the idea of gay couples adopting? What is your evidence that being raised in such homes harms children?

 

[secular_freedom]

Oh, everyone is well aware of the failings in marriage, and the damage that is done by imperfect parents. But the child instinctively knows what the ideal is - father and mother in a loving (in the Christian sense) relationship and providing support for family. And most would understand that the duty of the state is not to guarantee children a happy home, but to recognize the law of nature and pass laws harmonious with them.

I can’t figure out which argument you’re making. Are you against gay marriage because allowing a married gay couple to raise children will in fact do great harm to them? Or are you against gay marriage because a married gay couple isn’t the ideal pair for raising children? Which is it?

If you are endorsing the first argument, then you rely on a false premise: that children will be harmed when they are raised by gay couples, by virtue of their being gay.

If you are endorsing the second argument, then you also rely on a false premise: that marriage is legal only for the ideal pair for raising kids. Since when is that true?

 

[secular_freedom]

Therefore my argument is as follows;

1. By definition throughout recorded history a marriage has been between men and women.
2. Marriage has been the bedrock of all societies and has worked spectacularly well.
3. “Gay marriage” has never been studied in a large population to prove that it has any benefit to society or our species at all.
4. What rational society would change something that works extremely well and is the bedrock of all of our societies when it has no idea what the implications will be for ourselves and our descendants?

1. The fact that marriage has always been between men and women doesn’t mean marriage must be between men and women, or that marriage between same-sex couples isn’t appropriate extension of the term.
2. Marriage has its ups and downs. In any case, this is completely beside the point because no one is saying that marriage between men and women can’t continue.
3. Gay marriage has certainly one clear benefit to society: it will benefit many of its members who seek equal recognition under the law.
4. Like many, you are repeating a known falsehood: no one is changing marriage to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying. Traditional marriage, as I said, will continue. Marriage is here to stay.

 

[secular_freedom]

My argument is that an attempt is being made to fundamentally change what marriage is and that no one seems to acknowledge that it will have unforeseen consequences.

Then I guess you don’t know what consequences will result; if you do, then they’re not unforeseen. If they’re not unforeseen, why don’t you enlighten us?

I personally don’t quibble about civil unions, just don’t call it a marriage.

No one calls civil unions marriage.

I am stunned by those who seem to pretend that marriage has not always been about a union between men and women (plural at times for polygamy and polyandry).

No one is pretending otherwise. What’s your point?

It happens to be that marriage is the basis of all societies. I would not be allowed to tear out the base building blocks of a high rise tower and replace them with a new building block without carefully examining what it is and what effect it would have on the structure. We’re talking about completely changing a building block of all known societies in the name of fairness and trying to cover up the fact that it is a vast social experiment.

Actually, we’re not. For your analogy to work, gay marriage would mean the end of heterosexual marriage, which is simply not true.

Using your examples of the constitution etc., they were to correct things that were fundamentally harming their societies. Tyranny had to be controlled, taxation without representation etc. etc. I have yet to see how marriage is harming our societies and therefore need to be changed.

Your last sentence suggests that the debate is over whether or not heterosexual marriage should end. See above.

You don’t pull out a foundation unless there’s a compelling reason to do so.

See above. No one is “pulling out” anything.

I have yet to hear an argument of how marriage harms society and therefore needs to have its fundamental definition changed.

Again, no one is arguing that because heterosexual marriage harms society, same-sex marriage should be allowed. No one is arguing that heterosexual marriage harms society.

That is why the argument with slavery doesn’t hold water. There was evidence that it was harmful to society and there was already evidence that you didn’t need it. I don’t see either of those in this case.

Again, no one is comparing opposite-sex marriage to slavery.

I forgot to add earlier that when a massive change is desired, the onus is on the person/entity requesting the change to show how it will benefit society.

One obvious benefit to society: it will benefit the gay couples who seek to get married (unless you don’t consider homosexuals part of society).

I haven’t seen anything like that supporting why society needs to change the definition of marriage. It is disingenuous to pretend this isn’t a huge modification. It is a huge change and it needs extremely grave reasons to alter it.

It’s disingenuous to make blatantly false overstatements and suggest that the fight over same-sex marriage is a fight over whether opposite-sex marriage should end.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It just isn’t clear that same-sex marriage amounts to a “redefinition” of marriage, rather than a mere extension of the term.

This is what’s known as semantic gymnastics. Extension is an expansion. Therefore a new definition results, because definitions indicate boundaries, even when the word being defined denotes a lack of boundary, such as the difference between the denotation of finite and the denotation of infinite. An expanded boundary = a qualitatively new definition.

You are so transparent. I’m sure other CAF posters have noticed, by the way, that whenever this issue resurfaces publicly (elections, judicial decisions, etc.), thinly veiled interested parties open accounts on CAF with “12 posts” to inaugurate the next phase of their media campaigns.

 

[colmcille1]

This is what’s known as semantic gymnastics. Extension is an expansion. Therefore a new definition results, because definitions indicate boundaries, even when the word being defined denotes a lack of boundary, such as the difference between the denotation of finite and the denotation of infinite. An expanded boundary = a qualitatively new definition.

You are so transparent. I’m sure other CAF posters have noticed, by the way, that whenever this issue resurfaces publicly (elections, judicial decisions, etc.), thinly veiled interested parties open accounts on CAF with “12 posts” to inaugurate the next phase of their media campaigns.

Well observed, Elizabeth502!
I have followed this entire thread. While I notice that I have been misrepresented (the posters tactics are so sadly familiar to me, they no longer merit reply), what is far more interesting is your obsevation re “interested parties”. Thank you for this, Elizabeth!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[musikat]

Easy. You are the result of a physical union between a man and a woman. If there was a man-man or woman woman relationship you would not exist to ask your question.

P.S. I think this thread belongs in another section. (Philosophy?)

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

so what about those who are sterile? they can’t marry?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

No one has in four pages of comment, or in any of the hundreds of others I’ve seen on related threads. Maybe it’s like cold fusion, and will work on the millionth attempt…

You answered a question I didn’t ask. Read the dialog once again between myself and Inocente, and think harder. We discussed expanding the criteria for marriage beyond 2 adult homosexuals. He realized what we were discussing when he wrote “eugh!” Why don’t we expand beyond homosexual marriage? We haven’t drawn the line to exclude homosexual marriage, because we have it in some states.

 

[secular_freedom]

This is what’s known as semantic gymnastics. Extension is an expansion. Therefore a new definition results, because definitions indicate boundaries, even when the word being defined denotes a lack of boundary, such as the difference between the denotation of finite and the denotation of infinite. An expanded boundary = a qualitatively new definition.

You are so transparent. I’m sure other CAF posters have noticed, by the way, that whenever this issue resurfaces publicly (elections, judicial decisions, etc.), thinly veiled interested parties open accounts on CAF with “12 posts” to inaugurate the next phase of their media campaigns.

It isn’t “semantic gymnastics” at all. The fact that marriage has always included the union between men and women doesn’t mean that the union between same-sex couples can’t fall under the concept of “marriage.”

 

[secular_freedom]

You are so transparent. I’m sure other CAF posters have noticed, by the way, that whenever this issue resurfaces publicly (elections, judicial decisions, etc.), thinly veiled interested parties open accounts on CAF with “12 posts” to inaugurate the next phase of their media campaigns.

I’m just here to have a rational, civil discussion of the issue. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[colmcille1]

It isn’t “semantic gymnastics” at all. The fact that marriage has always included the union between men and women doesn’t mean that the union between same-sex couples can’t fall under the concept of “marriage.”

I firmly believe that it means* precisely *that.
The world is a teeming mass of men and women : work, school, public streets, places of worship, bars, sports arenas…all exerting their particular influence on us.
In such a seemingly chaotic and morally indeterminate world, is it not sensible, sane even, to see Faith as a strong guiding light?
So, within the sanctity of marriage, if a husband and wife wish to bring children into this world, it is only right that they should want the same assured guidance for their offspring.
They would naturally wish to be a source of good guidance themselves; both man and woman each contributing their unique spirit befitting their roles as father and mother.
Now, when the issue of gay marriage arises, do you not wonder how those parents would feel when the very marriage they built is now seen to be just a variation on a theme.
People can’t “fall under the concept” of marriage. Life is too precious to be laboratory-tested.
Parenting truly is the most arduous job in the world. But with good mother and father role models preparing kids for this teeming world within a loving Faith-ful environment, it can be so much more rewarding.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[HappyRevert]

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

Then I guess you don’t know what consequences will result; if you do, then they’re not unforeseen. If they’re not unforeseen, why don’t you enlighten us?

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.

No one calls civil unions marriage.

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.

No one is pretending otherwise. What’s your point?

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

Again, no one is comparing opposite-sex marriage to slavery.

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, we’re not. For your analogy to work, gay marriage would mean the end of heterosexual marriage, which is simply not true.

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.

 

[HappyRevert]

1. The fact that marriage has always been between men and women doesn’t mean marriage must be between men and women, or that marriage between same-sex couples isn’t appropriate extension of the term.
2. Marriage has its ups and downs. In any case, this is completely beside the point because no one is saying that marriage between men and women can’t continue.
3. Gay marriage has certainly one clear benefit to society: it will benefit many of its members who seek equal recognition under the law.
4. Like many, you are repeating a known falsehood: no one is changing marriage to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying. Traditional marriage, as I said, will continue. Marriage is here to stay.

1. I would respond by saying that it must be between a man and woman because that is the definition of marriage. If you “extend” it, it is no longer a marriage but something else.
2. I think somewhere the definition of “spectacularly well” that I had got lost. I don’t mean that everyone who is married is spectacularly happy. I mean that it has provided a bedrock to our societies and promulgated our species because it provides for our young.
3. No one is preventing gay people from marrying. They may marry a person of the opposite gender. Therefore they do have equal recognition under the law.
4. You say that I am repeating a “known falsehood”. What falsehood is that exactly? Are you trying to say that you KNOW the implications from this change? This is the part I find so frustrating. You try to sell as fact that you know all of the implications of this change, but in fact you don’t know at all. I’m sure you “believe”, “trust”, and “hope” that it won’t harm society but you don’t have any studies, data, or anything else to back up your position. At least be honest enough to admit that.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Let’s look at your underlying premise:

• If there was a man-man or woman woman relationship you would not exist to ask your question.
  
  This is simply false. There are many same-sex relationships out there, and none of them have prevented you or me from existing.

On the contrary, this is true. You woud not exist if it were not for your parents - a man and a woman that had sexual relations - or a woman that had artificial insemination.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.