Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[Elric]

Well, for many centuries marriage has not included same-sex couples. In fact, marriage has NEVER included same-sex couples.

Marriage has only ever included male-female pairings.

There has never been a civilization that I know of that does not have marriage with this attribute.

So I would say, based on that, that we DO need marriage. Or, what you refer to as “heterosexual marriage”, which I find redundant.

I wrote “hetrosexual marriage” to seperate it from “gay marriage”, which I had written above it.

You have not said why we need marriage, just that marriage has not included homosexual marriage. That isnt a reason why we need it.

To re-define a word in such a way that you take away one of the most central attributes of what the word describes (i.e., marriage has always been understood to be between male and female, not same-sex), then I would say that is a radical change.

Fair enough.

I think it is.

Why?

If it is not, help me to see which institution is more important to human civilization.

For civilization?

I would say leadership would be more important. You cant have one without it.

In The Future of Marriage author David Blankenhorn has a lot to say about what, by the urgency of the debate, many people consider to be an issue of vital social and political import. His credentials with regard to marriage are impressive in that he has worked to better society and the lives of children by studying and promoting marriage for 20 years

And just as importantly I would point out that he does not have an axe to grind against gays. And he does not make his arguments in any explicit way based on religion.

So with regard to the topic of this thread, the book is a perfect resource.

If marriage and its importance to the next generations of human beings is of concern to you, take a look at what he has to say…

Is his book similar to his blog?

My bias is showing. I feel passionately that “gay marriage” is bad for marriage, bad for society in that it will lead people into relational dead-ends, and unnecessary for gays, the majority of whom have little or no interest in getting married or staying married.

So basically its the same as hetrosexuals then?

As far as challenging somebody to come up with reasons FOR gay marriage, I think that is a fair tactic, given the importance of the issue at hand.

But not in a thread asking for arguments against gay marriage. Saying “Have you got a reason for gay marriage?” is not an argument against it.

 

[Elric]

Yes, I think that you’re exactly right! We should refuse to debate in a secular way by leaving God out of it.

If that is how you feel, then why on earth are you entering a thread titled “Non-religous arguments against gay marriage”?

It could be an idea to start a new topic that allows religous arguments against gay marriage.

If we let ourselves get drawn into that type of a discussion, it will go nowhere for us. A non-catholic or even non-christian will never be satisfied with our objections.

What and religous based arguments dont make non-chirstians roll their eyes at you?

What they are saying is “convince me on my level by not using something that I dont believe in”.

They want validation. They want us to say that they are right. And it is an insult to God! If I were Satan, I would use this very method of getting people to leave God out of discussions.

They may very well want validation (then again the same could be said for some cathloics), but the rest isnt right. It goes back to the “How can you convince someone of something with something that they dont believe”?

This is the very reason that our world is in such a mess -abortions,suicides,euthanasia. **God IS being left out! ** Our children are not being taught about God. As a result they have little concept of right and wrong.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

Do you teach your children about God?

 

[KarenNC]

But he does have sense on one part of the debate about and for same sex marriage, that is all about nit picking away at Christinity. It really comes down to that “gay” appoligist main argument - “hetersexuals have failed to live up to the Christian idea of morality so there is no proof that homosexuals will do worse.” Which is really a very lame argument. People can continue to try sound like they are making “educated” and “enlighten” arguments that it is basically a “rights” issue and tell Christians they should just shut up.

Now, Bennie, when have I ever, in all the threads in which we have participated, told Christians “they should just shut up”? My main argument is that there should be equal treatment under the law for civil marriage. If something is not a barrier for heterosexual marriage, I quite simply do not agree that it should be a valid barrier to same sex marriage. Quite different than you are trying to portray it.

but once again I like to point out Christianity is not about one group being perfect and all others are wrong.

What is being missed is that seeking legal civil same sex marriage isn’t about Christianity. US law is not determined by any particular Christian doctrine, either on morality or of what constitutes a licit sexual relationship. Sexual relationships between unrelated consenting adult same sex couples are not illegal in this country.

I have many times said that Catholics are just as much within their rights to deny sacramental marriage to anyone they wish or to grant it to anyone they wish, regardless of the civil marriage law. The same holds true for any religious organization. But civil marriage and sacramental marriage are not the same thing.

Those religions died out, not because of the sword of conquest, but because they are more imperfect then the religion that replaced them, for they were and are false. The growth of all neo-paganism in our modern times, is just the same continous attack against God’s Church, a last ditch effort to bring down what is good, either you see it or you don’t.

I believe you are mistaken. My religion is certainly not about attacking Christianity or any effort to “bring down what is good”. I will fully admit (as I have done many times) that I find Christianity to be an inadequate representation of the spiritual reality which I experience. But this is not the thread to discuss my theology.

We were talking about arguments against same sex marriage that exist independently of a specific doctrinal position. I have seen no convincing ones as they all seem to be predicated on “homosexuality is sinful”. If one does not start from that point, the rest of the arguments do not seem to hold together.

 

[agangbern]

*I feel we all need to be aware of this, and make a conscious effort, even while we are making purely natural arguments against the various perversions currently being proposed, to never deny our God - even implicitly. And ALWAYS to keep in mind that He will be the Victor, and that His truth will continue to be verified again and again, even in the merely natural world, and that those who are not blinded to it will see that, even through merely natural arguments.

---

Laudetur Jesus Christus! ( Praised be Jesus Christ! ) urban-hermit*
In eternum. Amen! ( Now and forever! )

Yes, I think that you’re exactly right! We should refuse to debate in a secular way by leaving God out of it. If we let ourselves get drawn into that type of a discussion, it will go nowhere for us. A non-catholic or even non-christian will never be satisfied with our objections. They want validation. They want us to say that they are right. And it is an insult to God! If I were Satan, I would use this very method of getting people to leave God out of discussions. This is the very reason that our world is in such a mess -abortions,suicides,euthanasia. **God IS being left out! ** Our children are not being taught about God. As a result they have little concept of right and wrong.

I agree with that, Shiprae. We should not separate God from any discussion that involves morals. This thread, in seeking to throw out God from the picture, should not be allowed to proceed.

 

[Shiphrae]

If that is how you feel, then why on earth are you entering a thread titled “Non-religous arguments against gay marriage”? Elric

I was curious about the reason for such a title on this forum. And (as I said) I believe that the answer to people who want to debate and leave God out of the discussion should be a flat ‘NO’ .

It could be an idea to start a new topic that allows religous arguments against gay marriage.

That would be okay. However the arguments would, no doubt , be rather limited.

What and religous based arguments dont make non-chirstians roll their eyes at you?
Don’t care if they do!

They may very well want validation (then again the same could be said for some cathloics), but the rest isnt right. It goes back to the “How can you convince someone of something with something that they dont believe”?

You’re not going to convince anyone who does not want to be convinced. People who have no faith believe whatever they want to believe.

Do you teach your children about God?

Unfortunately I have not taught my children enough about God. They are grown now. I pray for them all the time. And I try to talk to my grandchildren about God, when possible. When my children were growing up, we put them in a catholic school and took them to church on Sundays. I believed at the time that they were getting a catholic education. I was wrong! The school was doing very little. I should have been checking much more on their education.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[KarenNC]

You are not an honest seeker. You are here to discuss your agenda. You are here to waste our time, because you only listen with an ear to argumentation and how you can best put forth your unCatholic agenda. To pull apart your tirelessly composed posts, and address each point, is extremely labor-intensive.

Then I suggest that if you have no interest in discussion, you stop discussing. If you don’t want to read them, don’t read them.

If by “seeker” you mean someone interested in possibly converting to Catholicism, I am not nor have I ever claimed to be one. I am here to engage in theological discussion with those who are interested in doing so in a civil manner. Such is beneficial to both sides by helping us discover the weak spots in our arguments. I also seek to correct misinformation where I find it about groups with which I am familiar. That is my only “agenda”. I have been open about exactly what I am and why I am here from the first day I posted almost a year ago.

Why in the world would you expect that I would give “Catholic answers” when I am not nor have I ever been a Catholic? When I have never attempted to represent myself as a Catholic?

Do you give the catholic answers you receive a fair shake - ie., at least TRY to hear what people are saying?

On the contrary, I give the Catholic answers I receive the respect of taking them seriously and treating them exactly as I expect my answers to be treated. That does not mean that I am going to agree with them.

This is not a thread about the “Catholic answer”. If a poster wants “non-religious” arguments, from whom is he more likely to get a sense of whether those offered are actually convincing to someone who does not share his basic assumptions? A co-religionist or someone who actually doesn’t share those assumptions?

In this very thread you have told one poster her Catholic viewpoint was “not applicable”, and at least twice now you have complained about how you were not treated kindly enough with regard to the forum rules, even as you continue to bulldoze through every answer you are offered.

Her religiously based argument was not applicable to “non-religious arguments against gay marriage”. If answering questions and explaining those answers is “bulldozing” or if you feel it is contrary to the board rules, feel free to contact a moderator about them. If you choose not to follow the basic rules of your own forum, I fail to see why you complain about being called on such.

You have been treated very patiently and indulgently here…

That’s the first time I have ever heard terms such as “horse manure”, “your religion is a big fat zero”, and “endless substance-less posts” described as patient and indulgent.

Humility in what way? By pretending to hold a belief other than one that I actually own? By patronizing someone who offers a weak argument by not challenging them on it? I assure you that the others who also disagree with them will not do so nor will they be bowled over by the first mention of a biblical reference.

False humility is not a virtue in my religion. Honesty and civil treatment of others are. I don’t usually find, especially here, that using facts and citing actual sources for them is considered an “irritating tactic” by those who are prepared to do likewise.

If you do not want non-Catholics posting, do not allow such to register or restrict access to certain parts of the forum.

I realize you are not a Christian, but at least try to show some gratefulness for the vast amount of patience and indulgence which continues to be extended to you, a guest, here. I think this falls within the realm of common courtesy.

Feel free to point out my specific discourtesies (other than the simple fact that I disagree with you) and I will be glad to apologize for them if appropriate.

But I do not think expressing these sentiments violates the forum rules. Perhaps I am wrong about that?

Not as long as you are willing to do so in a civil manner.

You have shown time and again a dogged obstinacy to anything Catholic that actually makes sense in a natural sense. I post partially in the hope that it will make sense to one of the other people for whom this forum exists: Catholics and honest non-Catholic seekers.

What I believe I have shown is a “dogged” intention to stand by my views, just as I expect you to do. If I believe that something that specific Catholics say or that the Catholic Church teaches makes sense, I am happy to agree with them and have done so quite publicly.

 

[KarenNC]

Yes, I think that you’re exactly right! We should refuse to debate in a secular way by leaving God out of it. If we let ourselves get drawn into that type of a discussion, it will go nowhere for us. A non-catholic or even non-christian will never be satisfied with our objections. They want validation. They want us to say that they are right. And it is an insult to God! If I were Satan, I would use this very method of getting people to leave God out of discussions. This is the very reason that our world is in such a mess -abortions,suicides,euthanasia. **God IS being left out! ** Our children are not being taught about God. As a result they have little concept of right and wrong.

If your children are not being taught about your religion’s understanding of God or about right and wrong, then I am afraid the burden for that rests squarely within your own religious community. It is not the state’s job to do so, nor do most folks that I know feel very comfortable with the idea of the state trying to do so. I certainly have no intention of leaving that job up to the state in the case of my child.

If your position is that there cannot be an argument against same sex marriage without a religious basis in the doctrine of a specific Christian Church, so be it. But you do have to realize that non-Christians feel about as compelled to accept that as a valid basis for argument as you would feel compelled to accept one based on the Hindu Vedas. The basic reaction you will likely get is “That’s nice, but why should I feel compelled to follow your Church’s teaching over that of my own religion and why should US law be based on your Church’s interpretation?” Even many non-Catholic Christians demonstrably do not agree with the Catholic doctrinal position on homosexuality or the issue of same sex marriage, either religious or legal.

The Catholic Church and the US government are not synonymous. It is perfectly valid to argue Catholic sacramental marriage on the basis of Catholic Church doctrine–in fact it is required. A different sort of argument will be required to meaningfully argue issues related to US civil marriage laws.

Frankly it doesn’t matter to me whether or not you say I am right as I am not here to seek “validation”. I am simply pointing out that the arguments that have been offered up so far as compelling non-religious arguments against same sex marriage are either actually religiously based (predicated on the assumption that same sex sexual relations are inherently sinful or evil or immoral) or simply not sufficiently convincing. Given that, I see no reason to falsely “validate” your view.

 

[Elric]

If that is how you feel, then why on earth are you entering a thread titled “Non-religous arguments against gay marriage”? Elric

I was curious about the reason for such a title on this forum. And (as I said) I believe that the answer to people who want to debate and leave God out of the discussion should be a flat ‘NO’ .

Well the title is pretty self explainatory, so what exactly were you curious about?

As to your response to leaving God (religion) out of the discussion, bad luck. If you have that opinion, then you shouldnt enter a debate where people do want to leave religion out of it.

It could be an idea to start a new topic that allows religous arguments against gay marriage.

That would be okay. However the arguments would, no doubt , be rather limited.

limited?

Why?

What and religous based arguments dont make non-chirstians roll their eyes at you?
Don’t care if they do!

Well you should care, that is part of your problem.

They may very well want validation (then again the same could be said for some cathloics), but the rest isnt right. It goes back to the “How can you convince someone of something with something that they dont believe”?

You’re not going to convince anyone who does not want to be convinced. People who have no faith believe whatever they want to believe.

Going by the reply above, Im not suprised that people dont want to listen to you. Its not really a matter of them not wanting to be convinced, its a matter of not communicating to them (or at them) in a condescending manner.

Do you teach your children about God?

Unfortunately I have not taught my children enough about God. They are grown now. I pray for them all the time. And I try to talk to my grandchildren about God, when possible. When my children were growing up, we put them in a catholic school and took them to church on Sundays. I believed at the time that they were getting a catholic education. I was wrong! The school was doing very little. I should have been checking much more on their education.

Do your children know right from wrong?

Did you teach them right from wrong?

It sounds like you are not that happy with the choices they have made.

 

[blessedtoo]

Karen,
How about this:
seek·er n.
1.One that seeks: a seeker of the truth.

The truth about this issue is what has been discussed endlessly. You make a point to enter into these debates but it’s clear, after your year of membership, that you are not interested in evidence, proof, or even personal testimony that flies in the face of your erroneous opinions. It is impossible for anyone with any modicum of intelligence (which you are abundantly blessed with obviously) to dismiss the copius amounts of information provided for you to read and consider thoughtfully. That you could actually make a comment like this:

We were talking about arguments against same sex marriage that exist independently of a specific doctrinal position. I have seen no convincing ones as they all seem to be predicated on “homosexuality is sinful”. If one does not start from that point, the rest of the arguments do not seem to hold together.

Based on this statement, and the countless others that you’ve made like it, I am left to conclude that you do not read or thoughtfully consider any of the proofs many of us have painstakingly sought to provide for you, in the spirit of true debate.

And I have to point out the irony of this statement:

I also seek to correct misinformation where I find it about groups with which I am familiar. That is my only “agenda”.

Groups with which you are familiar? After all this time on CAF, surely you realize that both Urban-Hermit (who you address here) I WERE actual card-carrying members of that group to which you are referring? Would you at least agree that someone who is merely “familiar” with such groups may not be as knowledgable or qualified to speak so authoritatively as folks who were actually part of said group?

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

NOTICE: This thread needs to return to the topic of **Non-religious arguments against gay marriage **or it will be closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[KarenNC]

Groups with which you are familiar? After all this time on CAF, surely you realize that both Urban-Hermit (who you address here) I WERE actual card-carrying members of that group to which you are referring? Would you at least agree that someone who is merely “familiar” with such groups may not be as knowledgable or qualified to speak so authoritatively as folks who were actually part of said group?

No, I have to say I do not always remember every detail of the life experiences of all the folks I talk with on this board. I did not realize that you are an actual card-carrying non-Catholic (or is it non-Christian?) homosexual involved in a lifelong monogamous relationship and actively seeking legal civil marriage in the United States. Are you also raising children as part of those relationships? Were they adopted, from previous heterosexual relationships or conceived via some other means? I want to be sure that I do not again offend in this thread by miscategorizing your experiences.

Basically, as under US law same sex sexual relationships between consenting unrelated adults are not considered to be either illegal, based in a psychological disorder or “sinful” any more than heterosexual sexual relationships between consenting unrelated adults are, non-religious arguments need to start from that basis if they want to be taken seriously.

To me, for instance, it boils down to an issue of equal treatment under the law, and by that I mean the United States law. I see no reason to deny US citizens who are homosexual equal access to protection and benefits available under the law unless those same criteria are used to deny those protections and benefits to the heterosexual US citizen, irregardless of religion, race, disability, etc.

 

[urban-hermit]

Hi Karen, since we have been warned I will return to the topic and go ahead and ignore your continued echoing back of what is said to you in a misrepresented manner. I merely mention it to ask that you cease and desist, as it violates forum policy to deliberately obscure and obstruct truthful communication. No response from you with regard to this point is requested or desired, other than desisting from said activity. Any feigned bewilderment or requests for clarification on this particular point will be ignored.

To me, for instance, it boils down to an issue of equal treatment under the law, and by that I mean the United States law. I see no reason to deny US citizens who are homosexual equal access to protection and benefits available under the law unless those same criteria are used to deny those protections and benefits to the heterosexual US citizen, irregardless of religion, race, disability, etc.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is quite clear that marriage is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. As such, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are bound by the same simple facts of biology.

One homosexual man is free to marry one woman.

…just as one heterosexual man is free to marry one woman.

One heterosexual man is NOT free to marry another man.

…just as one homosexual man is NOT free to marry another man.

If two men want to set up a relationship, they are completely free to do so. They may not refer to it as marriage, for the simple reason that it is NOT marriage.

Can you help me see where there is not “equal treatment under the law” ? (please make an effort to be succinct)

 

[urban-hermit]

I think the BEST non-religious argument against gay marriage is that it will increase the number of children who will be deliberately denied their human right to a biological mother and father.

 

[Elric]

I think the BEST non-religious argument against gay marriage is that it will increase the number of children who will be deliberately denied their human right to a biological mother and father.

I guess that it has to be asked, how and why?

 

[urban-hermit]

I guess that it has to be asked, how and why?

Well, lesbians who marry will want to have children together. The whole concept of marriage and family going together encourages this. And if “gay marriage” were the law of the land, lesbians “making babies” this way would of course be protected as their married right.

But obviously in order to overcome the lack of biological diversity within their relationship, they will need to go outside of their woman-to-woman relationship in order to obtain a sperm donor of some sort.

Similar deal with homosexual men.

 

[Mirdath]

I think the BEST non-religious argument against gay marriage is that it will increase the number of children who will be deliberately denied their human right to a biological mother and father.

If that is your principal concern, why focus on same-sex marriage? Divorce, fornication, and deadbeat parents are a much bigger and more common contributor to denying children this ‘human right’ you say they have.

 

[TMC]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is quite clear that marriage is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. As such, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are bound by the same simple facts of biology.

One homosexual man is free to marry one woman.

…just as one heterosexual man is free to marry one woman.

One heterosexual man is NOT free to marry another man.

…just as one homosexual man is NOT free to marry another man.

If two men want to set up a relationship, they are completely free to do so. They may not refer to it as marriage, for the simple reason that it is NOT marriage.

Can you help me see where there is not “equal treatment under the law” ? (please make an effort to be succinct)

I suggest you read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), I don’t know that its particularly succint, but it does explain that the equal right to marry someone the state finds appropriate for you, is not the same as the equal right to marry someone you want to marry.

Clearly their is an inequality in the current law. The question is whether that inequality is justified. Religon cannot be used as justification in our country. To say the justification is children would ban many currently legal marriages. So there must be some other reason, or the law is invalid. I, for one, can think of no other reason.

 

[urban-hermit]

I think the 2ND-BEST non-religious argument against radically re-defining the word marriage to include “gay marriage” is that it will discourage future generations from even getting married by lowering the status of marriage and watering down its meaning.

 

[urban-hermit]

If that is your principal concern, why focus on same-sex marriage? Divorce, fornication, and deadbeat parents are a much bigger and more common contributor to denying children this ‘human right’ you say they have.

Hi Mirdath,

I am focusing on same-sex marriage for the simple reason that THAT is the topic at hand, and we have already been warned by a moderator to stay on topic. (see above)

Cheers!

 

[urban-hermit]

I suggest you read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), I don’t know that its particularly succint, but it does explain that the equal right to marry someone the state finds appropriate for you, is not the same as the equal right to marry someone you want to marry.

Clearly their is an inequality in the current law. The question is whether that inequality is justified. Religon cannot be used as justification in our country. To say the justification is children would ban many currently legal marriages. So there must be some other reason, or the law is invalid. I, for one, can think of no other reason.

Hi TMC,

Loving v. Virginia deals with racial difference, not a difference in sex, between the partners to marriage. These are, as they say, apples and oranges.

You say “clearly their [sic] is an inequality in the current law.” Please indulge my stupidity: Where is it?

You say “Religion cannot be used as justification in our country.”
Please indulge my stupidity: Where did I say anything about religion?

You say “To say the justification is children would ban many currently legal marriages.” Please explain. As I understand it, we are not talking about banning currently legal marriages. We are talking about radically re-defining the word marriage to include “gay marriage”.