Persuasive, Secular Arguments For the Banning of Gay Marriages?

[Warrenton]

However, opposition to homosexuality is not the growing aspect of society today. Tolerance and acceptance is growing, so trying to assert that homosexuality is a pyschological disorder of some sort would most likely not survive as a popular idea. In fact, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. So that would suggest that society is going in the reverse direction (In America at least).

I agree that is the trend, however a trend is mere fashion. Fashions do not occur magically, they are shaped. If, as you say, tolerance for homosexual behavior is growing, it is because people in a position to influence fashion are tolerant of homosexuality.

As easily as it can change in one direction, it can be changed in another.

If it were economically favorable to persecute homosexuals, fashion could be altered in that direction.

The first and best method to change popular opinion is ridicule. Fortunately, some homosexuals exhibit behaviors that are funny, if not outre. The right kind of ridicule could change popular opinion, which could be converted into marketing, which could influence the fashion.

 

[wanner47]

Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage?. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles by The Witherspoon Institute (opens as a PDF)

 

[MC_taters]

I agree that is the trend, however a trend is mere fashion. Fashions do not occur magically, they are shaped. If, as you say, tolerance for homosexual behavior is growing, it is because people in a position to influence fashion are tolerant of homosexuality.

As easily as it can change in one direction, it can be changed in another.

If it were economically favorable to persecute homosexuals, fashion could be altered in that direction.

The first and best method to change popular opinion is ridicule. Fortunately, some homosexuals exhibit behaviors that are funny, if not outre. The right kind of ridicule could change popular opinion, which could be converted into marketing, which could influence the fashion.

I completely agree with you aside from believing the best thing is to do is change public opinion towards less tolerance for homosexual behavior.

 

[jimjack]

I agree that is the trend, however a trend is mere fashion. Fashions do not occur magically, they are shaped. If, as you say, tolerance for homosexual behavior is growing, it is because people in a position to influence fashion are tolerant of homosexuality.

As easily as it can change in one direction, it can be changed in another.

If it were economically favorable to persecute homosexuals, fashion could be altered in that direction.

The first and best method to change popular opinion is ridicule. Fortunately, some homosexuals exhibit behaviors that are funny, if not outre. The right kind of ridicule could change popular opinion, which could be converted into marketing, which could influence the fashion.

Are you suggesting that in the future people might become less tolerant of homosexuals again? Do you think people will become racist again too? Tolerance isn’t just “fashion” as you call it…it is compassion. If you don’t agree with the Catholic church on the issue than the moral thing to do is be tolerant of homosexuals.

There is no good secular argument against gay marriage. The only “secular” argument I hear about gay marriage is that it will destroy society and the family unit. Well divorce and out of wedlock child birth is far worse for the family unit but no one is trying to outlaw those things, right? So in essence the argument of destroying the family unit is complete nonsense because divorce destroys the family unit on a MUCH larger scale. About 50% of marriage ends in divorce. At most, maybe 10% of the population is gay. Even if every gay person got married, that 10% that would be “destroying the family unit” wouldn’t even come close to the 50% of married straight people that get divorced.

 

[rossum]

The first and best method to change popular opinion is ridicule.

How do you square this with CCC 2358:“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
I do not see “ridicule” as equating to “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.

rossum

 

[jimjack]

How do you square this with CCC 2358:“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
I do not see “ridicule” as equating to “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.

rossum

You could say the story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t square with that either.

 

[exoflare]

You could say the story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t square with that either.

I think you need to learn how to distinguish temptations from behaviors.

 

[MC_taters]

You could say the story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t square with that either.

Did you read the part about the attempted gang rape, or just happen to see the inhabitants were men and the angels were disguised as men?

 

[SonCatcher]

OP,

I am new to the conversation and have not read the thread thus far. The Natural Law argument is a persuasive, secular argument. The Church’s sometimes heavy leaning on Natural Law causes confusion in the public who mistake it for a religious argument.

Perhaps some of the other posters have been discussing Natural Law but the only reference to it by name (thus far) has been a quote from the CCC (unfortunately, an enforcement of the previously mentioned confusion).

HTH

 

[razredge]

There is no good secular argument against gay marriage. The only “secular” argument I hear about gay marriage is that it will destroy society and the family unit. Well divorce and out of wedlock child birth is far worse for the family unit but no one is trying to outlaw those things, right? So in essence the argument of destroying the family unit is complete nonsense because divorce destroys the family unit on a MUCH larger scale. About 50% of marriage ends in divorce. At most, maybe 10% of the population is gay. Even if every gay person got married, that 10% that would be “destroying the family unit” wouldn’t even come close to the 50% of married straight people that get divorced.

Ahem, no - a particularly good argument is that if we allow homosexuals to marry then we should also allow other marital taboos like polygamy, child marriage, incest etc. if we are to respect the views of all minorities and not just a particularly vocal one that just happens to be in vogue in current society.

It’s just special pleading to say a man can marry another man but a man can’t marry his sister or a man can’t marry his dog.

An other argument is that homosexuality is a disorder and legalizing gay marriage is simply another step away from acknowledging this.

 

[jimjack]

Ahem, no - a particularly good argument is that if we allow homosexuals to marry then we should also allow other marital taboos like polygamy, child marriage, incest etc. if we are to respect the views of all minorities and not just a particularly vocal one that just happens to be in vogue in current society.

It’s just special pleading to say a man can marry another man but a man can’t marry his sister or a man can’t marry his dog.

An other argument is that homosexuality is a disorder and legalizing gay marriage is simply another step away from acknowledging this.

Child marriage and marriage to animals go against someone’s will. Marriage to relatives will have a negative effect on the child. Homosexuality is not a disorder and that view is held by the smallest minority in the field, most of whom have some sort of religious affiliation that supports that view. Marrying children, relatives, and animals has nothing to do with marrying another man or woman. As for polygamy, I don’t really see anything wrong with that morally but will probably stay outlawed because of the odd legal and financial complications of having families with a bunch of different parents and kids.

The slippery slope argument just doesn’t hold weight. You can apply it to anything and it just gets ridiculous. How can we legalize alcohol? What is next, crack? If you legalize alcohol how long before meth is legal. Its just special pleading. I mean alcohol, crack, and meth all cloud judgement, right? So if we legalize alcohol crack and meth are soon to follow I am sure. Do you see how stupid that sounds?

 

[Warrenton]

How do you square this with CCC 2358I do not see “ridicule” as equating to “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.
rossum

I don’t square it. The discussion is about secular arguments, not religious ones.

If you read back to my first post, you will see that I think secular arguments on this issue are misguided.

 

[jimjack]

I don’t square it. The discussion is about secular arguments, not religious ones.

If you read back to my first post, you will see that I think secular arguments on this issue are misguided.

What you said wasn’t even an argument, it was a call for intolerance and goes directly against your religion.

 

[Warrenton]

Are you suggesting that in the future people might become less tolerant of homosexuals again? Do you think people will become racist again too? Tolerance isn’t just “fashion” as you call it…it is compassion. If you don’t agree with the Catholic church on the issue than the moral thing to do is be tolerant of homosexuals.

 

[Warrenton]

What you said wasn’t even an argument, it was a call for intolerance and goes directly against your religion.

Argument is anything that persuades, in the context we are using the word.

Whether the argument is Christian, or Catholic, or charitable is neither here nor there.

If you don’t believe that intolerance and crowd pleasing doesn’t persuade, all I can say is look closely at the politics of the Muslim world. How many Muslims in Waziristan have even seen a Jew?

That is what happens when you leave the protection of the Holy Church.

You return to the world of might makes right. Of manipulating the plebs, like a Caesar.

If you don’t care for the arena, you can always seek the protection of the Church. Which is the irony: sooner or later, even her enemies seek refuge in the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

I can’t believe I forgot to post this resource:

Defending a Higher Law

That link will take you to a book-length pdf document created by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property [TFP]. They do a pretty good job of laying out all the major arguments in favor of same-sex marriage and refuting them via natural law arguments. I don’t know that it’s the be-all-end-all of the debate, but it at least provides a good starting point for discussing many of the familiar arguments.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It’s just special pleading to say a man can marry another man but a man can’t marry his sister or a man can’t marry his dog.

This is the entire crux of the gay marriage movement. To deny other forms of marriage, in light of same sex marriage, is to show remarkable cognitive dissonance.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Child marriage and marriage to animals go against someone’s will. Marriage to relatives will have a negative effect on the child.

You’ll have to provide some form of substantiation to claim that marriage to animals or children would be primarily against their will. For instance, many pets form intense relationships with their owner/guardians and many show pair-bonding and sexual behaviours towards their human partner, analagous and identical to forming life bonds to members of their species in the wild. Children are often* legally* barred from giving* informed consent* (a legal condition) but that does not necessarily translate into actual bona fida consent in accordance to their personal will and understanding.

As for ‘genetic’ concerns from marrying close relations, such as first cousins, there is current precedent for permitting such marriages. By way of example, there are Indian states (Jammu and Kashmir) with Muslim populations, that sanction marriage to cousins with marital consanguinity rates approximating 40% of the population. In addition, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report (2002) showing that the typical risk of birth defects to be at 1.7–2.8%, which compares favourably to the risk for non-cousin couples of 3% if the conceiving woman is over the age of 40. If we are to be consistent regarding the reasons for proscribing marriage to first cousins, then women over 40 should be denied the right to marry or to have children.