Same-Sex Marriage

[LittleDeb]

T1Catholic:

I’m not sure if this is the right forum to post this question but I’ll give it a go anyway. I need non-religious reasons why same-sex marriage is not good for society. In Canada it is legal but with our new Conservative government elected yesterday, the issue is going to be re-opened. I have been challenged today by someone who said that we should no re-open the issue and that it doesn’t harm anyone if two gay people choose to get married. I absolutely cannot argue with this person on religious grounds. Does anybody have anything they can equip me with?

T1 Catholic

I find the most helpful tool in discussing this is to develop a useful vocabularly with the other person. As seen in this thread alone, definitions of words have become highly subjective. I was told by a great apologist that “the best apologetics usually consists in asking the right questions.”

I would, for your discussion, define two words very carefully with your opponent. The words ‘harm’ and ‘marriage’ are being used by both of you but I am guessing the words mean completely different things to each of you. For the sake of discussion, agree to carefully define those two terms and then use them only in the context of your mutually agreed upon definition. Ask questions and write down results. How does your opponent define these words? How do you?

This discussion tends toward a secular definition, but frequently helps the secular person understand that he or she is in a confused state personally. Translation: many people fighting for “secularization” of words like ‘marriage’ find that they are just following the crowd and have not worked for personal understanding. Many find that they have no working definition of a term.

 

[Ortho]

stbruno:

Paul McGuire, a conservative radio talk-show host for Crawford Broadcasting Corp., speaks to a large syndicated audience every weekday afternoon from his studio in Los Angeles. McGuire believes that if gay marriage is adopted, “5,000 years of civilization will be affected.” He realistically predicts that there will not only be a social chaos from such a trend, but legal validation will also result in “a moral anarchy” in our social climate.

McGuire believes a future including gay marriage usurps the traditional components of a union between a husband and a wife. “Social studies confirm that children do best when you have [both] a mom and a dad,” the radio host says, adding that “psychological fallout will result” when society confuses its inhabitants by changing a social order (traditional marriage) that has been the cornerstone for every major civilization since the beginning of man.

McGuire is convinced that many citizens who have recently decided to support gay marriage “have not thought things through to the logical conclusion.” He sees a society “where there is no need to have any committed relationships” and where homosexual activists will “corrupt heterosexual [marriage] in an effort to make homosexual relationships legitimate.” On a recent show, McGuire alluded to an article from World magazine that chronicles 10+ years of social history in several Scandinavian countries where homosexual marriage was first introduced. With heterosexual marriage being socially de-emphasized in Scandinavia in the early 1990s, traditional marriage was gradually replaced by live-in relationships. Sociologists found that parents in those countries became less committed to their partners and to their children. If this happens in America, McGuire sees “a society where the state raises the children … [and marriage is replaced] by a series of sexual relationships.” He refers to this as “sexual anarchy.”

A competent social scientist would also note the benefits a single mother receives in the Scandanavian countries allow her and her child to live a very comfortable life. A woman might pay more attention to that than the fact that Olaf and Hans down the street are married.

 

[Ortho]

marcadam:

It’s really sad, but I tend to agree with this. Natural law arguments fall flat, because they tend to reject the concept of natural law entirely. Empirical arguments fail to convince, because even given evidence of other societies/cultures that have either been devastated by or become something stable but very ugly upon widespread acceptance of homosexuality, they believe that here it’ll be somehow magically different. It’s like arguing againt diehard atheistic communists, given the history of socialism in the 20th century.

I do, however, believe that if the perponderance of the evidence against homosexual marriage were to see the light of day, it would result in its downfall. It’s already got a very high “ick” factor, so this only adds to the unpopularity. Think about it: in the States, the only gains being made are in the courts; whenever these issues get to the voters, it is overwhelmingly rejected. Only problem is, given the media we have, this evidence will never see the light of day, not in any meaningful way.

Natural law arguments fall flat because people disagree on nature. There is nothing wrong with the arguments, just the standard employed.

 

[Ortho]

felra:

This accurately states the position of relativism – morality determined by one’s own subjective experience.

I think I’d rather use my own experience than someone else’s.

 

[BillP]

felra:

Originally Posted by felra
*This is a useful link:

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01*

Sorry Felra, I did read the piece and they weren’t arguments from social science they were muddled, contradictory, arguments from prejudice.

 

[Ortho]

We have yet to see “non-religious reasons why same-sex marriage is not good for society.”

 

[felra]

BillP:

Sorry Felra, I did read the piece and they weren’t arguments from social science they were muddled, contradictory, arguments from prejudice.

Do you find this useful article link likewise just as “prejudiced”?:

catholicinsight.com/online/political/homosexuality/article_611.shtml

 

[BillP]

felra:

Do you find this useful article link likewise just as “prejudiced”?:

catholicinsight.com/online/political/homosexuality/article_611.shtml

Did you actually READ these before you quoted them?

Alot of them struck me as a pretty good justification of same-sex marriage.

In reviews by Professor Oswald, Professor of Economics at Warwick University, UK it was found that marriage reduces** mortality. The excess mortality of men who are not married is similar to the excess mortality by smoking. **Marriage has a much more important effect on longevity than income does. For men, the effect is positive and substantial. It almost exactly offsets the large (negative) consequences of smoking. For women, the effect is approximately half the size of the smoking effect. • Marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. Marriage gives a beneficial effect in terms of reducing alcohol abuse especially for men and reducing depression for both men and women.

• Health benefits of marriage appear to be limited to marriage. **Cohabitation does not confer the same degree of benefit **than marriage. Formal marriage itself seems to matter. In the few studies that compare marriage and cohabitation, the results tend to show a beneficial effect from being married

Sounds like same sex marriage is a good way to help alleviate some of the negative effects currently seen in the homosexual population.

There are many problems wiht the arguments. Do you want to take them point by point?

The rate or number of homosexuality is irrelevent to this dialog, each and every person is entitled to his or her human rights even if that person is a minority of one.

Yes, homosexuals are more promiscuous than hetrosexuals, Men more so than women. So what? Are we going to prevent promiscous heterosexuals from marrying?

And maybe giving same sex relationships some legal protection and encouragement will help reduce that promiscuity.

Bringing the whole HIV/AIDs issue into the discussion is an appeal to prejudice in my opinion. Fact is, sex in a disease-free monogamous relationship is just as good at protecting people from HIV and other STD’s as abstinence.

In general, the entire piece is riddled with intellectually dishonest mix and match statistics that don’t quite show what they claim to show. For instance:

60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact.

They’re comparing the two diffferent things here, 1st is the rate of tests among a group of people the other is a rate of tests from one causality. They’re trying to hide the fact that 40% of HIV positive tests are in Heterosexuals (the incidence of HIV among lesbians is negligable).

Further, the attempt to link pedophilia and homosexuality is not only prejudicial it is irrelevant to whether homosexuals should be able to form legally protected relationships.

Even the website site admits that:

While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern*** that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles***

Well there are a disproportionately greater number of heterosexual males among child abusers, shoudl they be forbidden to marry?

To sum up.

Yeah. this site is pretty much a waste of time for non-religious reasons too.

Sorry, but, hey, at least I’m reading them.

 

[Ortho]

If HIV/AIDS incidence is a measure, lesbians couples do better heterosexuals.

 

[felra]

BillP:

Did you actually READ these before you quoted them?

Alot of them struck me as a pretty good justification of same-sex marriage.

…To sum up.

Yeah. this site is pretty much a waste of time for non-religious reasons too.

Sorry, but, hey, at least I’m reading them.

It really does depend on how you want to read into the presented facts. I guess we all carry our own personal bias.

 

[BillP]

felra:

It really does depend on how you want to read into the presented facts.

Well which “facts” strike you as particularly persuasive?

felra:

I guess we all carry our own personal bias.

I’d be interested to know what parts of my response to your source you believe reflect my bias.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Did you actually READ these before you quoted them?

Alot of them struck me as a pretty good justification of same-sex marriage.

Do you want to take them point by point?

The rate or number of homosexuality is irrelevent to this dialog, each and every person is entitled to his or her human rights even if that person is a minority of one.

Yes, homosexuals are more promiscuous than hetrosexuals, Men more so than women. So what? Are we going to prevent promiscous heterosexuals from marrying?

And maybe giving same sex relationships some legal protection and encouragement will help reduce that promiscuity.

Bringing the whole HIV/AIDs issue into the discussion is an appeal to prejudice in my opinion. Fact is, sex in a disease-free monogamous relationship is just as good at protecting people from HIV and other STD’s as abstinence.

In general, the entire piece is riddled with intellectually dishonest mix and match statistics that don’t quite show what they claim to show. For instance:

They’re comparing the two diffferent things here, 1st is the rate of tests among a group of people the other is a rate of tests from one causality. They’re trying to hide the fact that 40% of HIV positive tests are in Heterosexuals (the incidence of HIV among lesbians is negligable).

Further, the attempt to link pedophilia and homosexuality is not only prejudicial it is irrelevant to whether homosexuals should be able to form legally protected relationships.

Even the website site admits that:

While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern*** that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles***

Well there are a disproportionately greater number of heterosexual males among child abusers, shoudl they be forbidden to marry?

To sum up.

Yeah. this site is pretty much a waste of time for non-religious reasons too.

Sorry, but, hey, at least I’m reading them.

This thread is a waste of time, because of this very reason. There are those of us who do not see homosexuality as disordered but as something that is a natural biological thing.
If you see it that way, there is no argument that will get through. It is like 2 people arguing with each other about 2 different things. All I can say is that if it were a normal biological thing and God forbid, we were ALL gay or even the majority of us, the human race as we know it would be gone real soon. That doesn’t really sound like something that is a normal biological, healthy thing.

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

This thread is a waste of time, because of this very reason. There are those of us who do not see homosexuality as disordered but as something that is a natural biological thing.
If you see it that way, there is no argument that will get through. It is like 2 people arguing with each other about 2 different things. All I can say is that if it were a normal biological thing and God forbid, we were ALL gay or even the majority of us, the human race as we know it would be gone real soon. That doesn’t really sound like something that is a normal biological, healthy thing.

What if we were all Roman Catholic Clergy? Normal biological, healthy thing?

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

All I can say is that if it were a normal biological thing and God forbid, we were ALL gay or even the majority of us, the human race as we know it would be gone real soon. That doesn’t really sound like something that is a normal biological, healthy thing.

Well cancer, heart disease, diabetes, spina bifida, downs syndrome, cerebal palsy and cystic fibrosus are all “normal biological” things.

What is your point?

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Well cancer, heart disease, diabetes, spina bifida, downs syndrome, cerebal palsy and cystic fibrosus are all “normal biological” things.

What is your point?

OK. Now we may be getting somewhere as you just mentioned 7 of the more common diseases that effect humans today and you have just added an 8th by placing homosexuality into the same category. I think this may be a start and I can take this post of yours and use it to show others who may have been wondering if its a normal thing or is it a disease.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

OK. Now we may be getting somewhere as you just mentioned 7 of the more common diseases that effect humans today and you have just added an 8th by placing homosexuality into the same category.

I didn’t place homosexuality into the category of disease. I placed it in the category of “normal biological” thing. I was arguing against your assertion that eveerythign “natural and normal” was good.

 

[LittleDeb]

BillP:

Well cancer, heart disease, diabetes, spina bifida, downs syndrome, cerebal palsy and cystic fibrosus are all “normal biological” things.

What is your point?

Actually those are biological disorders. They are by no means normal, nor are they using the operative word in the sentence, “healthy.” One can can live an otherwise healthy life while still having one of these disorders. Just as one can live an otherwise healthy life while chastely living with the disorder of same sex attraction. Calling either situation “normal” is a very loose definition of the word. Normal has to do with averages and consistencies.

This was in interesting topic about dialogue between those with conflicting ideas. I thought that the OP asked HOW to discuss. It seems instead it is about WHAT to discuss. Those who have presented ideas for discussion techniques have been shot down by those who are looking for holes in the idea that same-sex unions might just be wrong.

I started reading this thread and responded in search of a better understanding of common ground. From this discussion it would seem there is no common ground so the discussion is pointless. I don’t agree that it is pointless. I liked felra’s link. Yes there are biases there. There are biases in every link. If anyone thinks they are “unbiased” that in itself is a bias.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

I didn’t place homosexuality into the category of disease. I placed it in the category of “normal biological” thing. I was arguing against your assertion that eveerythign “natural and normal” was good.

Everything that is natural and normal IS good, those are abnormal biological things that effect normal human beings. Things that we as humans try to correct if we can, and if we cannot, they cause pain and suffering or death.

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

What if we were all Roman Catholic Clergy? Normal biological, healthy thing?

That is not a biological thing, that is a vocation, a choice. Is that also what homosexuality is? A choice or biological?

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

Everything that is natural and normal IS good, those are abnormal biological things that effect normal human beings. Things that we as humans try to correct if we can, and if we cannot, they cause pain and suffering or death.

If something effects normal human beings, could we say it is normal?