Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

This is an interesting observation, especially so since the ‘pair bonding’ recognized by the state since the dawn of civilization has always involved men and women, as a matter of course. Even those cultures which accepted homosexual behavior did not bestow the benefits of marriage upon it. There was no reason to do so. It had no possibility of providing the state what was necessary for its continuance and for the common good: the next generation of citizens.

And it still does not. Same sex behaviors, whatever they are, cannot be conjugal, cannot be marital, can never form the basis for natural families. Same sex couples can never be sexually complementary, and as a result can never be married. It is an impossibility. All they can do for the institution of marriage is to drive the final nail into its coffin.

Perhaps you didn’t read the remainder of my post? It answers your post above

"Incorrect. The state has an interest in people getting married because marriage has a stabilising influence on social structure. Our species evolved in a way which lead pair bonding to be most common and our social structures have subsequently evolved to suit.

Are you trying to argue that if a couple get married but don’t have children then they shouldn’t receive any of the benefits married couples gain from the state? "

 

[JimG]

Perhaps you didn’t read the remainder of my post? It answers your post above

"Incorrect. The state has an interest in people getting married because marriage has a stabilising influence on social structure. Our species evolved in a way which lead pair bonding to be most common and our social structures have subsequently evolved to suit.

Are you trying to argue that if a couple get married but don’t have children then they shouldn’t receive any of the benefits married couples gain from the state? "

For the most part, yes. State marriage benefits ought to be directed to the raising of children. The personal exemption for dependents should be much larger than it is. There’s not much point in providing benefits to couples just for being married.

Actually, I think it is families that provide the greatest stabilizing force for societies. So much so, that in civilizations where the central government is weak, families are stronger. That was the reason for many ancient patriarchal family structures. As the state becomes stronger, family structure becomes less centralized, and becomes more of a domestic family–mom, dad, children. If the family structure devolves even further into gross individualism, it no longer provides a good foundation for a society, and the society founders and tends to crumble. (See Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family and Civilization.”)

 

[CandideWest]

For the most part, yes. State marriage benefits ought to be directed to the raising of children. The personal exemption for dependents should be much larger than it is. There’s not much point in providing benefits to couples just for being married.

Actually, I think it is families that provide the greatest stabilizing force for societies. So much so, that in civilizations where the central government is weak, families are stronger. That was the reason for many ancient patriarchal family structures. As the state becomes stronger, family structure becomes less centralized, and becomes more of a domestic family–mom, dad, children. If the family structure devolves even further into gross individualism, it no longer provides a good foundation for a society, and the society founders and tends to crumble. (See Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family and Civilization.”)

Maybe you’re right, I haven’t researched it. But nonetheless, even childless marriages are more stabilising than childless non-marriages. That in itself is sufficient reason for government to have a preference for it’s citizens to be married (as we can tell that most marital benefits granted by government are not subjet to the couple having children).

And of course this applies equally well to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

 

[JimG]

Maybe you’re right, I haven’t researched it. But nonetheless, even childless marriages are more stabilising than childless non-marriages. That in itself is sufficient reason for government to have a preference for it’s citizens to be married (as we can tell that most marital benefits granted by government are not subjet to the couple having children).

And of course this applies equally well to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Well, I would dispute that it applies “equally well,” since in my view same sex marriage is an impossibility based on the simple facts of sexual non-complementarity. In any case, I won’t give gay marriage the whole blamed for destroying the institution. That was started much earlier, and accelerated rapidly with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception, which led to a great number of ills, all of which had the effect of destroying marriage. (A good resource book with the stats for this is “Adam and Eve After the Pill, by Mary Eberstadt.”)

I expect in any case, that nobody will be convinced until well after our culture has collapsed and entered into a new dark age. By then, it will be past time for arguments about marriage, and time to start rebuilding.

 

[CandideWest]

Well, I would dispute that it applies “equally well,” since in my view same sex marriage is an impossibility based on the simple facts of sexual non-complementarity.

Well you’re entitled to that somewhat odd view if you like. Incidentally if you really think that sex is the defining factor in marriage (which seems true given what you’ve written above) then surely heterosexual couples who get married but don’t or can’t have sex don’t really qualify either (and yes those marriages do exist).

In any case, I won’t give gay marriage the whole blamed for destroying the institution. That was started much earlier, and accelerated rapidly with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception, which led to a great number of ills, all of which had the effect of destroying marriage. (A good resource book with the stats for this is “Adam and Eve After the Pill, by Mary Eberstadt.”)

As far as I can tell marriage still exists, and is still very popular, (at least where I live). So it would seem rather premature to claim anything has destroyed it.

I expect in any case, that nobody will be convinced until well after our culture has collapsed and entered into a new dark age. By then, it will be past time for arguments about marriage, and time to start rebuilding.

Righto, well I’ll wait for that to happen then

All the best.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Odd argument, I have a number of married friends who have no children and have no intention of having any. Are you really going to argue that their love is somehow not suitable for a marriage?

Incorrect. The state has an interest in people getting married because marriage has a stabilising influence on social structure. Our species evolved in a way which lead pair bonding to be most common and our social structures have subsequently evolved to suit.

Speaking of evolution, and you have, what would be the point of any behaviour “evolving” if it could not possibly be passed on to the next generation? Why have lead pair bonding unless it could possibly lead to a new generation being born to them? There would be absolutely no benefit or point for lead pair bonding if that bonding simply ended with the death of the pair. Evolution depends upon transmission to the next generation. You could not have any evolutionary benefit occurring unless the trait could be passed on. Lead pair bonding has no benefit to any species unless it is towards propagation and continuation of the trait. What would be the point otherwise? Your argument just died in its tracks.

Are you trying to argue that if a couple get married but don’t have children then they shouldn’t receive any of the benefits married couples gain from the state?

Why should they? Their partnership provides nothing in return to the state except depriving independent singles of the same benefit which they deserve just as much as a pair that provides no substantial benefit back to the general good. The benefit is simply a mutual one for the individuals in the pair. Your point about stability is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. A pair that is merely in the partnership for mutual self-interest is inherently less stable than an individual because pairing merely doubles the factors that lead to instability.

Furthermore, providing benefits simply because a partnership has been formed between two individuals discriminates against other forms of partnerships or communal arrangements - brothers, sisters, parent-grandparent, friends living communally, etc. - that have just as much a case for deserving the same benefits as a homosexual couple whose only distinguishing claim to the benefits is that they just happen to engage in sexual behaviour that has traditionally been associated with married couples. Not much of a reason to be granted benefits that are deprived of many other (just as worthy) “relationships” that do not feature sexual relations. The claim to benefits is spurious at best.

Traditionally, it has been the creation of children to whom parents felt responsibility – as embodiments of both individuals in the mated pair – that provided a strong motive for maintaining stability. To reduce marriage to merely a partnership instead of a family unit is, in fact, the most destabilizing view that can be promoted regarding marriage.

 

[JimG]

Well you’re entitled to that somewhat odd view if you like. Incidentally if you really think that sex is the defining factor in marriage (which seems true given what you’ve written above) then surely heterosexual couples who get married but don’t or can’t have sex don’t really qualify either (and yes those marriages do exist).

It’s only a somewhat odd view in the current generation. For millenia, sexual complementarity–i.e., man and woman–was the basis of marriage. That doesn’t mean that marriage is all about sex, only that it is the starting point.

As for couples who don’t or can’t have sex, let me give the Catholic view. “Don’t” is fine. “Can’t” is an impediment. A couple in which either party is antecedently and permanently incapable of marital relations can not validly contract a marriage. It is invalid. That’s pretty rare. Permanent and incurable impotence is not common. If a couple is capable of marital relations, they are capable of marriage. How often they choose to exercise that right is up to them. It might vary from never to daily. And it’s not the most important thing. Just the most basic thing. A couple exchanging wedding vows give each other exclusive rights to the marital act with each other. What is impossible to give, cannot be given.

 

[Fairwinds]

as far as secular arguments go… this is the brief filed by The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, which intervened in the DOMA case being heard by the USSC when the administration refused to defend the law.

44 to 59 state the argument cogently. brief on the merits

it covers most of the issues in this thread.

 

[CandideWest]

It’s only a somewhat odd view in the current generation. For millenia, sexual complementarity–i.e., man and woman–was the basis of marriage. That doesn’t mean that marriage is all about sex, only that it is the starting point.

And there I would most definately disagree with you. I believe love is the starting point for marriage, not sex.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And there I would most definately disagree with you. I believe love is the starting point for marriage, not sex.

Who is arguing that it is not? Love for the other person and love for the new beings created in the images of both. Why does there have to be an either / or paradigm? Why not both in the case of marriage precisely because marriage is fundamentally a creative endeavor that seeks to bring about the good for new living beings?

On the other hand, “love” is such a nebulous term, at times, that it could mean very little without proper disambiguation.

 

[CandideWest]

Speaking of evolution, and you have, what would be the point of any behaviour “evolving” if it could not possibly be passed on to the next generation? Why have lead pair bonding unless it could possibly lead to a new generation being born to them? There would be absolutely no benefit or point for lead pair bonding if that bonding simply ended with the death of the pair. Evolution depends upon transmission to the next generation. You could not have any evolutionary benefit occurring unless the trait could be passed on. Lead pair bonding has no benefit to any species unless it is towards propagation and continuation of the trait. What would be the point otherwise? Your argument just died in its tracks.

No, there is no “objective” in evolution. It is just a process. My argument is not dependent upon there being some greater underlying purpose to pair bonding itself.

The fact is simply that we HAVE evolved this way, and our social structures HAVE evolved to suit. Hence are societies work best when the population are conveniently pair bonded as per those social structures. Government has an interest in our societies working to the best that they can be made to. Hence encouraging marriage is in the government interest.

Why should they? Their partnership provides nothing in return to the state except depriving independent singles of the same benefit which they deserve just as much as a pair that provides no substantial benefit back to the general good. The benefit is simply a mutual one for the individuals in the pair. Your point about stability is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. A pair that is merely in the partnership for mutual self-interest is inherently less stable than an individual because pairing merely doubles the factors that lead to instability.

Incorrect, I already covered this above. People who are in long term stable relationships have a stabilising influence on social structure. For example men who are married have a lower tendency to crime than those who are not. This is in the government interest and has nothing to do with the couple producing or even being capable of producing children.

 

[CandideWest]

Who is arguing that it is not? Love for the other person and love for the new beings created in the images of both. Why does there have to be an either / or paradigm? Why not both in the case of marriage precisely because marriage is fundamentally a creative endeavor that seeks to bring about the good for new living beings?

On the other hand, “love” is such a nebulous term, at times, that it could mean very little without proper disambiguation.

Please read the post which that was written in reply to. JimG specifically states that he believes that sex is that starting point for marriage.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incorrect, I already covered this above. People who are in long term stable relationships have a stabilising influence on social structure. For example men who are married have a lower tendency to crime than those who are not. This is in the government interest and has nothing to do with the couple producing or even being capable of producing children.

This point argues for traditional marriage, not for “relationships” generally. Have you looked at statistics concerning the instability of gay relationships? You cannot argue for relationships in general by using data that is solely based upon heterosexual marriage.

Furthermore, you would have to cite data that distinguishes between the stability of couples with children over and against those without to prove couples without children are as stable as family units.

Let’s have a peek at those numbers, shall we?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please read the post which that was written in reply to. JimG specifically states that he believes that sex is that starting point for marriage.

He is not arguing that it is sex absent love, he is making a point that it is a necessary aspect of the kind of love (romantic love) that couples have for each other. It is you who are attempting to make it an either / or kind of paradigm.

What is the difference between the love of a young couple and the love of a parent for a child, then? Are you claiming there is no difference in the kinds of love, that love is simply of one kind?

 

[CandideWest]

He is not arguing that it is sex absent love, he is making a point that it is a necessary aspect of the kind of love (romantic love) that couples have for each other. It is you who are attempting to make it an either / or kind of paradigm.

What is the difference between the love of a young couple and the love of a parent for a child, then? Are you claiming there is no difference in the kinds of love, that love is simply of one kind?

No, I am disagreeing with what JimG said. Did you read it? He specifically stated that he believes that sex is the starting point for marriage. Here it is again for clarity.

" That doesn’t mean that marriage is all about sex, only that it is the starting point."

I disagree, I believe that love is the starting point for marriage.

Why are you trying to twist JimG’s words such that what he actually said wasn’t what he really meant. If he didn’t mean what he wrote then let him retract it himself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, I am disagreeing with what JimG said. Did you read it? He specifically stated that he believes that sex is the starting point for marriage. Here it is again for clarity.

" That doesn’t mean that marriage is all about sex, only that it is the starting point."

I disagree, I believe that love is the starting point for marriage.

Why are you trying to twist JimG’s words such that what he actually said wasn’t what he really meant. If he didn’t mean what he wrote then let him retract it himself.

He didn’t say it was the exclusive starting point. It is you who are insisting that he is claiming it is.

I would be fine with hearing what he holds to be the case. I just don’t think he is logically constrained to the starting point being exclusive of love simply because it is inclusive of sex, even though your questionable logic claims he is.

 

[CandideWest]

This point argues for traditional marriage, not for “relationships” generally.

Exactly, the point does indeed argue for marriage. That is exactly what it was seeking to do. As far as I know there is no “traditional” marriage and “other” marriage. For us to distinguish between.

Have you looked at statistics concerning the instability of gay relationships? You cannot argue for relationships in general by using data that is solely based upon heterosexual marriage.

So you are creating a circular argument. You are arguing that there is no good reason for permitting homosexual marriage because there is no data from homosexual marriages showing them to be more stable than homosexual relationships outside of marriage (which is because we haven’t permitted homosexual marriage)…

Surely you can see this is rather silly?

Furthermore, you would have to cite data that distinguishes between the stability of couples with children over and against those without to prove couples without children are as stable as family units.

Let’s have a peek at those numbers, shall we?

No, actually we would need to have data that marriages without children are more stable than non-married relationships without children. It’s actually very difficult to get such data precisely because of the very low average stability of non-married relationships without children. Many of them last only a few days or weeks and leave no statistics which are officially traceable.

If you really wish to contend that non-married relationships without children are as stable as married relationships without children then I’ll go looking for some data. But if you really believe this then I fear you have a worryingly jaundiced view of marriage.

 

[CandideWest]

He didn’t say it was the exclusive starting point. It is you who are insisting that he is claiming it is.

I would be fine with hearing what he holds to be the case. I just don’t think he is logically constrained to the starting point being exclusive of love simply because it is inclusive of sex, even though your questionable logic claims he is.

Once again, read what he wrote, he didn’t say “it is A starting point” or “it is an important PART of the starting point”. He said “it is THE starting point”.

Now, sure he MAY not have really meant that, but if so that is for him to retract, not you to argue away what he wrote.

 

[josh987654321]

.

.

I think when discussing same sex marriage we need to talk about love and the word love in english terms is far to vague.

The whole issue is to do with “love of eros” not any other kind of love. Homosexuals can love one another as long as it is not love of eros.

Love of eros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

This kind of love is absolutly a part of marriage, it is this kind of love that is disordered and immoral when it comes to homosexual unions because it has everything to do with the sexual acts of homosexuality.

It all comes down to how they consummate the marriage, heterosexuals can consummate their marriage in a moral and ordered way targeted towards procreation however homosexuals are physically incapable of consummating their union in a moral and ordered way, thus why it is not a marriage.

Do you really want to encourage homosexuals to act sexually Immoral and disorderly in trying to consummate their so called marriage?

You might feel as if we are denying homosexuals the unity of marriage, but the fact is that they cannot have the same unity that a male and female does, as the physical compatability just isn’t there, they simply do not share the same “love of eros” for a marriage.

Does love of eros no longer matter when it comes to marriage? and if so, than marriage should be for any kind of loving relationship. I mean can friends get married who do not have a love of eros, who are simply friends? if love of eros no longer matters when it comes to marriage than really any kind of loving union should be recognised as a marriage.

Definitions of Love -

**Love of Agape **- means “love,” which means “I love you.” In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of “true love” rather than the attraction suggested by “eros.” It can also be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God.

Love of Eros - is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Love of Philia - means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity.

Love of Storge - means “affection” in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

Now which one(s) of these “loves” would be required for marriage? I would most definatly include “Love of eros.” it would be naive to exclude such love from marriage.

Our primary concern is the love of eros between homosexuals that is a part of marriage and to support same sex marriage means to support and encourage love of eros between homosexuals, which has everything to do with the sexual acts of homosexuality and thus why same sex marriage is just so very wrong.

We are not in opposition to any other kind of love between homosexuals, it is just the “love of eros” and this love of eros is a part of marriage, it is not the only love in marriage but it is a part of the love required for marriage, therefore same sex marriage means to support and encourage the “love of eros” between homosexuals, which is wrong.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JimG]

And there I would most definately disagree with you. I believe love is the starting point for marriage, not sex.

By the starting point, I mean that sexual complementarity is what makes marriage possible.

Love has many meanings from the emotional to the spiritual. The marriage vows promise permanency. Emotions come and go. Can one promise love, for better for worse, in sickness and in health, until death? Absolutely, but it is a commitment of the will, not something dependent on a fleeting emotion. Feelings of love follow the decision to love.

In many societies marriages were arranged by parents. Does that mean that there was no love? Of course there was love, and love became stronger because the parties decided to love. Did parents ever arrange a marriage between same sex couples? I don’t think so.

I love my mother, my father, my brother, my sister, and my good friends. I don’t marry them.

Marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman which promises mutual permanency and fidelity, and unites parents to their children, and children to their parents and families.

Marriage is open to life, and it is so because of the sexual complementarity of husband and wife. A marriage in which marital relations is impossible is a contradiction in terms. That is why gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility.