Secular argument against gay marriage

[catholicmom2010]

This is a great book- I got it from Amazon also.

“What is Marriage?” A Secular Study

HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY, VOL. 34

by Sherif Girgis, Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy, Princeton University; Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University; Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of Notre Dame

What is marriage?

Consider two competing views:

Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of
monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.(1)

Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.(2) It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing,(3) this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority. (4)

 

[CandideWest]

Are you arguing that public toilet policy should not discriminate between males and females because the use of public toilets creates an excuse for prejudice and discrimination?

Does it though? Does it really? No, of course it doesn’t. Because BOTH groups between which a separation is being made recognise and desire that separation.

It is you who missed the relevance of this point about discrimination.

Discrimination is quite warranted when the distinctions to be made are important and relevant.

Indeed, so how about you demonstrate some important and relevant distinctions then?

The capacity to create new life is a relevant trait regarding one’s suitability to enter marriage, as are age and mental capacity. The reason these features are important and relevant is because married couples have the very important capacity to create new life, new human beings. Potency to do so is a relevant consideration, so having a pair of individuals of opposite gender is a relevant feature of marriage and a valid reason for discriminating against same sex participants.

And yet you still do not appear to be arguing for banning infertile people from marriage. Why not, they are not able to have children any more than homosexual couples are. Given that there are infertile people out there RIGHT NOW getting married surely you should be out campaigning against that rather than worrying about others who might do so following future changes to legislation?

If sexual encounters were as harmless as, say, shaking someone’s hand or patting them on the back, the government would not be involved to determine who or under what conditions one individual can shake another’s hand or pat their back. Why would the government be involved if that were the case? There would be no reason for it to do so.

The only reason this has become an issue is because contraceptives have masked the real concerns concerning fertility behind a facade of “choice.” If sexual relationships are sterile by the choices of the partners then there is the appearance that same sex partnerships are fundamentally the same as heterosexual coupling. The danger here is that we completely underestimate or ignore what the real issues are about. What is at issue is the nature of reproduction among human beings, which is a critical concern in this matter of the nature of marriage.

Fear not, permitting homosexual marriage will change the nature of reproduction among human beings. Thus far at least human biology doesn’t seem to have been affected by legal distinctions in the least.

 

[CandideWest]

The point is that opposition to homosexual marriage is not analogical to segregation of public bathrooms by race; it is analogical to separation of public bathrooms by gender.

I disagree, to create a suitable analog to public toilets by gender you would have to show primarily that there are relevant and important distinctions to be made, and to make the analogy any good you would need to show that they are recognised as such and supported by both sides.

The only distinctions that have been identified thus far related to is that homosexual couples cannot have children (in common with plenty of heterosexual couples who we allow to marry) and that they do not provide a pair of gender role models for children (which is common with some married couples, single parent families and including adoptive single parents who we allow to raise children).

The argument is that, likewise, there is a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage because homosexual marriage, unlike the integration of water fountains and bathrooms, is consequential. (I’m sure you would like to dispute this assertion. But the point of this post is just to clarify the analogy. This assertion, is of course, what we are arguing in this thread.)

Indeed, thus far my conclusion is that the only distinctions that have been raised are not relevant. This makes them like the distinctions that people used to justify segregation of facilities by race in the past, rather than those which cause the segregation by gender currently.

 

[Gorgias]

I think this is in truth where a major part of the problem with this debate lies - the “secular” arguments put forwards against gay marriage rely on an underlying (religious) belief that there is something “wrong” or "disordered " or “sinful” about homosexuality. However, obviously those who do not share this religious belief find the arguments which depend upon this belief very weak. The arguments simply have no foundations without the religious belief.

Actually, I would assert that underlying rationale is based on the notion of morality, not religion. However, the same problem exists, when a multiplicity of notions of morality abound…

 

[polytropos]

? So your idea of a traditional marriage banned all infertile people and those who practiced abstinence, women who had passed their menopause etc etc? Out of interest where and when was your “traditional marriage” the law?

No, I think I’ve said a lot about infertility so far (and menopause falls into this distinction as well). The Catholic Church has always advocated traditional marriage. That does not mean the state has ever perfectly implemented it (or that it could be perfectly implemented).

I think this is in truth where a major part of the problem with this debate lies - the “secular” arguments put forwards against gay marriage rely on an underlying (religious) belief that there is something “wrong” or "disordered " or “sinful” about homosexuality. However, obviously those who do not share this religious belief find the arguments which depend upon this belief very weak. The arguments simply have no foundations without the religious belief.

There is a difference between a religiously motivated argument and a religious argument. I have made no appeals to homosexuality being “wrong” or “disordered” or “sinful” (although many theists in this thread have, so I can see where you are coming from). Indeed in this part you quoted here I said that I would not make this argument. It is part of my religious stance on homosexuality, but I don’t intend to bring it into a secular debate because I can see why it would not convince anyone who does not share my religious beliefs.

If I actually believe that my beliefs are correct (ie. if I actually believe in my beliefs), then I should expect that their implications are reflected in the real world. There is nothing absurd about bringing religiously informed secular arguments into the public sphere. It is, perhaps, absurd for me to point to a Bible verse and say that you should believe what I believe. But that’s not what I am doing. My argument is about logistics: I really do not believe that normal psychological development occurs without a mother and a father (whether in divorced families or homosexual couples) because the society in which humans evolved (ie. the evolutionary environment, because humans are inextricably social) provided children (generally) with a mother and father.

This is not a religious argument. You view it as a religious argument because you view all arguments against homosexual marriage as religious arguments and because it is in accord with my religious beliefs. Do you really expect me to argue against my religious beliefs or to believe that my religion is wrong about the world? This is how pluralism has neutered our perception of truth. Since the Protestant Reformation people have made so many competing religious truth claims that society implicitly decided to make discourse entirely secular. “You can have your religious beliefs, as long as you don’t act as though you believe in them.”

Not really presumptuous, there are plenty of people you can go out and find who we’re raised by a single parent (and hence were obviously lacking at least one set of the cues you refer to) yet grew up just fine. I have some good friends who fall into this group.

Is this really your argument? Obviously we are talking about trends and trends have exceptions. Is your argument that children from single-parent homes on average are just as well off as children from two-parent homes because you know a few people from single-parent homes who are living good lives?

I’m not sure what you mean by “traditional marriage” but you seem to be seeking to use one of the ever dubious “slippery slope” arguments that suggest if you allow X (gay marriage) then Y (marriage becomes pointless) will occur. Even though there is no obvious relationship between X and Y.

Indeed in this case a more appropriate thing for you to be concerned about would be the Las Vegas style high speed weddings which has done far more towards cheapening of marriage than anything before or since. Why are you not campaigning for banning those?

It is convenient to label my argument as “slippery slope” because that’s a buzzword for a lame argument about devolving morals. The problem is the confusion in the public perception about what marriage is for. It’s generally understood that you only (plan to) have children within marriage, even among secular persons. Yes, there are exceptions to this: not everyone has children, and some children are born out of wedlock, but generally speaking, people don’t intend to raise children outside of marriage. But then we have no-fault divorce laws which make it very easy to divorce. (I am using divorce laws as an example of how laws that change the public perception of marriage influence the protection of children. I know this topic is about gay marriage. I don’t mean to set up a straw man. Here I am arguing for traditional marriage, not against gay marriage in particular.)

If you want to call this “slippery slope,” fine. But when children are involved, the institution of marriage should be perceived as permanent; unless the marriage is dangerous, from a civil standpoint, it is better that the marriage stay together. But we have a legal structure that facilitates the opposite. Marriage should be a legal distinction based on an intentionally permanent relationship and the protection of children. Other relationships do not need these assurances.

And in some cases it is definite and they are STILL permitted to marry.

Laws have to be generally applicable. We could come up with a litany of circumstances in which marriage is an is not permitted, but that would be dysfunctional.

(continued in next post)

 

[polytropos]

On what basis do you say that? From what data do you draw that conclusion? Do you really think this is true in all cases? That any heterosexual couple makes a better adoptive family than any homosexual adoptive family?

If so then I will have to completely disagree with you and suggest you might like to think about this a little more deeply.

Of course I do not think it is true in all cases. From a legal standpoint we can only speak generally about what is most often better. The fact that you can find an exception to a rule does not make the rule invalid. Is it always inconsequential for a child to be placed in the care of a homosexual couple? Is being raised by a homosexual couple ever detrimental to a child’s development? Don’t answer those, because they’re ridiculous questions, prove nothing, and have no application in a public debate in the real world.

Laws have to be generally applicable, and we have to legislate in favor of the common good.

 

[polytropos]

A bit more on the a priori rejection of “slippery slope” arguments: secularists reject them only because they do not agree that the current state of morality is any worse than it was before. Theists look at abortion and see that the issue is certainly worse now than it was 50 years ago.

Those who regard abortion as a profound exercise of reproductive rights will obviously disagree and find the charge that morals are shifting to be absurd. They will feel the same way when euthanasia and infanticide become legal (as bioethicists are already advocating) because by then we will be further down the slope. When you decide to define your current moral position as the high ground, obviously you perceive no slippery slope.

 

[tonyrey]

The SSM experiment has perhaps 9 years of evidence in jurisdictions which represent <1% of the worlds population.

Even if every country in the world legalised SSM it still would not be morally justified because it is based on the principle that some children** should be** brought up without a father or mother.

 

[Monkey1976]

Not sure about your facts, for instance see Wikipedia, but 20,000 years is a blink of the eye in terms of adaptations.

I’m not talking about biological or evolutionary adaptations, but societal. The span of 20,000 years isn’t arbitrary - it’s meant to reflect a rough span which we can refer to as history. As for your point about same-sex “unions”, various societies may have accepted or tolerated homosexual relationships, but this is not the same as what is being sought by those supporting same-sex “marriage” - namely, being considered as no different from heterosexual marriages. Claiming that because homosexual relationships were “blessed” Assyrians, they must have seen homosexual relationships as identical to heterosexual ones is at best ignorant. This article mentions homosexual “union” being “known in … ancient Mesopotamia”, yet the code of Hammurabi (the earliest recorded laws we have for Mesopotamia) only ever refers to marriage as something that happens between male and female. Even Sparta, where homosexual behavior by male citizens was legally required, never saw these “unions” as something equal to and identical with marriage.

It’s also worth pointing out that all the discrimination against homosexuals across many cultures has never once succeeded in making it go away, not even the biblical recipe in Lev 20 of putting them all to death.

This isn’t about discrimination, so you can toss that red herring onto the pile with the rest. What I’m pointing out is that even in cultures where homosexual behavior was not just accepted, but celebrated and even required, marriage was only ever seen as something between male and female.

If varying gender orientation is an advantageous adaptation then the centuries of homophobia were actually to the detriment of humankind, and gay marriage isn’t a moment too soon.

Can you give any argument that is in favor of gay “marriage” that doesn’t boil down to either accusations of bigotry by opponents or selfishness on the part of proponents?

 

[tonyrey]

A bit more on the a priori rejection of “slippery slope” arguments: secularists reject them only because they do not agree that the current state of morality is any worse than it was before. Theists look at abortion and see that the issue is certainly worse now than it was 50 years ago.

Those who regard abortion as a profound exercise of reproductive rights will obviously disagree and find the charge that morals are shifting to be absurd. They will feel the same way when euthanasia and infanticide become legal (as bioethicists are already advocating) because by then we will be further down the slope. When you decide to define your current moral position as the high ground, obviously you perceive no slippery slope.

Irrefutable! There is nothing to stop one sliding to the depths of moral nihilism. When man is the measure of all things nothing is inexcusable!

 

[CandideWest]

Actually, I would assert that underlying rationale is based on the notion of morality, not religion. However, the same problem exists, when a multiplicity of notions of morality abound…

Indeed, how do you convince others that YOUR idea of morality is the right one and not one of the others…

This is at least achievable with principles that are based on things that are observable (ie based on prevention of uneccessary suffering etc) but very very difficult when it is based on unobservable things like supposed damage a soul.

 

[Biblepoe]

Then you would not object to incestuous marriages, as long as the couple was infertile or at least had no plans to raise children?

The reasons why incestuous marriages are banned are entirely separate from whether or not the individuals in question can have children. Same thing for marrying children, animals, etc.

 

[stewstew03]

The reasons why incestuous marriages are banned are entirely separate from whether or not the individuals in question can have children. Same thing for marrying children, animals, etc.

Perhaps.

What else you got…?

 

[stewstew03]

? So your idea of a traditional marriage banned all infertile people and those who practiced abstinence, women who had passed their menopause etc etc? Out of interest where and when was your “traditional marriage” the law?

I think this is in truth where a major part of the problem with this debate lies - the “secular” arguments put forwards against gay marriage rely on an underlying (religious) belief that there is something “wrong” or "disordered " or “sinful” about homosexuality. However, obviously those who do not share this religious belief find the arguments which depend upon this belief very weak. The arguments simply have no foundations without the religious belief.

And again we’re back to children, but if children is what marriage is all about then we should still be banning marriage to infertile people. Thus far however, none of the anti gay marriage proponents seem to be ready to campaign against infertile marriage.

Not really presumptuous, there are plenty of people you can go out and find who we’re raised by a single parent (and hence were obviously lacking at least one set of the cues you refer to) yet grew up just fine. I have some good friends who fall into this group.

I’m not sure what you mean by “traditional marriage” but you seem to be seeking to use one of the ever dubious “slippery slope” arguments that suggest if you allow X (gay marriage) then Y (marriage becomes pointless) will occur. Even though there is no obvious relationship between X and Y.

Indeed in this case a more appropriate thing for you to be concerned about would be the Las Vegas style high speed weddings which has done far more towards cheapening of marriage than anything before or since. Why are you not campaigning for banning those?

And in some cases it is definite and they are STILL permitted to marry.

On what basis do you say that? From what data do you draw that conclusion? Do you really think this is true in all cases? That any heterosexual couple makes a better adoptive family than any homosexual adoptive family?

If so then I will have to completely disagree with you and suggest you might like to think about this a little more deeply.

Dubious in what respect?

?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Nope. And again that is a religious document based on religious beliefs. Not a secular argument.

You have not read Humanae Vitae, but have drawn conclusions about its relevance.

That is textbook example of closed mindedness, and clearly an invalid response.

It would undermine part of it certainly… but what is your point? Is someone proposing that the law is changed in this way? Clearly it’s more than a little silly.

You are funny. Kant is one of your guys… you know the secular enlightenment philosophers. Have you ever heard of Kant’s wedge? You seem to be seeking an argument not only void of theology, but also void of philosophy.

No thanks, I spent decades as a Christian. It was a nice comforting set of beliefs when i was younger but ultimately I’ve outgrown them now.

OK. CandideWest, I always here atheists claiming to have “understood” or have been “raised” Catholic or Christian. I always challenge them with one simple question. If you were ever a Christian, you must know the key to the spiritual life.

Can you tell me the key to the spiritual life?

If you can answer this basic question, then I will believe your contention that you experienced Christianity. However, If you can’t, let’s just agree that you know some information about Christianity, but never really understood what it was all about. Isn’t that why you are here on this forum? Be honest with yourself.

 

[Biblepoe]

Polytropor=s, this seems to be the heart of your argument:

My argument is about logistics: I really do not believe that normal psychological development occurs without a mother and a father (whether in divorced families or homosexual couples) because the society in which humans evolved (ie. the evolutionary environment, because humans are inextricably social) provided children (generally) with a mother and father.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that because most children have mothers and fathers, those who are raised by two mothers or two fathers instead are psychologically abnormal.

That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

It’s like reasoning that since most children are primarily raised by stay-at-home moms (with a father being the bread winner), that being raised by a stay-at-home father (with the wife being the bread winner) is psychologically damaging. Just because the parenting arrangement is unusual does not necessarily mean that the child is any better or worse off.

Do you really expect me to argue against my religious beliefs or to believe that my religion is wrong about the world?

I expect people in general to be more likely to use fallacious logic to fit the irrational into the rational if their deeply held beliefs do not match reality.

I believe that all children deserve loving and caring parents. Their ability to love and care for the child is just the same if they are both male or both female as if they are mixed-sex.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 5,
The criteria of the OP is that we take a secularist position. An athiest would say that incest is wrong because it creates inferior mutants. He would say that what is good for the many overides what benefits the individual (immediate gratification). Therefore incest is wrong.
A secularist would have to (if he is consistent in his beliefs) encourage homosexuality because the world is about to burst via over population.
As I said at the start, the OP implies no moral order except pragmatism.* That is why I am currently sliding towards Catholicism and away from legalistic (reward and punishment, Skinner) Protestantism.

• Taking that position provisionally to prove it wrong.

 

[Biblepoe]

Perhaps.

What else you got…?

Are you in need of me to tell you why it is immoral to have sex with children and animals besides fertility!?

You should familiarize yourself with this key concept: Consent!

 

[wittgenstein]

I disagree Biblepoe (Poe?). However, if your point is that, the good does not NECESSARILY .=natural, I agree!

 

[wittgenstein]

I have gay friends. To equate them with child molesters is absurd. I find the idea of me eating liver disgusting. However, I do not judge those that love eating liver as inferior to me morally. Similarly, the idea of me kissing a guy I find disgusting. However, if another guy likes kissing a guy,I really don’t care.
I remember a female friend of myself and my wife telling me that she truly admired me because I never gossip. I told her,“nothing noble about it! I am an egotistical s.o.b, why would I want to talk about anyone other then me?”