Secular argument against gay marriage

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe;10736104:

If you no longer considered the ability to bear children relevant to sexual morality, would you then consider bestiality, incest, and pedophilia moral, or would you, like me, consider these other things immoral for other reasons? Would you really then not see the harm done by these things?

Sure - but I consider homosexuality immoral, too. I wasn’t aware that you did.

I would if I were presented with a good reason to. However, the main argument for homosexuality being immoral (but not heterosexuality) is the argument about being capable of having children. Since you have agreed that bestiality, incest, and pedophilia would still be immoral if you reject that argument I don’t see any problem with homosexual sex.

The same level of concerns between homo- and hetero- sexual relationships? Really? Do you have evidence for this as well?

Heterosexual sex consists of all sexual activities that homosexual sex consists of (oral, anal, and non-penetrative) plus vaginal sex.

 

[josh987654321]

Provide a definition of marriage that includes heterosexual and homosexual couples that does not discriminate arbitrarily against other committed relationships
inocente;10735121:

I’ve answered your question over and over again.

If you have, I have not seen such an answer.

If sexual intimacy has nothing to do with marriage, than why would people be against any other loving relationship being recognised as a marriage?

Please read my post #438 again.

I have previously stated that it was one reason out of all the reasons why those things are immoral.

I know, that is why I asked what is the other reason? because I agree with you that consent is not the only reason that makes things like beastiality immoral.

If you think that any of those things are moral apart from the ability to have children, that is your issue. I’d prefer to keep the thread focused on same-sex marriage.

Okay.

The approach should be to legalize something by default and ban it only with a good reason.

The reason is because it “encourages” and “normalises” the sexual acts of homosexuality.

I refer you to Peter Plato’s post #612

If you think there has been a good argument presented somewhere in this thread or elsewhere, feel free to present it again in your own words.

Why would I do that? your the one arguing pro same sex marriage.

I have found many, many strong secular arguments in opposition to same sex marriage, yet I have not found any strong secular arguments that are pro same sex marriage.

All it really boils down to is the false understanding of “equality.” Which is absurd, as homosexual unions and a heterosexual unions are vastly different, not in every respect, but in regards to marriage they are absolutly different.

The main reason is that there is no good reason to exclude such relationships, and without such good reason, it is unequal protection under the law.

You say there is no good reason to exclude homosexual unions from marriage, yet what good reason would you use to exclude polygamous unions from marriage? it’s hypocritical to be pro same sex marriage and in opposition to polygamous marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[buffalo]

We have an obligation to protect children. The harm to the children should trump the desires of homosexuals.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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…

The atheist would say abortion is the solution to such birth defects.
Problem solved. (’‘Solved’’, as in “the end justifies the means”, as in the final solution.)

Be your own humanist god.

Gay “marriage” OK
Sex outside marriage OK
Abortion of unwanted children OK

 

[Biblepoe]

I know, that is why I asked what is the other reason?

Actually, your question to which I was responding was, “So is consent the only reason why pedophilia, incest and beastiality are immoral?”

Broadly, I consider those things to be immoral because they cause harm.

The reason is because it “encourages” and “normalises” the sexual acts of homosexuality.

I don’t know if I’d consider allowing a marriage “encourages” and “normalises” it, but even so, I see no problem with that. Homosexuals are just like everyone else. They love other people, and part of that consists of sex.

Why would I do that? your the one arguing pro same sex marriage.

Because I’m arguing that all of the arguments presented in favor of banning these marriages are without merit. In general (for any topic), if you think something should be banned, you should present argument why it should be banned. Not having any good reason to ban something is a good reason to not ban it (a.k.a., legalize it).

All it really boils down to is the false understanding of “equality.” Which is absurd, as homosexual unions and a heterosexual unions are vastly different, not in every respect, but in regards to marriage they are absolutly different.

They’re the same in every respect except it is two women or two men instead of one man and one woman. Why would you think that’s not a small difference in cases where the heterosexual couple doesn’t want children?

You say there is no good reason to exclude homosexual unions from marriage, yet what good reason would you use to exclude polygamous unions from marriage? it’s hypocritical to be pro same sex marriage and in opposition to polygamous marriage.

If you understood all of the substantive rights that are denied to same-sex couples by banning SSM, you’d understand all of the logistical problems that would arise from polygamous marriages (on top of all the psychological problem with the relationship).

 

[Lion_IRC]

Great article!
Thanks for the link.

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…

This one was also fantastic! Thanks!!!
Excellent.
No bible-believing defender of marriage should feel that they lack arguments to put a strong secular case.

And remember, we live in a democracy. Proponents of SSM have 1 vote each.
…AND SO DO WE!

 

[buffalo]

What Research Shows

 

[Frankenfurter]

The key problem with your post is the above. Because there are also plenty of heterosexual marriages where the couple admit that their intention as a couple is not to create children.

So if you re-define marriage as a specific relationship intended for raising children then these people cannot get married any more than homosexuals can. So you’ll have to ban all those heterosexual couples from getting married.

However, this creates a somewhat odd (and discriminatory) situation where homosexuals are able to have their childless relationships recognised in law (civil union) but heterosexuals cannot.

So to get out of this you would need to introduce civil union for heterosexual couples as well. This however is something which most churches seem to oppose (possibly because it would create a competing alternative to marriage which doesn’t carry the historic ties to churches and thus they fear would further erode the traditional power base and relevance of churches to the general public).

All of the above illuminates the secular argument that the word marriage already has a meaning and there are many inconsistencies if you try and change the word for political reasons, rather than letting society work it out themselves.

(Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary) Marriage: the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

When you really get into the motivations for gay marriage, it comes down to folks wanting to be respected as equal by attaching a word. Hardcore gay advocates are not content with equal rights, they want social acceptance from the straight community as equals in society. This is special interest politics.

But there are even more regular gay folks that don’t need or want a heterosexual word to validate them as respectable. The queer community does not seek a straight symbol (marriage) and actually takes offense at the need for this validation.

 

[josh987654321]

Actually, your question to which I was responding was, “So is consent the only reason why pedophilia, incest and beastiality are immoral?”

Broadly, I consider those things to be immoral because they cause harm.

What about incest or beastiality with protected sex?

I don’t know if I’d consider allowing a marriage “encourages” and “normalises” it, but even so, I see no problem with that.

So according to you, you see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality? can I ask why? because I don’t understand it.

Homosexuals are just like everyone else.

True.

They love other people,

True.

and part of that consists of sex.

Not true. please read this previous post of mine #438

I think you are confused with your understanding of love.

Because I’m arguing that all of the arguments presented in favor of banning these marriages are without merit. In general (for any topic), if you think something should be banned, you should present argument why it should be banned. Not having any good reason to ban something is a good reason to not ban it (a.k.a., legalize it).

Peter Plato answers this very well, please read what he has said - #612

They’re the same in every respect except it is two women or two men instead of one man and one woman. Why would you think that’s not a small difference in cases where the heterosexual couple doesn’t want children?

Because when a heterosexual couple doesn’t want children it is still the same sexual intercourse, something that homosexuals are physically incapable of given their sexual anatomy.

If you understood all of the substantive rights that are denied to same-sex couples by banning SSM, you’d understand all of the logistical problems that would arise from polygamous marriages (on top of all the psychological problem with the relationship).

What rights do homosexual couples currently not have that are neccessary?

Why does “equality.” mean that both unions be recognised as a marriage. It’s like saying that in the name of equality all women should be called men.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[stewstew03]

…
Broadly, I consider those things to be immoral because they cause harm.
…

What harm does incest cause, assuming two consenting (infertile) adults?

 

[Biblepoe]

What about incest or beastiality with protected sex?

No, harm refers to more than just physical harm.

So according to you, you see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality?

The reason why I don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality is because I have never encountered any good argument why homosexuality is immoral.

Not true. please read this previous post of mine #438

It seems in your previous post you’re arguing that because heterosexual sex is “targeted towards procreation” (but homosexuality is not), that heterosexual sex can be moral but not homosexual sex, therefore a same-sex couple can’t practice eros.

The flaw with this argument is that people often don’t value procreation, so the ability to procreate is not desirable for them.

Because when a heterosexual couple doesn’t want children it is still the same sexual intercourse, something that homosexuals are physically incapable of given their sexual anatomy.

So you’re saying that non-vaginal sex is immoral because vaginal sex can lead to pregnancy. That’s quite a non-sequitur!

What rights do homosexual couples currently not have that are neccessary?

Some of the rights denied to same-sex couples include:
Spousal privilege regarding testifying against each other/conversations being privileged
Spouse inherits estate without taxes (lack of this right has lead to same-sex couples loosing their home (partners house) when their partner dies)
Spouse becomes legal parent of the other’s child without having to adopt
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
access to family only services
and many more here and here.

Why does “equality.” mean that both unions be recognised as a marriage.

Under the law (which is what this thread is about), if some couple’s relationship is considered a marriage by the government it is treated much differently (see above). Theoretically, the same legal rights could be granted under a different name, but every time governments have attempted to do so, most of the 1,000+ rights the government gives for marriage are not given to those in a domestic partnership or civil union, and such attempts by and large marginalizes those couples.

 

[Biblepoe]

What harm does incest cause, assuming two consenting (infertile) adults?

True of false: You think that incest generally causes psychological harm.

 

[stewstew03]

True of false: You think that incest generally causes psychological harm.

What do you mean by “psychological harm”?

 

[inocente]

"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother, and children. At stake are the lives of **many children who will be discriminated against in advance and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother" is indeed a secular argument - which you have failed to refute…

What happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, when did it become “hate the gay whether or not they sin”?

You have failed to explain why you think gay marriage will change the large numbers of children already living with gay parents.

You have also failed to cite any evidence whatsoever that the large numbers of children raised by gay parents over the years are in any sense disadvantaged (other than them having to deal with the occasional homophobic bully obviously).

In short, you have given me nothing to refute.

 

[Biblepoe]

What do you mean by “psychological harm”?

Psychological harm means harm to one’s phyche.

 

[inocente]

You may not realize how complicated your argument is.

To believe in it, we first need to believe that body parts were designed by a designer, because only then would there be a mind to know the supposed purposes of body parts.
josh987654321;10734188:

So what do you gather from biology, the human sexual anatomy of men and women?

That creationism is false.

(Mark 1) What do you think about sexual morality? What sexual acts are “wrong” according to you and why? is consent the only reason?

The golden rule says treat others as we would like to be treated. Please explain why you think that’s a good rule for all morality except the bedroom. For instance does Jesus or anyone else say the golden rule is great for absolutely everything except sex? Where’s your rationale for changing the rule in that one case?

And if lack of consent is the reason why beastiality is immoral, than if there was consent or a way for animals to show consent, would bestiality still be immoral?

That’s not just hypothetical, it’s fantasy hypothetical. Would talking animals consent to being factory farmed for burger bars? Probably not.

I think you just proved eating meat is immoral.

I mean if you also argued that assault weapons are an abomination because fingers were not intended to pull triggers, and that guitars are disordered since fingers are not meant to pluck strings, then at least you would be consistent, but as it stands where’s the underlying logic to separate it from just being your subjective opinion?
josh987654321;10734188:

I think the logic is in the human anatomy of a man and a woman.

So you’re basing the entire way you act towards people without actually knowing? I think you should find out the logic for yourself and see if you agree with it, unexamined beliefs are dangerous.

Peter and I are not trying to re-define marriage, we just think it is absurd that you would claim that marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

Does your Church or your State refuse to marry couples who will not be sexual intimate? If they never ask then it is absurd of you to continue down this line. Rather than trying to redefine marriage to make your argument work, it might be a lot better to realize it’s not a good argument and find a better one.

*If marriage was defined by the standard “vows” and had nothing to do with sexual acts, than of course we would have no problem with homosexuals marrying one another.

If marriage has nothing to do with sexual acts, than really any loving relationship should be recognised as a marriage, why could siblings or family members not be allowed to commit to such “vows” and be married, why would people be against that? if it is just about the “vows” than what is wrong with any other loving relationship (non sexual/physical) being recognised as a marriage?*

Err… as has been said many times, offspring of incest are at high risk of congenital disorders and incestuous relationships usually involve some form of abuse.

So you think that there is no design for human sexuality? that really anything we sexually desire is fine? Please refer to (Mark1)

I’m not a creationist.

 

[inocente]

In any other circumstance I would agree with you, but unlike the immorality of slavery, this sexual immorality is all through the bible, the old testament and new testament.

So unless you expect the Bible to “die out” you are gravely mistaken to think that people will just accept such sexual immorality as moral over time. Christ’s teachings are not democratic.

The use of the bible to promote slavery was all out of ignorance, in this case it is the opposite, to be pro same sex marriage with the use of the bible is ignorance as the old testament and new testament are very clear about sexual immorality.

I also think that relating slavery to same sex marriage is completely abusrd, but I think you already know that and are just pointing out how you think societies morality changes.

Perhaps you don’t know the bible very well. As the Wikipedia article states, “The Bible does not condemn slavery and actually regulates its practice, especially in the Old Testament”.

For verses mentioning slavery (in any context) see here.

*haha, I said, I don’t think it is the end of the world or anything, but all throughout the new testament they talk about sexual morality and Im saying that the sexual immorality you are advocating is all through revelations.

And remember, no one knows the day/time, so you should always be on your guard.

Note: remember I have nothing against homosexuals, Im simply against of the sexual acts of homosexuality being “encouraged” and “normalised” with same sex marriage.

If homosexuals give into such desires out of weakness Im hardly going to throw stones or anything, but it’s whole new level to claim that such sexual relations are the same/similar as heterosexual sexual relations, that both unions should be called a marriage.

It’s not like we are trying to have such a union made illegal, same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, it encourages and normalises the sexual acts of homosexuality.*

Sounds like net-curtain morality, i.e. you don’t mind if you don’t see it, don’t ask don’t tell.

Paul doesn’t share your view. He thought everyone who gives into sexual desire is weak (“Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. - 1 Cor 7”).

Paul taught that marriage was about having sex as often as possible to avoid temptation. I’m surprised you haven’t referred to him, but I guess “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” is a bit of a downer on your view of marriage. Paul’s unnatural idea that we should all be celibate life-long would have killed off the human race a long time ago.

It’s a good job that few took him seriously.

 

[tonyrey]

What happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, when did it become “hate the gay whether or not they sin”?

How on earth is that statement related to any point in my posts?

You have failed to explain why you think gay marriage will change the large numbers of children already living with gay parents.

The misery caused by the needless deprivation of a father or mother is not diminished by its frequency. Having been brought up without a father I have had personal experience of its effects throughout my life - whereas you are talking through your hat…

You have also failed to cite any evidence whatsoever that the large numbers of children raised by gay parents over the years are in any sense disadvantaged (other than them having to deal with the occasional homophobic bully obviously).

In short, you have given me nothing to refute.

The boot is on the other foot. You have once again failed to refute the following points:

I think slavery is somewhat worse than discrimination.

•                            You have not justified your comparison with marriage.

… In the same way, legalizing gay marriage removes any excuse to think discrimination against gays isn’t immoral.

Changing a name for a different relationship is not going to prevent people making excuses for discrimination.

There is no discrimination when homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexual couples. It is illogical to demand the same name for a fundamentally different relationship.

Adding just one sentence - let alone a paragraph - constitutes a redefinition of marriage.

One of the earliest records of marriage vows is in the Sarum manual:

“I N. take the N. to my weddyd wyf to have and to holde fro thys day forwarde, for beter for wers, for richere for porere; in sykenesse and in hele [health]; tyl dethe us departe; if holy chyrche it wol ordeyne; and thereto I plycht the my trouthe.”

There is no mention of two “wyfs” or more than one “huseband”…

Then you believe:

1. Men and women should be treated exactly the same with regard to their right to bear a child and suckle a baby?
2. If the father and mother are compelled to live apart through no fault of their own they have an equal right to possess a baby that is being suckled?
3. If the mother’s life is in danger from proceeding with the pregnancy they have an equal right to decide whether she should have the baby?

When homosexuals have equal civil rights they are not being treated unequally or unjustly simply because their different relationship has a different name. Inequality is not based on illogicality.

You were the one who raised the breakdown of marriage, not me.

You used it to justify SSM.

You are the one who was appealing to what you subjectively believe is normal, now you’re subjectively drawing lines as well.

In this context the issue is not normality but the increased risk of infection for the children.

       If you want to continue on this line, you'll need to lay out why you  think gay marriage will affect the number of children living with gay  couples (it won't), and while you're at it please cite evidence that the  large numbers of such children over the years are in any way worse off  than anyone else.

a. Study summary: lifesitenews.com/news/gol…l-parents-hap/

b. Media response: lifesitenews.com/news/med…egnerus-report

c. Actual published study: ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s…00610-main.pdf

1. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School

Children of married parents are 35% more likely to make normal progress through school when compared to children who grow up in same-sex households. Children with cohabiting heterosexual parents were 15% more likely to make normal progress and 23% more likely with single moms.

a. Study summary: lifesitenews.com/news/chi…antaged-study/.

Jesus didn’t need to state the obvious.

Precisely. He took it for granted that everyone understands that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then your statement is defective because the activity of married heterosexuals is a private matter.

The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage.

Everyone has their own opinion of what is normal and abnormal. It’s subjective.

Is morality entirely a matter of opinion of what is normal and abnormal?

Your obsession with the physical aspect of sex is consistent with your devaluation of the maternal and paternal roles in bringing up children. Do you believe they are not complementary?

The issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple from the moment you were born.

 

[inocente]

Thanks for the link to the Vatican document. The document is very good. I do think that many of its arguments have been repeated at length on this forum, especially the need for sexual complementarity, the family as the basis of society, and the prospects of devaluing the institution of marriage. To quote one sentence, it says:
"Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.”
Homosexual marriage may indeed be something of a sideshow, or it may be that the general public, which has so far been so apathetic to previous attacks on marriage beginning with contraception and no fault divorce, and the explosion of out of wedlock births, now seems somewhat alarmed that the very anthropological and biological basis of the institution is about to be tossed aside.

Even at that, many don’t seem particularly worried. Large social changes can occur very rapidly, resulting in large changes to whole societies. Twenty or forty years is a short time in history, but to an individual living through such changes, it’s a fairly long time, taken one day at a time. But one day, one wakes up, looks around, and realize that everything has changed.

In this respect, I have to refer once again to Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.” Everyone takes the sexual revolution for granted. Those who have lived through it one day at a time, never take the time for a serious look at what it has wrought. Eberstadt brings us the statistics.

One of the problems with the “biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family” argument is that gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriage - heterosexual couples still fall in love, still marry, still have children. For them nothing changes, so the argument sounds mean, begrudging others what we have for no purpose other than to be mean.

 

[inocente]

The law can declare that a shape consisting of three sides is called a “circle”, but that doesn’t make it so.

You lost me, sorry, I have no idea what you’re on about.

Those are details. I’ve never said that the details haven’t changed. What I’m asserting is that there is a single characteristic of marriage that has held across all known cultures throughout history: That it only exists between male and female. Nothing you’ve posted above counters that.

So you’re completely happy that two-year old infants were married in medieval Europe? As long as one was a little boy and the other a little girl that was perfectly OK? It would only be weird and perverse if both were the same gender, but as they were different it was totally wholesome and natural?

So you would like it to be legal to marry two-year old infants today?

Or did you not notice that’s where your argument is leading you?

*For these particular arguments, I’d say both are irrational: The vows are the acceptance of the responsibilities of the married state, which has already been defined. People with homosexual inclinations are already treated equally - they have the exact same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, subject to the same legal restrictions regarding previous marriage and familial relationship, as everyone else. How is it the state’s problem if they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex?

What’s being forgotten is that marriage isn’t for the benefit of the couple who enters into that state, but for the children born to and raised by that couple.*

If marriage was not for the benefit of the couple then there would be no benefit to a childless couple continuing in marriage and the State would rescind the marriage.

Now does that happen?

In a way I admire the obstinacy of those who are trying to redefine marriage, but as the absurdity of trying to do so has been exposed many times now, could we please crack on and not keep repeating ourselves?