Secular argument against gay marriage

[stewstew03]

WOW! So you admit that you don’t think incest causes harm!

No, I don’t. I think it’s morally reprehensible. But, if you think there is nothing morally reprehensible about homosexual behavior, I don’t know why your standards would change vis-a-vis incestuous behavior (assuming two consenting adults). You should at least be consistent.

Perhaps. But wouldn’t you agree that incest is considered taboo?

Of course it is. Although some states have more lenient laws than others, and some countries (e.g., Spain) do not prohibit incest.

Lawrence v Texas was not a case about incest.

No, it wasn’t. But it is relevant because it was about private consensual sex between adults.

 

[CandideWest]

That is not what I am saying. You are rebutting a single paragraph without taking into account the other points about infertile couples that I have made. Children sometimes result from “infertile” couples…

The civil marriage I am proposing extends to those couples that might conceive children.

I’m not really trying to rebutt your position here I’m mostly just trying to determine what you think is a “traditional” marriage. So, given the above you would propose only permitting marriage to those heterosexual couples who “might” conceive children correct? So definately banning those who are completely infertile?

That homosexual marriage becoming normal would be a bad thing is an immediate corollary of any argument against homosexual marriage, secular or religious.

If you believe you can demonstrate it is a bad thing using a secular argument then why did you state that you wouldn’t try to demonstrate that it is a bad thing because you were keeping your argument secular?

I believe the best environment for children to grow in consists of a mother and a father. We praise those who are single and adopt because it is difficult - not because it is the best option for a child. A single-parent household is still compromising.

We praise single people who adopt not only because it is difficult, but because it is better for the child than being raised in an adoption agency etc. Hence it is seen as doing something which is difficult for you and to the benefit of another, hence altruistic, hence praiseworthy.

Again, at worst a child being adopted into a homosexual couple would only be in the same position with regards to parental gender roles to learn from as a child adopted by a single parent and would probably be a lot better off in many other practical respects as has already been discussed.

I was referring to trends in psychological health (as is all we can do in terms of application). My objection is that you are using specific cases, which are outliers of the larger trend, as the counterpoint to the trend.

Ok, so lets talk about trends, what data are you using to reach your conclusions?

I don’t think anyone would doubt that support is a factor. I would argue that it is not the only factor, and that the absence of either a father or mother figure impacts psychological development in addition to whatever the effects of having only one parent are.

Again, if you want to use this as an argument then you’re going to need to be able to support it. The small amount of research I’ve read on the topic identified little if any disadvantage by being raised by homosexual parents.

Marriage can be for two adults who would like to have children or it can be fore two adults who would not necessarily like to have children. The former is a meaningful legal distinction, since a union producing children requires legal protections that unions not producing children do not. The latter is what we call a relationship.

Yes, and in plenty of cases that relationship is marriage. Again your distinction seems to cut out infertile heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, yet you still don’t seem to want to ban infertile people.

My argument would be that in both cases, before and after the marriage, the child would be lacking a father figure and would not be in an ideal environment (although practical and financial support, of course, might become less of an issue).

Ok, but even taking that view lets not forget that we are not talking about an “ideal” (whatever that is) environment vs raising by homosexual parents. We are talking about growing up in an adoption centre vs raising by homosexual parents.

I’m sure if the only way that single people could adopt children was by taking them from good two parent families we wouldn’t praise people for the action. But it isn’t.

This is not my position on infertile couples. Civil authorities cannot reliably judge which medically pronounced infertile couples are capable of conceiving. By dysfunctional, I mean that no one is going to draft a law saying that a man and a woman cannot get married if the man has no testicles because the case is so extenuating and that information would not be available to anyone issuing a marriage license. This is not really an ideological stance, just a practical one.

This looks like your argument amounts to “I don’t want to discriminate in favour of heterosexual couples who cannot have children and against homosexual couples who cannot have children, but it’s just not practical to do otherwise”. I find that a quite weak argument to be honest, we just need to try harder and not let excuses get in the way of doing what’s right.

Of course this all still follows after you’ve got everyone to agree that marriage is “for” raising children. A position which currently seems to be your personal view but not one which is found anywhere in law or even an official church position.

Yes, but this does not really change the fact that a functional heterosexual adoptive family can offer an environment for a child that is absolutely irreplicable by a homosexual couple (or a single parent).

You can equally well say that a homosexual couple (or a single parent) provides an environment for a child that is absolutely irreplicable by a heterosexual couple. Both are equally true. The issue here is demonstrating that one is in some way significantly better than the other. Thus far we don’t seem to have identified any reason to believe this to be the case.

And this is still not terribly relevant, the key question is whether being raised by a heterosexual couple or a single parent, is better than growing up in an adoption agency. Those are the real options to pick between here as children that are adopted mostly come from adoption agencies.

 

[CandideWest]

This is clearly false.

And yet none of the things you wrote in your post even come close to demonstrating this to be the case. If you genuinely think that then why not try to demonstrate it to be so, instead of just asserting it?

Atheist professors of evolutionary theory see a stark difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Er, well yes. They are clearly different, has someone been arguing otherwise?

They ASSUME—with good reason—that heterosexuality is the norm for our sexually reproducing species

Indeed, heterosexuality is “the norm” in that it is more common than other normal forms of sexuality in sexually reproducing species.

and that homosexuality requires some sort of explanation because it is not obvious, from an evolutionary perspective, why homosexuality exists.

Yes, but it seems likely that there is some advantage to some of populations of species having this characteristic. Otherwise we would not expect the characteristic to have survived in so many different species.

Indeed, many evolutionary theorists see homosexuality as a problem, for it is a bedrock conviction of Darwinism that organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible. (Without such a motor, evolutionary theory cannot get going.)

No, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood evolution there somewhat. Leaving behind as many offspring as possible is not the motor behind evolution. What is required is that species over-produce, that simply means in each generation the number of offspring that are born exceed the members of the generation which created them. Simply “produce as many offspring as possible” that you’ve put forwards above is oversimplifying to a point which is misleading.

What makes this more complicated, of course, is that homosexual people may be fertile and many have entered into natural marriages and produced offspring. (All arguments that would explain homosexuality as a “brake” on population growth run aground on this fact.)

Yet it remains a viable explanation (not a confirmed one yet) due to a likely lower rate of conception between “mating pairs” where one or more of the pair is homosexual.

In any case, from a biological point of view, sexual behaviors that can produce children who will need years of looking after are different than those which are infertile by design.
To say they are the same, or equivalent, is to bleed “the same” and “equivalent” of their normal meaning. Further, “getting married to start a family” is a common human desire that same-sex couples cannot enter into in the same way. (Though two homosexual people of the opposite sex could do this, or one homosexual person with a heterosexual person of the opposite sex.)

Yes, it is common that people desire that. And it is also common for heterosexual couples to marry and not start a family.

Most of the gay people I know—and many whose work I’ve read—mock “normality” and society’s “conventions.” The argument that same-sex couples want to live exactly the same way heterosexual couples do who get married to have and raise kids is one rarely heard espoused by gay people talking candidly among friends. That’s political PR.

Yes, some don’t want anything to do with normal social conventions (just like some heterosexual couples), and some just want to get married, settle down and live happily ever after (just like some heterosexual couples)… But there doesn’t seem to be a big gay movement supporting the ban on gay marriage. Have you asked your homosexual friends if they support the ban and if not why not?

If you haven’t, might I suggest you try it?

 

[CandideWest]

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.

But this IS society working it out for themselves. The legal process is just the formalisation of a set of agreed principles, rules of social conduct etc. Updating those laws usually follows behind the change in society, not in front of it.

When you really get into the motivations for gay marriage, it comes down to folks wanting to be respected as equal

Yep, that’s exactly it. They want to be respected as equal, full stop.

Hardcore gay advocates are not content with equal rights, they want social acceptance from the straight community as equals in society.

Yep, and I’m glad to say that most of society now does indeed accept that homosexuals are equal in society, and the law is now catching up. Just as we long ago accepted that women are equal in society, and updated the law accordingly, and people of different races are equal in society and updated the law accordingly.

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.

Some do, some don’t. No doubt those who want nothing to do with marriage won’t get married. Still though, there doesn’t seem to be a big campaign from homosexuals against the change in the law.

 

[stewstew03]

Since I don’t want this thread to become about incest, I’ll just provide you with this source if you’re interested in what psychological harm is caused by incest.

This is not at all helpful. First of all, you linked to an unpublished dissertation; this is hardly authoritative. Secondly, the topic of the dissertation, namely, sibling child sexual abuse, is not on point.

The fact that it causes harm (as I said before).

Please list specific types of harm that occurs between two adults, related by blood, engaging in sexual activity.

I just want to point out that just because sex is seen as something fun the couple does (which the Catholic Church affirms when talking about the unitive aspect of sex) without necessarily wanting to have children doesn’t mean one takes an anything goes approach.

But the limits are currently being tested, and will continue to be tested. Polygamy is next…

If the parts didn’t fit, then they wouldn’t be able to have sex. Mixed-sex couples have been able to get the parts to fit for the exact same activities (or sex, an sex, non-penetrative sex), and we don’t use willingness to engage in vaginal sex to determine if the couple can get a civil marriage.

A paperclip can fit into an outlet, but that doesn’t mean that you should engage in this type of activity. The human anus was not designed for penetration. The female vagina, however, does serve that purpose. There are all kinds of health risks associated with anal sex; and that’s because the anus was meant to hold feces.

And, to your comment about willingness to engage in vaginal sex, some states do in fact require the act of “consummation.” And in other states non-consummation might be a basis for voiding the marriage.

What would the motive behind this ‘separate but equal’ approach be other than to marginalize such relationships as less than?

Homosexual relationships will never be equal to heterosexual relationships because the former are unable to produce children without a third party.

Perhaps it’s also because employers and insurance companies would use any excuse to cut costs by denying benefits, and a ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’ instead of a marriage would give them an excuse to do so.

As far as I can tell, many companies have judged the opposite to be true. That is, in an effort to be seen as “forward thinking” (and ostensibly attract the best and brightest talent), they offer all kinds of domestic partner benefits even when state law does not require it. It also enables them to avoid being protested by homosexual activists.

.

 

[CandideWest]

A relevant difference is clearly manifest in the potency to make new human beings.

Differing capacities are treated differently, and legitimately so. The capacity to create new life warrants unique consideration under the law…

Ok, so given the position you have taken above presumably you are seeking to ban infertile couples from getting married?

Yes or No?

If Yes, then you’re gonna have a lot of difficulty with persuading anyone else to that view I’m afraid and your position appears to be contrary to that of the Catholic church.

If No, then your position is completely inconsistent and you are indeed arguing that “group 1 cannot get married because they cannot have children, and group 2 can get married even though they cannot have children”. That is simple discrimination.

People of different races can marry. People of different religions can marry. Again homosexuals in favour of same sex marriage do not want to engage in marriage, which is currently an open possibility for them, they want some other arrangement to be considered marriage.

No, they want to get married. That’s specifically what they are asking for. In many countries they already do get married and as Innocent has demonstrated, them getting married has barely altered the law in the slightest.

Why on earth are you trying to convince people that what people are specifically asking for is actually not what they are asking for. Do you think they’re going to believe you some point and change their minds in order to give you a nice easy position to argue against?

 

[stewstew03]

But this IS society working it out for themselves. The legal process is just the formalisation of a set of agreed principles, rules of social conduct etc. Updating those laws usually follows behind the change in society, not in front of it.

No, not always. Sometimes laws/judicial decisions influence people’s attitudes/perceptions.

Yep, and I’m glad to say that most of society now does indeed accept that homosexuals are equal in society, and the law is now catching up. Just as we long ago accepted that women are equal in society, and updated the law accordingly, and people of different races are equal in society and updated the law accordingly.

Homosexuals are equal. But homosexual relationships are not.

 

[buffalo]

Which one does a child call dad or mom?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ok, so given the position you have taken above presumably you are seeking to ban infertile couples from getting married?

Yes or No?

If Yes, then you’re gonna have a lot of difficulty with persuading anyone else to that view I’m afraid and your position appears to be contrary to that of the Catholic church.

If No, then your position is completely inconsistent and you are indeed arguing that “group 1 cannot get married because they cannot have children, and group 2 can get married even though they cannot have children”. That is simple discrimination.

It is not simple discrimination because there is no legal requirement to have children only that the couple meets all relevant criteria for having children should they so choose. In this respect an infertile couple is similar to a fertile couple that meet all the conditions for parenting children but choose not to.

Actually there is no direct logical implication from a simple lack of potency to direct exclusion from marriage. There may be other criteria for including infertile couples that simply do not apply to same sex couples. For example, there is male-female complimentarily that would allow infertile couples to be fitting surrogate or adoptive parents to children who have lost their own biological parents. Such a couple could have all the requisite traits for them to be a fitting surrogate mother and father to children. As has been argued in this thread and elsewhere, offspring of heterosexual parents ought not to be deprived of their inherent right to a mother and a father.

 

[josh987654321]

No worries, it speaks well of your integrity to just come out and say so. A lot of people I know would just respond with an argument they knew didn’t work to avoid responding honestly as you have above.

Thank you.

The problem there is that you are supposing a situation so wildly different to reality it’s hard to imagine. First of all animals would need to have conscious self awareness in order to be able to make decisions of this nature, and be able to speak in some manner.

In many respects what you have done by the above is made animals into different types of people. Can we really make any kind of reliable guess as to what our world would be like under such circumstances? Would cows shop in supermarkets or would they prefer to use the high street? Which way would fish tend to vote?

I agree, that was a poor question of mine.

A better one is, would you consider protected incestual sex immoral? and if so why?

Yes, moral, as in morally permissible. Nothing wrong with it. I’m not sure what you mean by “encouraged” as far as I know humans have never yet developed a reliable way of changing a person from heterosexual to homosexual or homosexual to heterosexual (despite a lot of effort for centuries having been put into the latter).

Thats what I thought, until I found this article in this thread - NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality.

Because I ddn’t think people would be able to change from heterosexual to homosexual, however I have never under gone “reorientation therapy” so I wouldn’t know.

In any case, if people desire something different, than I don’t think it makes such desires moral to act on. I think we have to consider the morality of the act and not the morality of the desire.

Yes, but our species hasn’t evolved to all be homosexual, the same goes for all those hundreds of other species that show homosexual behaviour. Not all of any given generation have the characteristic. But it appears that there must be some evolutionary advantage for many species in having a percentage of the population homosexual. If there was not then each of them (including humans) would probably have been out bred/competed by variants of the species which lacked that trait.

Homosexuality has not been out bred because I don’t think it is a genetic trait, I don’t think there is a such thing as a “gay gene” that can be passed on, I think it is more likely a physical or physiological disorder.

I think that there is no way that it is a gene, because there would be some kind of pattern, I think it is something to do with the hardware or software and thus a disorder.

I say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality because I cannot identify anything which is wrong with it.

My identification of it’s immorality, is the human anatomy of men and women, the anatomy of male and female, that only men and women are sexually compatible, that two men or two women do not have the appropriate parts for such sexual compatibility and that what ever they are doing in trying to imitate such heterosexual sexual acts is therefore immoral.

Fornication means different things to different people, please clarify what you mean by the term.

Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.

Yes, it sounds as if our sexual morals probably are quite different. Incidentally the basis I use for morality in general is what I call “practicably objective” morality.

I have never heard of that, what is “practicable Objective” morality?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from post above -

It’s strange, I’ve noticed that when a lot of people talk about sex and marriage, general view seems to be that when two heterosexuals get married they tend to have less sex. But when a lot of Christians talk about homosexual marriage the assumption seems to be that they’ll suddenly start having a lot more sex.

Many Christians including me see pre-marital sex as immoral and I don’t think that homosexual marrriage means that they’ll start having alot more sex, I think homosexual marriage will make absolutly 0 difference to a homosexual couples life, I don’t think they will really gain anything from marriage because I mean, civil marriage together with no-fault divorce has made marriage null and void, civil marriage is absolutly meaningless, why do they even bother with civil marriage?

When homosexuals speak of civil marriage I think instead it will encourage and normalise their lifestyle for society and thats what they want, they want to change societies perception of the sexual acts of homosexuality or same sex relations to be seen as equal to heterosexual sexual relations.

As for “normalised” well homosexual behaviour occurs in a significant proportion of the population across our entire species all over the world. So it seems clear that it is “normal” for our species. Certainly more “normal” than other less common traits globally (ie having ginger hair) which are widely considered as “normal”.

Yes, I agree that “same sex attraction” is normal, but I don’t think that the sexual acts of homosexuality are normal, I don’t think acting on such desires is normal. How do you percieve the sexual acts of homosexuality as normal?

Why do you think it is “giving into such desires out of weakness” would you similarly say that a heterosexual couple who have sex are doing likewise?

If it is pre-marital sex for heterosexual couples or fornication etc, than yes I would say they gave into such desires out of weakness.

I suspect that it’s because you consider it to be some kind of sin, but most homosexuals do not share this view so presumably they do not see any more need to resist their desire to have sex with their partner than heterosexuals see to resist the desire to have sex with their partner.

Yes, I do consider the sexual acts of homosexuality to be sinful, just like pornography, masturbation, fornication and pre-marital sex.

Sometimes people give into these desires out of weakness. But I don’t think it is healthy for society to “ecourage” and “normalise” such things.

Lets be clear on this, we don’t just “call” a relationship marriage. Neither with homosexual or heterosexual relationships. People get married, and THEN we call their relationship marriage, because they have been married.

Okay, than what “people” can get married? and I know you have probably heard this argument before, but I think it is very relevant, that if gender doesn’t matter when it comes to marriage, why would number matter?

I’m not sure why you raise the idea of anatomy no longer mattering. I’m sure in any sexual relationship anatomy matters a great deal to those involved. I just don’t see why it should matter to those who aren’t involved. Do you take an interest in the anatomy of your neighbours?

Your right, I agree.

I don’t take an interest in it and if they want to unite in such ways than I am not going to force my beliefs onto them and say that they can’t, however I am going to be in opposition when they try to equate such a union to a heterosexual union, to a marriage.

Anyway, hopefully this post has clarified some things for you. All the best.

Thank you, It has.

I would like to understand your view, because I want to make an informed decision on this and thus I must understand both sides, which is what I am trying to do, you can feel free to ask me any questions you would like in your reply in understanding and challenging my views.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Since I don’t want this thread to become about incest, I’ll just provide you with this source if you’re interested in what psychological harm is caused by incest.

The fact that it causes harm (as I said before).

There are many cases that say homosexuality causes harm aswell - carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one

What do you think makes homosexuality and incest different? both being protected sex doesn’t cause any physical harm and both without protection can cause physical harm. Both have many cases and studies that show they cause psychological harm.

I just want to point out that just because sex is seen as something fun the couple does (which the Catholic Church affirms when talking about the unitive aspect of sex) without necessarily wanting to have children doesn’t mean one takes an anything goes approach.

I agree, why does the sexul acts of homosexuality “go” according to you?

See the sources I gave for the practical effects of legal marriage. Most of them, such as spousal privilege regarding court testimony, inheritance of property without estate tax, power to make medical decisions about the spouse, and many, many more, have nothing to do with childbearing. Instead, they have to do with protecting the union of the spouses and treating them as two acting as one.

Why does the government treat people as two acting as one?

If the parts didn’t fit, then they wouldn’t be able to have sex. Mixed-sex couples have been able to get the parts to fit for the exact same activities (or sex, an sex, non-penetrative sex), and we don’t use willingness to engage in vaginal sex to determine if the couple can get a civil marriage.

I don’t think it’s about willingness, I think it’s about capability and if we don’t use capability than why are two sisters so to speak unable to get married, if marriage isn’t about sex than why would we care about incest marriage?

What would the motive behind this ‘separate but equal’ approach be other than to marginalize such relationships as less than?

Do you think that a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship is equal in regards to marriage? if so why should both be recognised as a marriage (other than the governemnt benefits that can be done with domestic partnerships or civil unions)?

Perhaps that’s happened because the law is complicated and its hard to create a bill that mimic all of the laws that have to do with all of the 1,000+ rights and responsibilities of marriage. That’s an awful lot of work to create a separate name. It’s a lot less work than removing an arbitrary requirement that the two can’t both be male or female in order to get a civil marriage, which might be a matter of modifying a single sentence of law.

Couldn’t the same thing happen if they treated “domestic partnerships” the same as they do “civil marriage”? why would that be hard?

Perhaps it’s also because employers and insurance companies would use any excuse to cut costs by denying benefits, and a ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’ instead of a marriage would give them an excuse to do so.

If “domoestic patnership” had the same financial benefits as marriage than they wouldn’t be able to do that.

Perhaps it’s also because some politicians don’t actually want same-sex couples to be treated equally as opposite-sex couples, but want to give the appearance or respecting their rights.

Or because they don’t want them to be seen as equal, they don’t want the sexual acts of homosexuality to be encouraged and normalised for society, in which case I would agree.

I think homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally, however a homosexual union and a heterosexual union should not be treated equally in certain aspects as they are not equal unions.

For starters, to treat them equally would mean that adoption agencies can no longer take into acount the lack of a father figure or mother figure without it being disciminiation or unlawful, which would be illogical.

It would also mean that teachers would have to teach kids (in detail) the sexual act of homosexuality as they do heterosexuality, because wouldn’t homosexual kids be required to learn safe sex with regards to homosexuality if it is equal to heterosexuality?

These are just two exmaple off the top of my head, there would be many more.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Just an aside; I don’t want to derail the thread.

I value truth. I think it’s a good thing to get people thinking about what is true.

Thinking is not immoral!

Yo said that you like playing the devil’s advocate. Is this to stroke your ego? In any event…
misleading people is a lie. **The truth is a person, Jesus Christ. ** The Lord have mercy on your soul.

All people think. Do you think you are wise, or simply clever?.

Romans 1:22
“While claiming to be wise, they became fools…”

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Who cares where a word comes from? Words change meaning all the time. Besides, we don’t let dictionaries inform our public policies.

Yes we do. Every word has a meaning. Otherwise we would not be able to communicate. To change that meaning is to corrupt the language. And that is exactly what is going on.

…except when it doesn’t. I’m sure it’s been talked about ad nauseum on this thread, but many people get married without any intent to have children. Plus, same-sex couples raise children all the time.

Lies are usually have a number of truths rapped around them to make the lie look credible. For example, “many people get married without any intent to have children” or “same-sex couples raise children all the time.”

**Have you read Humanae Vitae? **

Go ask any ethicist, especially one who isn’t religious.

Can you suggest any specific ethical published work?

Can you give me a “secular” argument explaining the roots of any moral wrong? Can you explain to a thief why it is wrong to steal? Do the work! Explain why stealing is wrong without referring to anything religious. In the end you will come up with some PREMISE, which you will state as “self evident”. And if we look into history we can see many examples where this was not so “self evident”.

The problem is that you are partially formed into the Catholic Faith.
You simply cannot see outside your perspective. You don’t realize just how Judeo-Christian our society is. Your accept the ten commandments and the golden rule. You may have removed God from the whole affair (like the communists), but that is simply tearing down the arc from the inside out. When the arc becomes flooded is when you might start to have a clue.

I’ve never heard a non-religious person say that “man has no purpose” or that “[man] is an accident.”

OK. What is man’s purpose! Tell me.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Who cares where a word comes from? Words change meaning all the time. Besides, we don’t let dictionaries inform our public policies…

Yes we do. Every word has a meaning. Otherwise we would not be able to communicate. To change that meaning is to corrupt the language. And that is exactly what is going on…

I’ve debated SSM with a lot of atheists and they are the same folk who rant about the bible referring to bats as birds. "the bible is wrong…a bat isnt the same as a bird whine whine whine"

Try changing the definition of the word ‘‘atheism’’ so it can be called a religion and just listen to them howl.

These bible errancy crowd stamp their feet and wont let Jesus’ genealogy include two “dads” for Joseph - Heli and Jacob AND YET
…they happily support the gay adoption definition of two “dads”.

 

[tonyrey]

For starters, to treat them equally would mean that adoption agencies can no longer take into account the lack of a father figure or mother figure without it being discrimination or unlawful, which would be illogical.

That is already occurring in the UK! The Catholic Children’s Society has already been forced to close down in the name of “tolerance”. Permissiveness and the unisex mentality are rapidly destroying the foundation of marriage - with over a million one-parent families in this country. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

 

[tonyrey]

No so obvious…

Those vows certainly do make sense if the couple could potentially create a new human being and, therefore, individually were providing to their potential partner the assurance that they would not leave the other “in the lurch.”

However, those vows do not make sense for a couple who have no inclination or potential to create offspring and mutually agree that either one of them are free to break it off if they are so inclined. Why hold each other to such a high standard when both are quite inclined not to live up to it? Why make an unnecessary promise that will almost certainly be broken?

If your argument is that these vows are to be taken seriously not for the sake of future offspring, but for the sake of the psychological well-being of the pair and sex is merely an accidental feature of the union (which some, for example CandideWest, have contended), and that it is the loving commitment that is the prime feature, then why place limitations on who could enter into such an agreement?

Why could not two same-sex siblings enter into such a relationship? Surely, the Spanish civil code has no reason to refuse two brothers or two sisters from entering this kind of relationship since they are incapable of procreating, just as biologically unrelated same sex couples are. It would seem quite discriminatory of the Spanish authorities to exclude a pair of brothers or sisters from benefitting from the protection of Spanish civil law for no reason, since the only reason for excluding those of the same bloodline have to do with procreation. Where is the justice in excluding those who cannot procreate from being married, a pair of brothers, for example?

Clearly, you would have to support two brothers or two sisters being married, since, equally clearly, for you marriage is not about procreation or having sex and, for you, the law ought not exclude a loving, committed couple of brothers or sisters from being married, since their love is equally as valid as any other.

I sincerely hope there are a few Spanish siblings around, with time on their hands, who will challenge the Spanish government based upon its own inadequate rendering of the law. This could open up a plethora of equally valid challenges from an open range of pairings: for example, same sex grandparent-grandchild or parent-child. Why should these be excluded from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage simply because they are biologically related but have no inclination to engage in the marital act? Even if they did, what business of the state’s would that be? They did not choose their kinship ties so why should their genealogy be the cause of the state’s discrimination against their loving, committed relationship and their desire to benefit from state sanctioned matrimony? After all, if gender orientation ought not be a barrier, why should kinship?

Reductio ad absurdum…

 

[tonyrey]

Which one does a child call dad or mom?

The poor little kid has to do what two male adults tell it to do. Of course they can understand exactly how a girl feels…

 

[CandideWest]

No, not always. Sometimes laws/judicial decisions influence people’s attitudes/perceptions.

There is definitely a feedback loop at work here, but this does not change the need for general support for a change from the public. This is simply because the power to change the law is ultimately democratically derived.

Homosexuals are equal. But homosexual relationships are not.

Yes, that seems to be the point that is still being worked on in some areas. No doubt perception will catch up with reality on this subject too at some point.

 

[CandideWest]

It is not simple discrimination because there is no legal requirement to have children only that the couple meets all relevant criteria for having children should they so choose. In this respect an infertile couple is similar to a fertile couple that meet all the conditions for parenting children but choose not to.

Er… No. Perhaps you don’t know what the term infertile means? It doesn’t mean that they can have children but choose not to. It means they cannot have children.

So yes, yet again by your argument you are STILL excluding infertile heterosexual couples.

Your options remain to either:

1. Argue that infertile heterosexual couples cannot marry (a position that seems contrary to the views of most Catholics and indeed the church itself).
2. Continue arguing that “group 1 cannot get married because they cannot have children, and group 2 can get married even though they cannot have children”. Which is clearly discriminatory.

Actually there is no direct logical implication from a simple lack of potency to direct exclusion from marriage. There may be other criteria for including infertile couples that simply do not apply to same sex couples. For example, there is male-female complimentarily that would allow infertile couples to be fitting surrogate or adoptive parents to children who have lost their own biological parents. Such a couple could have all the requisite traits for them to be a fitting surrogate mother and father to children. As has been argued in this thread and elsewhere, offspring of heterosexual parents ought not to be deprived of their inherent right to a mother and a father.

Which is a point which has been completely shot down already on multiple occasions because:

1. We (as a society) happily praise single people for taking of the burden of adopting and raising children because we appreciate that even though the child will only have one parent (and thus only a single gender to learn from) this is better for this child than being raised in an adoption agency. At worst, being raised in a homosexual couple is no worse than this and in practical aspects is probably a lot better.
2. The reality is that homosexual couples can and do adopt and raise children already and have been doing so for many years. Many of the arguments raised against gay marriage (ie it’s to give children protection when they are being raised) then actually act in FAVOUR of gay marriage in order to extend those protections and benefits to these children.
3. Despite the years of experience with children being raised by homosexual parents there appears to be no evidence of any detriment to the children in question.

If you hope to actually convince anyone to your position I’m afraid you’ll need to do better than repeating arguments which have already been debunked.