Secular argument against gay marriage

[stewstew03]

…

It’s well documented, for instance see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
…

There is an entire section titled “Between consenting adults.” Why don’t you engage that issue instead of special pleading?

 

[josh987654321]

By creationism I meant one of the various beliefs that Genesis is a scientific historical account, like young earth creationism, old earth creationism, day-age creationism, etc.

I believe that God created heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, whether it be from the big bang theory or whatever, it was still Gods creation and design, do you not believe that?

Do you not believe that God created male and female? do you not think that God created male and female to be united to one another?

Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Christ brings up Genesis here and insures us that in the beginning God created male and female, therefore it’s not an idea that has been wildly exaggerated or something through the old testament, it must be accurate otherwise why would Christ have brought it up?

Fornication means voluntary sex outside marriage, and you’re the one arguing homosexuals must remain unmarried, so … you tell me.

I see fornication as Immoral and a harmful thing for society to advocate, just look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s.

Also I think homosexuals should aim for chastity, in which myself being an unmarried heterosexual must also aim for the exact same thing, I would be annoyed if people tried to tell me that the only way for me to be happy was to fornicate or get married.

It’s frustrating when people think that happiness/joy is derived from appeasing sexual desires, that if you don’t appease sexual desires you will be miserable, because it’s not at all true, instead it’s the opposite, those who live to appease their sexual desires will find themselves in a miserable state.

Yes, protection isn’t 100% and it remains that incestuous relationships often involve abuse.

It’s well documented, for instance see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

I have no doubt that incestuous relationships can involve abuse, but not all of them. There are also heterosexual relationships that involve abuse.

There are also many studies that say the sexual acts of homosexuality are harmful and that such a lifestyle is harmful, but people ignore them or say that, that isn’t the case for all homosexuals in such a lifestyle, in which case I can easily say the same, that it isn’t the case for all of those in incestuous relationships.

You said “I think the logic is in the human anatomy of a man and a woman” and I was surprised you only think that and don’t know what the logic is for certain.

Okay, my apologies, I meant I know that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral because it’s the logic in the human anatomy of men and women, that only men and women are designed for one another.

When talking to someone non religious like Candide West, I must be careful to try and not use “designed” and keep it secular, but I think I am at an advantage with you inocente because you are christian, so surely you believe that men and women are “designed” for one another by God our creator. If being a Christian and you don’t think that men and women are “designed” for one another, than what is your view about the creation of men and women?

Like the old song says “Love and marriage, love and marriage / Go together like a horse and carriage. / This I tell ya, brother, you can’t have one without the other”.

Love between two people can lead to sexually intimacy but it doesn’t have to, and it isn’t required in marriage, marriage is a bond of love.

True, marriage is about love, but like I said before it indirectly includes “love of eros.” To say that it doesn’t would be naive.

So same sex marriage is about advocating and normalising the sexual acts of homosexuality.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

How are verses such as the following not advocating slavery?
*
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. - Lev 25:44-46

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. - Ex 21:7

I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away.” The Lord has spoken. - Joel 3:8*

etc.

Oh ****, haha, your right.

My apologies.

However we know that the old testament is not completely accurate, I’ll just focus on the new testament, in which Christ brings up Genesis and the fact that God created us male and female to be united to one another in such ways and really it makes sense doesn’t it?

It makes sense that two men or two women are not physically designed for one another? to think that two men or two women are physically designed for one another in marriage would mean to through Gods creation of men and women out the window.

It means being OK with something as long as it’s hidden away and not out in the open. You said “If homosexuals give into such desires out of weakness Im hardly going to throw stones or anything”, which sounds like you’re not bothered what they do in private as long as it’s not mentioned in public.

No. I don’t mean it like that, it’s the fact that we are all sinners, when the adulterer was brought infront of Jesus he said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and than he said “but don’t sin anymore” and the same thing applies here, he didn’t tell the adulterer that what she did was morally right or that she was still faithful in marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Slavery.

I never made that comparison, as said before I used a basic reasoning technique of substitution.

Homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

How are the relationships different?

The right to “gay marriage” is not a fact but a claim.

That doesn’t answer my question, which was “If marriage isn’t a civil right, what is it?”.

So again, if marriage isn’t a civil right, what is it?

It is the supporters of gay “marriages” who illogically insist on the same name for an essentially different relationship and undermine the foundation of family life.

Again, how is the relationship itself, the relationship inside marriage, different?

Your analogy is hopelessly defective.

You forgot to make an argument here, you just gave your opinion. Why is it defective?

Such a simplistic view of change is consistent with the view that morality is a passing fashion.

You forgot to make an argument here, you just gave your opinion. Why is it simplistic?

Yet another evasion! Failure to answer questions implies assent, inability to answer them or unwillingness to commit oneself.

It’s distasteful that you keep accusing me of evasion, particularly when from my perspective it seems exactly the other way round.

Your original question was “Then you do believe all law-abiding citizens should be treated equally in every respect?” and my answer was “Yes, as I said, I can’t think of any reason why not. If memory serves, on an old thread you espoused the values of liberté, égalité and fraternité as coming from Christ. Perhaps it wasn’t you, but equality under the law is very important to most people, there must be a really good reason not to treat citizens equally or we think it highly unjust.”

Your hypotheticals completely ignored the bit above in bold.

Not one of those articles supports the introduction of homosexual “marriage”.

Please try reading what I write, I said “I’ll quote the first seven articles of the UDHR for you to get the rough idea of equality in civil rights”.

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

As above, I don’t share your assumption, why is the relationship different?

That statement weakens your argument.

I take that to mean you don’t remember either.

There is a higher incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases among gays to which it is morally wrong to expose children.

Are you in favor of taking children away from heterosexual parents who are living with HIV? Is your morality dictated by which diseases have inoculations available?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Spanish law isn’t the slightest bit inadequate on this, it is very clear: amongst others it says (in Art. 47) direct line relatives by consanguinity or adoption, and collateral relatives by consanguinity up to the third degree may not marry each other.

You don’t seem to realize that while I’ve provided real-world evidence, all you’re doing is hypothesizing about possible worlds.

Note the judgment is not just that procreation is no longer regarded as essential, it questions whether it ever was outside of some religious faiths.

Well, let’s take this real world evidence of yours and relegate it to the patently and ridiculously inconsistent bin where it belongs, shall we…

If procreation is not regarded as essential to the question of marriage, then why on earth would the Spanish government not allow relatives of the sort you mention to marry each other? Obviously, because procreation is essential where relatives marrying each other is concerned. How can it consistently be non-essential in every respect and then suddenly becomes crucially important in the marriage of relatives? Either it is important and essential or it is not. Which is it?

You need to be made aware of the ludicrous implications that come about when you consistently hold to the notion that procreation is not a consideration in determining who should marry. The Spanish government seems to be vaguely aware of those implications, which is why they added the bit about excluding bloodline relatives.

Apparently, the Spanish government, along with the Hong Kong authority and you, as well, seem to be in need of an update regarding what the words “logically consistent” mean.

Real world evidence should be discarded when it is clearly irrational.

 

[stewstew03]

The atheist, as an atheist, would have no real position on abortion because it doesn’t fall within the scope of what atheism’s focus is: That there is no god. Sadly, for both sides, atheism has become widely linked with support of abortion,** but I think that if an atheist were to take seriously his or her empiricism and appeals to logic, he or she would find that support of abortion on the grounds that it reduces birth rates of potentially deformed babies while also simultaneously supporting incest in spite of the high potential for said babies would be contradictory**. Indeed it is, and amid what contradictions I have heard from the atheist community, this is not one of them, so I don’t think your example serves the argument. It may actually hurt it.

Quite the opposite.

Support for abortion in cases of birth defects would preclude the primary objection to consensual adult incest, namely that “defective” children might result (the probability depends on consanguinity).

 

[inocente]

A classic argumentum ad hominem. It would be more relevant to produce statistics to the contrary, which - predictably - are not forthcoming.

I can’t believe you wrote that. I quoted an article which cites nine references that the first study is seriously flawed, including even the guy’s own colleagues, and said the second study gets the exact opposite results to the research on which it was based. I even linked the original research, which contains the contrary statistics.

Everyone reading this thread can see the truth, the post is there for all to see.

No logical response.

You gave a subjective opinion, if you want a response then first provide an argument.

Non sequitur.

You said “the activity of married heterosexuals is a private matter” but apparently believe that the activity of homosexuals isn’t a private matter. It follows that you are inconsistent.

Another non sequitur.

You said “The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage” while you have argued that what people regard in a homosexual relationship is relevant. It follows that you are inconsistent.

*An appeal to passing fashions as the basis of morality is a sign of subjectivism determined by expediency! *

Yes, I agree that your appeal to what you think is normal and abnormal is relativism.

*The failure to distinguish “influenced” and “determined” is illogical and also determined by expediency. *

It’s still subjective.

The repeated reference to sexual organs is clear evidence of obsession with the physical aspect of sex at the expense of the maternal and paternal roles in bringing up children - to which there has been no rational response (as if the complementarity of the father and mother has no significance whatsoever).

That’s still ridiculous, I’ve been arguing all along that marriage is not about sex, it’s not me who’s been arguing marriage is about sex.

Your attempt to rewrite history isn’t going to work when all the original posts are there are everyone to see. Please can we have a discussion about the subject matter without any games.

Another unreasonable evasion which reveals unwillingness to commit oneself…

No, evading my questions by accusing me of evasion is not a very good game.

You said “the issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple from the moment you were born” and I asked which couple. So stop evading and give me an answer. Which income bracket, how well educated, etc. Answer my question please.

Differences of race, colour, class and religion are irrelevant to the issue of marriage which is the foundation of family life.

Agreed.

The notion of “stereotypes” is irrelevant where the foundation of family life is concerned because the issue is not homosexuality but the nature of marriage.

No, writing off 200 million people as bad parents on the basis of one irrelevant label is very relevant.

 

[inocente]

And the point has been made that not all incestuous relationships result in offspring. It appears you would be in favor, then, of a 65-year old man marrying his 60 year old sister, correct?

No.

 

[stewstew03]

No.

¿por qué no?

¿cuál es el ratio decidendi?

 

[inocente]

Well, let’s take this real world evidence of yours and relegate it to the patently and ridiculously inconsistent bin where it belongs, shall we…

If procreation is not regarded as essential to the question of marriage, then why on earth would the Spanish government not allow relatives of the sort you mention to marry each other? Obviously, because procreation is essential where relatives marrying each other is concerned. How can it consistently be non-essential in every respect and then suddenly becomes crucially important in the marriage of relatives? Either it is important and essential or it is not. Which is it?

You need to be made aware of the ludicrous implications that come about when you consistently hold to the notion that procreation is not a consideration in determining who should marry. The Spanish government seems to be vaguely aware of those implications, which is why they added the bit about excluding bloodline relatives.

Yet another problem with your argument is that if marriage was tied to procreation, the minimum age of consent would be the same as the minimum age of marriage, but usually the former is lower than the latter.

While such things as marriageable age vary, I know of no country where there’s anything other than widespread revulsion at the idea of romantic love between close relatives, and while that taboo may be illogical in the cases you mention, in real-world democracies it’s not a criminal offense to be caught in possession of human nature, so I can’t see the taboo changing any time soon.

*Apparently, the Spanish government, along with the Hong Kong authority and you, as well, seem to be in need of an update regarding what the words “logically consistent” mean.

Real world evidence should be discarded when it is clearly irrational.
*

And I suppose your proud grandmother, watching you on parade with the other soldiers, exclaimed “Look, everyone but Peter Plato is out of step!”.

 

[inocente]

¿por qué no?

¿cuál es el ratio decidendi?

Please see my post #727. I think you have an impossible job trying to convince the vast majority of people that marriage should be open to any form of incest.

 

[stewstew03]

Please see my post #727. I think you have an impossible job trying to convince the vast majority of people that marriage should be open to any form of incest.

So your rationale for prohibiting two consenting adults, who happen to be related by blood, from acting upon their love for one another is: “Well, everyone else thinks it’s wrong; therefore, it must be wrong!”

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

So your rationale for prohibiting two consenting adults, who happen to be related by blood, from acting upon their love for one another is: “Well, everyone else thinks it’s wrong; therefore, it must be wrong!”

Argumentum ad populum.

Yes. well said. Arguing with Inocent (who seems not so innocent) is a bit like dodge ball. He already knows the conclusion. Logic is simply something he uses out of convenience to some end.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And I suppose your proud grandmother, watching you on parade with the other soldiers, exclaimed “Look, everyone but Peter Plato is out of step!”.

That would all depend upon where “everyone” is headed. I prefer not to be overly taken in by what “people” think.

However, I am certain that keeping everyone “in step” was a prime preoccupation of the Nazi’s that were so determined to conquer and rule the world back in the 1930s. Making everyone identical is what fascism at its core is most adamant to bring about.

I don’t think God is too concerned with making everyone look or march the same. The saints have all been unique persons and I suspect God is more delighted by individuals who resist going “with the flow” than those who don’t have the courage of their own convictions. The collective human will is not god, it is the “mob.”

 

[Acrossthedesert]

To me, an argument against same sex marriage is first to establish why marriage exists in the first place. It predates Christianity… Marriage exists because of this need for the creation and protection of life, not in spite of it.

…
But don’t worry, we have Jesus on our side! Praise be to Him!

PeaseInChrist. The players seem different,- the battlefield may appear new, but the struggle remains the same. John Paul II struggled against them. It is marxism that corrupts the idea of equality. Christians bring that we are created equal in dignity, but Marxism corrupts the good and confuses the meaning of equal. We talk about MARRIAGE EQUALITY, but we are not equal in this manner; We are equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.
A natural right to abortion? A natural right to homosexual marriage?

You can also find nietzsche in people’s rhethoric. The Truth is God has already defined the universe at the beginning of time, and therefore, reality stands there to be discovered rather than defined.
However, people talk about defining when life begins and defining what constitutes marriage.

People avoid the Truth. Creating ambiguity about the Truth establishes the absence of moral authority, and then, I can define what is right and wrong. People wish to take on the role of God and avoid moral obligation;
This sin is as old as Adam and Eve.

Jesus is Lord.

 

[wittgenstein]

One cannot get an ought from an is. For example,cancer is natural,sicle cell anemia is natural. However, their being natural does not make them good. Similarly, marriage is unnatural (in that it is a cultural phenomenon exclusive only to humans). However, that does not mean that marriage is bad.
“natural” and the ethical “good” are different categories. To conflate them is a category error.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

That would all depend upon where “everyone” is headed. I prefer not to be overly taken in by what “people” think.

However, I am certain that keeping everyone “in step” was a prime preoccupation of the Nazi’s that were so determined to conquer and rule the world back in the 1930s. Making everyone identical is what fascism at its core is most adamant to bring about.

I don’t think God is too concerned with making everyone look or march the same. The saints have all been unique persons and I suspect God is more delighted by individuals who resist going “with the flow” than those who don’t have the courage of their own convictions. The collective human will is not god, it is the “mob.”

well said, but isn’t it obvious that the truth is not reaching the masses? I really miss William F. Buckley. I see ETWN bringing more intellect to the discussion; Maybe in reaching out to wayward Catholics, we can turn the ship around. Maybe that is why we have detractors flooding Catholic Answers to give the appearance of calamity within the Church. They don’t realize that God’s providence is moving them, and that His will is done regardless of the individual intentions.

KEEP THE FAITH!

P.S. Don’t forget the influence of Marx in corrupting our notion of equality, and nietzsche’s will to power in the re-defining of life and liberty.

 

[josh987654321]

One cannot get an ought from an is. For example,cancer is natural,sicle cell anemia is natural. However, their being natural does not make them good. Similarly, marriage is unnatural (in that it is a cultural phenomenon exclusive only to humans). However, that does not mean that marriage is bad.
“natural” and the ethical “good” are different categories. To conflate them is a category error.

Marriage is unnatural? a cultural phenomenon? Could you please explain?

I wouldn’t say it’s “unnatural” and it’s certainly not a phenomenon, marriage is only natural because we are a two gender species, it is set up that way by nature so marriage is natural, normal and logical, procreation requires such a union, thus why pair bonding in marriage is also only natural, logical and normal.

One man and one woman fit, you know it makes sense.

And such a natural compatibility leaves only one logical outcome, which is marriage.

Those who try to redefine marriage away from just a man and a woman are trying to warp the only logical outcome of such natural compatibilty between a man and a woman (male and female complemantarity).

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[wittgenstein]

Sex between opposite genders does not = marriage. True, animals of opposite genders do have sex. But to call that marriage, seems to me, to be a streach.
Let me repeat myself, (see post 733) I am not saying that marriage is bad. I am happily married and believe in it. All I am saying is that natural has nothing to do with it being good.

 

[josh987654321]

Sex between opposite genders does not = marriage. True, animals of opposite genders do have sex. But to call that marriage, seems to me, to be a streach.
Let me repeat myself, (see post 733) I am not saying that marriage is bad. I am happily married and believe in it. All I am saying is that natural has nothing to do with it being good.

Oh. I see. I missunderstood, my apologies.

I think the nature of two genders makes such pair bonding natural and thus the nature of men and women uniting in such ways would also be a part of why marriage is good though.

Thank you for reading
Josh