Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

IT shows his point that not all power comes from the legislature, and therefore a group of 9 men changed the law for everyone.
This is not democracy.

??? No, all the post I was replying to showed was that there was a difference between legal positions in different states in the US prior to Roe vs. Wade. It did not even attempt to show that the decision was contrary to the will of the people.

Perhaps Stewstew wanted to make a different argument, I cannot say. However that is all his post supported.

 

[CandideWest]

The gay movement bears no resemblance to the struggle of Black Americans for their civil rights, and I am tired of hearing this preposterous claim.

Not actually something I was claiming, despite the obvious parallels. To be clear Stewstew appeared to be seeking an example of where a change to the law had been made which was contrary to the views of the majority of the public. Banning of slavery is such an example.

Blacks were promised citizenship in the 14th amendment of 1868 after more than 200 years of slavery. Their struggle was an American struggle for their unalienable rights granted by their Creator as declared in the American Declaration of Independence. From 1868 to 1968 they were raped, murdered, intimidated, and altogether denied those rights as human beings (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness). They struggled to be secure within their persons and homes (the right to life), to be able to vote without intimidation and violence (the right to rule as citizens), and to live where they decided (the right to liberty).

None of these rights have or are denied to gay people. The comparison is a classical fallacy of false analogy.

Seriously?

You don’t believe that homosexuals in the US have been intimidated and even killed for being homosexual? You don’t believe they have suffered violence, hatred and discrimination?

Seriously?

If so then I can only suggest you need to do a little more research on the topic.

 

[CandideWest]

It’s about being open to proCreation. Its about being open to being fully alive, and fully human. A gay union CANNOT be open to proCreation, well… because 2 men cannot proCreate. This should be quite obvious. We can talk about the exceptions till we’re blue in the face… the rule still stands. Matrimony comes from the maternal.

Marriage is all about the kids; Human love and the gifts that it brings.

The Catholic Church teaches…
Masturbation and Homosexuality are contrary to the will of God.

Masturbation is a waste of time. In the same way homosexuality is a waste. If you talk about a long term practice of either, you are talking about a wasted life. Barren of the life God had intended. I tell you this not out of hate, but out of love that you may repent and find that life God intended. If God intended men to be with men, he would have made them complimentary and not created woman. There would be a gift of such union… a child.

Ok, so lets see if you actually stand by your own argument then.

"
It’s about being open to proCreation. Its about being open to being fully alive, and fully human. An infertile union CANNOT be open to proCreation, well… because infertile people cannot proCreate. This should be quite obvious. We can talk about the exceptions till we’re blue in the face… the rule still stands. Matrimony comes from the maternal.

Marriage is all about the kids; Human love and the gifts that it brings.

Masturbation is a waste of time. In the same way infertile sex is a waste. If you talk about a long term practice of either, you are talking about a wasted life. Barren of the life God had intended. I tell you this not out of hate, but out of love that you may repent and find that life God intended. If God intended infertile people to marry, he would have made them complimentary. There would be a gift of such union… a child.
"

So are you going to start campaigning to ban infertile marriage then?

 

[CandideWest]

The real issue

Why can’t homosexuals obtain a marriage license? Is this an issue of equal protection under the law? We can better answer these questions when we understand why the state issues marriage licenses.
Marriage licenses are issued so that marriage can be tracked for the purpose of executing other laws which takes into account the marriage covenant. These laws include trial law (spousal testimony), taxation laws (filing status), and property law ( inheritance and common property). All these laws are beneficial to the married couple. So in effect the state issues marriage licenses in order to grant benefits to married couples.

Ok.

Why do we grant benefits to married couples?
The state grants benefits to married couples because the state indirectly benefits from the activity surrounding family life. This is similar to the state granting support for college students in the form of student loans and grants. Having a higher educated population benefits the state in the activities this endeavor creates not only within the educational establishment but throughout society. Similarly the state promotes Military service by granting benefits to servicemen and veterans. Although there are people who disagree with military service or marriage, the vast majority of Americans believe that these activities should be promoted.

Agreed, including most homosexuals I’m sure.

That brings up an intriguing question;
**Does the majority within a democracy have the right to promote the activities it deems beneficial to society by providing benefits? **

Yes, and more importantly in this case, also the power to do so.

If the majority of people believe that homosexual marriage does not benefit society, do they have the right not to grant them the benefits of civil marriage?

The key part of that question is the first word “IF”.

And of course the majority have the right and more importantly the power to have the legal system the way they want. “IF” the majority of people want gay marriage to remain banned then it will remain banned no matter what the moral thing to do would be.

And if civil marriage is a benefit granted by a democratic state, the question of equality and civil rights does not apply. You do not have a right to a benefit. The real issue is whether the majority rules.

No, the real issue is what the majority actually want. An odd tendency I’ve noticed on this forum is Catholics assuming that their personal views on a subject represent the views of ALL Catholics on that subject. The reality is quite different. I’ve got a survey saved somewhere that shows more Catholics (in the survey population) disagreeing with the Catholic Church position on homosexuality than agreeing with it.

So yes, you will probably find that the majority get what they want, however that may not be what you want.

 

[CandideWest]

You misunderstood my argument. If you’re going to address it, read it again in context with the other posts.

I did read it in the context of your other posts. The understanding I gathered from this was that you we’re seeking to demonstrate a case where a legal change had been made contrary to the democratic will of the people. Hence why I provided you with an example of this happening.

If you we seeking to show something else then I’m afraid the context doesn’t reveal what it could be to me.

I don’t need to demonstrate anything. You need to demonstrate why a same sex couple is equivalent to an opposite-sex couple.

No. In a philosophical discussion (such as this) the burden for providing supporting arguments rests on the person who made the truth statement. You said

"Homosexual couples will never serve as the foundation or building block of any society, and will therefore never be equal to those relationships that can. "

It’s on you to support that claim, not on me to prove you wrong. If you cannot support it then there is simply no case for me to answer.

If this we’re not the case I could just sit here making unsubstantiated assertions about any subject I pleased and you would have to prove each one in sequence false. See how that would be illogical?

 

[CandideWest]

Yup, however incest and plygamy are just as old, thats why I brought them up, following your reasoning for advocating homosexuality could you use it to discourage incest and polygamy? or given your reasoning, wouldn’t incestuous relationships and plygamous ones, even fornication have to also be advocated with such moral reasoning?

I’m not sure that I’ve actually made any arguments in favour of gay marriage. So I’m not sure what moral reasoning you’re referring to here. My chief contribution to this thread has been shooting down weak arguments against gay marriage.

And in truth, even there it’s mostly been a question of repeatedly shooting down the same weak argument against gay marriage (inability of homosexuals to have children).

Okay.

On that basis (the largely impartial nature of the organisation and better supported references and research) I have a higher degree of confidence in the APA position than that of NARTH when they contradict each other.

The difference being that something like ginger hair isn’t so necessary to a species as procreation is.

I’m not sure why that’s relevant? Could you explain please?

So if you look at homosexuality on it’s own, it isn’t a beneficial trait, the sexual acts of homosexuality serve no purpose on an evolutionary point of view.

That’s not necessarily true, many behaviours which are not directly related to breeding serve a purpose from an evolutionary point of view. For example dancing.

Okay, I understand, so kind of like how red hair is a predominate gene and thus two can carry the gene and not have red hair themselves and than their children might all have red hair.

That’s the right idea, yes.

Okay, the reproductive compatibility is the sexual compatibility I am talking about, I don’t think that any other sexual act is actually sexually compatable, given the reproductive compatibility between men and women.

I will use “reproductive compatibility” instead of “sexual compatibility” from now on. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

No worries.

My reply followed -
X = All sexual acts other than Y.
Y = penetrative vaginal sex

Thus I see that X sexual activities are not valid in themselves, but again this follows from my belief of the creation of men and women, that our sexual organs are “designed” and have not “evolved.” So I guess we might have to agree to disagree on this one, because you being non-religious. I think the only way I will convince you is to convince you to become a Christian and I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Probably not, no.

As I said previously this is one of the challenges with this debate, arguments based fundamentally on religious beliefs (like the one above) are just not convincing to those without those beliefs.

Thank you. I don’t care about “winning” this argument so to say. I am just interested in those views that are contrary to mine on this issue and why, in which I feel I am understanding alot from you Candide West. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, but I am understaning it and I think thats important.

So this way hopefully we can learn from one another on many things in relation to how we view this issue.

Cool. I agree this seems like a good approach.

Yes, thats what I meant by “I know.” I should have used “I believe” but I didn’t want you to think I was in question to such beliefs or anything. Thats why I used “I know.” So that they are beleifs, but such beliefs make so much sense that it’s more “I know as it makes far too much sense to just believe.” but I know it is still a belief kind of like the Big Bang theory though. If that makes sense.

Yep, understood.

haha, I would say a great deal more negatives than positives.

I’m not sure on that one, in truth I think it’s too soon to tell. We’re only really going to be able to fully understand the changes to our society when a generation born after the sexual revolution (say 1980) has grown up and raised a generation of children to adulthood.

Realistically that puts the earliest date to get a decent understanding of the results of the social change to around 2030 - 2040.

Anyway, with the morality perspective that you have as non-religious, I can understand that you don’t have much sexual morality. Not like mine anyway, that is my theory.

Actually I do have a strong sense of morality regarding sex, and I expect that you and I probably agree on a great many parts of it.

When it comes to sexual morality Candide West, how do you determine if a sexual act is moral or immoral? because I also take into account the “design” of sexual organs for men and women.

As I said, the basis of my morality comes from axioms like “suffering is bad”. So if I wanted to determine if something is immoral I would look at whether it will result in suffering or happiness (both long term and short term) and how the two compare.

This is why I say I don’t know enough to comment with regards to incest or polygamy. I’ve not read any adequate research on the topic and have never met anyone who has been involved in this type of relationship.

 

[CandideWest]

I see, if you care to entertain the issues of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage with your moral perspective and reasoning as with homosexual marriage. I think you will find very little, if no grounds in which to refute such things and thus why the common argument is that other redefinitions of marriage will be inevitable.

The two are separate issues, I have judged that there is nothing immoral in homosexual relationships based on substantial research on the topic and the relationships of very good friends of mine who are homosexual.

Not necessarily infertile marriage because it is still male and female. In any case it is still mum, dad being a marriage, because such a union is still capabale of reproductive sexual compatibility. It doesn’t advocate sexual immorality in such an intimate union that marriage is.

No, that’s exactly the point, the union is not reproductively compatible. The two people cannot be a mum and dad, at least not with each other.

Why does the law have anything to do with marriage, why are certain financial benefits/taxes given to two people living together in a “marriage” and not to roommates living together who are not in a marriage? why does the law make that distinction?

Because the state benefits from people pairing off. Aside from the obvious benefits from our social structures having been designed for and by pair bonding individuals, couples who are in long term committed relationships are more socially stable, cost less in healthcare, have a lower tendency to crime, are more convenient to tax, etc etc. and all of that is entirely separate to the issue of making and raising children.

So what makes it a marriage instead of an ordinary contract? why do they call it marriage from a law point of view? and civil marriage in regards to law being just a contract, than why are they arguing for same sex marriage and not a domestic partnership or something having the same legal rights?

Part of it is down to international recognition. Lets say exactly equivalent rights were established in the US for people with a civil union. Now lets say that a couple with a civil union goes on holiday to another country. Do those rights apply? No. Because the country may define the rights of couples in a Civil Union completely differently, or may not recognise the relationship at all. But a married couple travelling in another country will automatically assume the rights of a married couple in that country.

alot of it is over the name, if they just used a different word they would still have opposition in the same legal rights part, but they would have alot less opposition, because we are simply saying that a homosexual union is not a marriage.

This of course is also part of the reason, segregation encourages discrimination by simple virtue of making that segregation. As we covered previously, with the black vs white public toilets example. Even if civil union and marriage were exactly identical legally it would still encourage discrimination.

How does slavery relate to same sex marriage?

??? It doesn’t, I was just using the example to highlight the fact that the moral zeitgeist has moved on, those who grew up believing that slavery is ok and refused to let go of the idea are all gone. You and me and everyone else will go the same way in our time.

Same sex marriage is a social trend, but it is a trend that is a misunderstanding of marriage. It ignores the basic fact that men and women are “designed” or like you think Candide West have “evolved” for one another, that only a man and a woman share such compatibility, which is reproductive sexual compatibility and thus why the union of a man and a woman is just so vastly different from one of two men or two women.

I agree that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different from each other, but there again relationships of 20 year old newlyweds are different from those of 80 year old married couples. As I’m convinced would be the relationship between Bill and Melinda Gates vs Fred and Rose West (if you’ve heard of them?)

In fact there are probably more profound differences between those relationships than say between most heterosexual 20 year old couples and 20 year old homosexual couples.

If you need two relationships to be even remotely similar to consider them both to be marriage then I’m afraid marriage as it exists already completely fails.

Unlike slavery this will not die out, because in the goepels Christ states the creation of a man and a woman to be united to one another in marriage.

Funnily enough some pro slavery arguments back in those days cited the bible for support to their position too. I imagine they thought that people would continue to argue in support of slavery using the same arguments. But times moved on.

So you think the fact that we are a two gender species has absolutly nothing to do with it?

That’s an interesting one, certainly pair bonding only seems to happen in sexually reproducing species, but of course many species have two genders and don’t pair bond. So clearly it isn’t a simple if-then relationship.

No doubt there is a relationship there, although what factors influence whether a sexually reproducing species is or is not pair bonding I couldn’t say. Mind you of course by the same token there must be a causal relationship between sexual reproduction and homosexuality as well.

So given their understanding of marriage being just a contract, why are people against incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage? it doesn’t make sense.

Why are you against incest or polygamy? Can you produce a secular argument against them or is it only your religion that makes you believe they are wrong?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Cheers

Candide

 

[CandideWest]

Yes–that is indeed contrary to the reasonings presented by the Church. Catholicism understands that infertile heterosexual marital acts are still ordered towards procreation, while homosexual acts are never ordered towards procreation.

So some acts which cannot result in procreation are ordered towards procreation but other similar acts which cannot result in procreation are not ordered towards procreation. Is that about the size of your argument?

I’m curious, what do you think “ordered towards” means?

 

[stewstew03]

…

If we continue using the standard definition of fornication (“voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other”) then I’d say it’s highly immoral if for example either of them is married to someone else, but if both of them are single, consenting adults in their right mind then it’s up to them unless harm may come to someone else (incest is such an example since there’s a high risk of a deformed offspirng). (emphasis added)

Wouldn’t it be immoral to deny two people the love they feel for one another? Isn’t that what you’ve been arguing?

As far as deformed offspring, why do you want to reduce marriage to sex? If marriage was about sex then it would be oppressive and dying, and rightly so, there would be no point whatsoever in getting married. But for most of us marriage isn’t about sex at all, it’s about love, the bond between spouses, it’s about trust and obligation, there’s something fine and very human about it.

I don’t think this is true though. Society is perfectly willing to marry heterosexuals without asking them any questions at all about sex, so why should society have a completely different attitude when it comes to homosexual couples?

Why should society have a completely different attitude when it comes to adult incest? Why discriminate based on biology?

As above, denying citizens marriage and then accusing them of fornicating is unjust.

In other words, defining marriage in such a way that excludes other consenting adults is unjust.

UN declaration on human rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Why doesn’t this apply to everyone?

 

[stewstew03]

I did read it in the context of your other posts. The understanding I gathered from this was that you we’re seeking to demonstrate a case where a legal change had been made contrary to the democratic will of the people. Hence why I provided you with an example of this happening.

I never said the majority of the public was against the decision, I said only four states allowed a woman to have an abortion whenever she (and her doctor) deemed it necessary. R v W invalidated all the other state laws that prohibited abortion (allowing states to ban only late term abortions). The democratic process did not have a chance to play out in those states.

No. In a philosophical discussion (such as this) the burden for providing supporting arguments rests on the person who made the truth statement. You said

…

Okay, fine. But before I respond, let’s first take a look at your truth statements, which were made prior to mine:

1. sexual orientation is like one’s biological sex and race;
2. homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships

Please provide supporting arguments for these truth statements.

 

[stewstew03]

…
…[the] weak argument against gay marriage (inability of homosexuals to have children).

Unless I missed it (and maybe I did), I don’t recall you actually demonstrating that this particular argument is “weak.”

Can you point me to the relevant post(s)?

 

[josh987654321]

From what I’ve read about him, my beliefs are very close to those of Father George Lemaître, the Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory. He believed in the hidden God Almighty described for instance by Isaiah, rather than the interventionist god which many these days seem to believe in.

If you’re interested, there’s a good introduction to Lemaître at catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847.

Thank you for that. I also believe in the Big Bang Theory, but whether it be big bang theory or what ever, it was still designed, you don’t get something from nothing, no designer is an athiest point of view. No designer means no creator.

Religious people know that something can’t come from nothing, thus we have a creator, who is also our designer, you don’t think the dictionary was done by an explosion in a printing press do you?

Thus I come to the same point, men and women didn’t just happen, no more than the dictionary just happened from an explosion in a printing press, we were designed.

And basically if you believe in God, than you believe in a designer, so my question is, how do you reject a designer? and if there is no designer than how do you get the creation?

Not even Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître would reject God as the designer and creator, he is merely trying to explain how God may have created the universe, how God’s design may have worked and came into being.

So thus, you believe in God, and God is our creator therefore how could he not have designed us? do you think men and women were a mistake? that he created the big bang and said “lets see where it all goes.” How can you not think it was designed? that humankind especially male and female have been designed?

Fornication means sex outside marriage, therefore by definition sex within marriage is not fornication. Therefore it’s kind of like double jeopardy to prevent people from getting married and then criticize them for fornication.

My argument of fornication and same sex marriage was separate. But yes, if homosexuals do not desire the appropriate sexual act, we do not pretend that an inappropriate sexual act is suddenly appropriate.

If desires are your conclusion as to why such sexual acts are considered moral and not sinful, than what about a heterosexual who no longer desires his wife?

I am just trying to point out that given your logic for seeing nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality, you must also see nothing wrong with fornication, really using the same logic you must see nothing wrong with all protected sexual activity, otherwise the logic for advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality makes no sense.

Same sex marriage is a move from the father of all lies, the logic you are using can so easily be used against you to remove any sense of sexual morality, because if the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral, than what sexual activities are considered immoral?

So I would be very interested if you could come up with a logical conclusion for why you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral and other sexual acts as immoral, such as fornication, polygamy, incest etc etc.

If we continue using the standard definition of fornication (“voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other”) then I’d say it’s highly immoral if for example either of them is married to someone else, but if both of them are single, consenting adults in their right mind then it’s up to them unless harm may come to someone else (incest is such an example since there’s a high risk of a deformed offspirng).

Yes, we are using the standard definition, if they are married than it’s not fornication it’s adultery.

So your reasoning says that fonication is “up to them” unless harm may come to someone else, I might also include that with contraception and all of the birth control methods available today, incestuous sexual relations would remove the consideration of children.

I would also include that sexual relations with more than one person such as polygamy would be included in fornication, such as a threesome etc

If these sexual acts are “up to you” would you say that they are immoral? and if not, how did you conclude it?

I don’t think this is true though. Society is perfectly willing to marry heterosexuals without asking them any questions at all about sex, so why should society have a completely different attitude when it comes to homosexual couples?

Exactly, so why would society be unwilling to marry incestuous couples or polygamists? because your right, no questions are asked about sex, so why would sex be a factor in these other marriages?

Do you see why the Pope said that same sex marriage is a move from the father of all lies, to decieve people of good will? because you are indirectly advocating a vast range of sexual immorality with the reasoning behind same sex marriage without realising.

How could people advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality yet discourage any other sexual act?

I assume this is true of the Catholic sacrament of marriage, but it’s not true for civil marriage, and there are a lot of married people who use birth control to prevent sex being reproductive.

Yes, there are alot of people using birth control, in which the Catholic Church says is immoral because it closes the sexual act to the gift of life. However it is still the reproductive sexual act that is being advocated with heterosexual marriage.

You say it is not true for civil marriage, than what is true for civil marriage? anything goes approach? why are incestuous relationships and polygamists unable to marry in civil marriage?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

But unless you are arguing for forced treatment or criminalization of gays, you are allowing these “depravities” to continue to produce “moral corruption” just the same.

No it’s not, I am not arguing for forced treatment or criminalization of gays and yes we are allowing these “depravities” to continue to produce “moral corruption.” However we are not encouraging, advocating or normalising such moral corruption.

Like I said before, Christ taught us not to throw stones, but it’s a whole new level to claim that immoral acts are now moral, to claim that Christ’s forgiveness and mercy is no longer needed for such immorality.

As above, denying citizens marriage and then accusing them of fornicating is unjust.

So denying incestuous relationships marriage and accusing them of fornication is also unjust?

Would denying polygamists marriage and accusing them of fornication be unjust?

If a married heterosexual couple decides that they want to become polygamists and brings another woman/man into the relationship, accusing them of adultery is unjust?

To me that’s like asking whether eating apple pie is moral. Well, it depends, is it your apple pie or did you steal it? And so on.

So is the sexual acts of homosexuality seen as apple pie and stealing it is seen as fornication? could you please explain or elaborate?

Both fornication and the sexual acts of homosexuality are through consent.

As I’ve said many times now, incest brings grave risk to offspring, and so the vast majority of us want to discourage it for that reason.

But with contraception and birth control there is no need to worry about that and especially if the sexual act of such a union is not taken into account for marriage than why would people discourage it?

Why would people discourage polygamous marriage?

Gay marriage doesn’t bring that risk, and you can argue that father-son incest doesn’t bring that risk either, so they should also be allowed to get married. But you’re then arguing that the father should be allowed to divorce his wife on grounds of wanting to marry his son, which I think is immoral to at least the mother if not others.

What if the parents were never married?

You can argue that two brothers don’t bring that risk either, so they should be allowed to get married. But I’d have to ask what kind of parenting is it that leads brothers to fall in love romantically, and should society accommodate such goings-on?

Great example.

If we legalise same sex marriage (which is already legal for you incocnete) on what ground would you refuse incestuous homosexual marriage? it wouldn’t make sense would it?

Polygamy is moral in some societies but I can’t see how it would be possible to love two or more others and maintain the marriage vows with all of them.

So why would the law be against polygamous marriage?

Really? Maybe you’re led an especially sheltered life. Try conceiving of the greatest God you can imagine, then try to make Him a zillion times greater still. My understanding came from my divinity teacher talking about Isaiah and I’ll try and think of some way of explaining.

When you think of a way to explain how God is creator and yet not designer, than please let me know, Id love to hear such explanation.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Acrossthedesert;10751137:

The gay movement bears no resemblance to the struggle of Black Americans for their civil rights, and I am tired of hearing this preposterous claim.

Blacks were promised citizenship in the 14th amendment of 1868 after more than 200 years of slavery. Their struggle was an American struggle for their unalienable rights granted by their Creator as declared in the American Declaration of Independence. From 1868 to 1968 they were raped, murdered, intimidated, and altogether denied those rights as human beings (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness). They struggled to be secure within their persons and homes (the right to life), to be able to vote without intimidation and violence (the right to rule as citizens), and to live where they decided (the right to liberty).
None of these rights have or are denied to gay people.
The comparison is a classical fallacy of false analogy.

Seriously?

You don’t believe that homosexuals in the US have been intimidated and even killed for being homosexual? You don’t believe they have suffered violence, hatred and discrimination?

Seriously?

If so then I can only suggest you need to do a little more research on the topic.

Are you saying that Homosexuals were denied the right to vote?
Are you saying that they were segregated?
Are you saying people enslaved homosexuals? Are you serious?

The comparison of the Civil Rights struggle with the LGBT movement is a classical fallacy of false analogy.

One has to do with unalienable rights, and the other has to do with social acceptance.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Ok, so lets see if you actually stand by your own argument then.

"
It’s about being open to proCreation. Its about being open to being fully alive, and fully human. An infertile union CANNOT be open to proCreation, well… because infertile people cannot proCreate. This should be quite obvious. We can talk about the exceptions till we’re blue in the face… the rule still stands. Matrimony comes from the maternal.

Marriage is all about the kids; Human love and the gifts that it brings.

Masturbation is a waste of time. In the same way infertile sex is a waste. If you talk about a long term practice of either, you are talking about a wasted life. Barren of the life God had intended. I tell you this not out of hate, but out of love that you may repent and find that life God intended. If God intended infertile people to marry, he would have made them complimentary. There would be a gift of such union… a child.
"

So are you going to start campaigning to ban infertile marriage then?

Hanging on a thread there CandideWest.
Man is both spiritual and material.
The Spirit is being that has the power of knowing and willing. Matter is being that has not these powers. One cannot fault the infertile couple due to their matter, it is not their will nor knowledge which causes this infirmity. However, Homosexuality involves will and knowing, and this makes this sinful. Understand?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Ok.
Acrossthedesert;10751376:

The real issue

Why can’t homosexuals obtain a marriage license? Is this an issue of equal protection under the law? We can better answer these questions when we understand why the state issues marriage licenses.
Marriage licenses are issued so that marriage can be tracked for the purpose of executing other laws which takes into account the marriage covenant. These laws include trial law (spousal testimony), taxation laws (filing status), and property law ( inheritance and common property). All these laws are beneficial to the married couple. So in effect the state issues marriage licenses in order to grant benefits to married couples.

Why do we grant benefits to married couples?
The state grants benefits to married couples because the state indirectly benefits from the activity surrounding family life. This is similar to the state granting support for college students in the form of student loans and grants. Having a higher educated population benefits the state in the activities this endeavor creates not only within the educational establishment but throughout society. Similarly the state promotes Military service by granting benefits to servicemen and veterans. Although there are people who disagree with military service or marriage, the vast majority of Americans believe that these activities should be promoted.

That brings up an intriguing question;
**Does the majority within a democracy have the right to promote the activities it deems beneficial to society by providing benefits? **
If the majority of people believe that homosexual marriage does not benefit society, do they have the right not to grant them the benefits of civil marriage? And if civil marriage is a benefit granted by a democratic state, the question of equality and civil rights does not apply. You do not have a right to a benefit. The real issue is whether the majority rules.

Do we have a democracy?

No, the real issue is what the majority actually want. An odd tendency I’ve noticed on this forum is Catholics assuming that their personal views on a subject represent the views of ALL Catholics on that subject. The reality is quite different. I’ve got a survey saved somewhere that shows more Catholics (in the survey population) disagreeing with the Catholic Church position on homosexuality than agreeing with it.

So yes, you will probably find that the majority get what they want, however that may not be what you want.

I want the Truth. The truth is a person, Jesus Christ. I thought I made that very clear.

In any event, “argumentum ad populum” is also a classical fallacy. It truly is not logical to appeal to the majority in determining moral clarity. At one time most people believed the world was flat; That did not make the world flat.

You are correct. Many Catholics are not completely formed in the faith. That is what the New Evangelization is all about!

Ιησούς Κύριος
Jesus is Lord.

Our lives are oriented by God.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m not sure that I’ve actually made any arguments in favour of gay marriage. So I’m not sure what moral reasoning you’re referring to here. My chief contribution to this thread has been shooting down weak arguments against gay marriage.

My apologies, that was an assumption I made from all of my replies toward you CandideWest.

Just so we know where we both stand on the issue of same sex marriage would you advocate same sex marriage or discourage it? and what is the conclusion for such advocation/discouragment?

For me I discourage same sex marriage and my conclusion for such discouragment is the immorality of the sexual acts of homosexuality that same sex marriage encourages and normalises.

It is also the reasoning behind same sex marriage that is indirectly advocating other sexual immoralities such as fornication etc. aswell.

And in truth, even there it’s mostly been a question of repeatedly shooting down the same weak argument against gay marriage (inability of homosexuals to have children).

I am not saying it’s the inability of homosexuals to have children, I am saying that it’s the inability of such compatibility and complementarity that makes a homosexual union not a marriage.

It’s the fact that only a man and a woman share such physial and physcological compatibility and complementarity in marriage.

Reproductive sexual acts can only be done with a man and a woman.

On that basis (the largely impartial nature of the organisation and better supported references and research) I have a higher degree of confidence in the APA position than that of NARTH when they contradict each other.

Okay, I don’t know a great deal about it, i’ll just take your word for it. Whether same sex attraction is a disorder or not, It is still immoral in my opinion, for me it is no different to a married heterosexual who no longer desires his wife and desires another woman instead, just because he has such desires doesn’t make them right.

I’m not sure why that’s relevant? Could you explain please?

That’s not necessarily true, many behaviours which are not directly related to breeding serve a purpose from an evolutionary point of view. For example dancing.

Would you mind if we dropped this secular argument? I don’t think it’s working and I will become lost in it because I don’t know enough about evolution to keep it going, if you feel you are onto something here than I am happy to try and continue with it, just bring it up in the next reply.

Probably not, no.

As I said previously this is one of the challenges with this debate, arguments based fundamentally on religious beliefs (like the one above) are just not convincing to those without those beliefs.

True. however could you please view this link - youtube.com/watch?v=EonZXFd0Afw

It’s a very short youtube clip, It will give you a bit to think about.

Cool. I agree this seems like a good approach.

I’m not sure on that one, in truth I think it’s too soon to tell. We’re only really going to be able to fully understand the changes to our society when a generation born after the sexual revolution (say 1980) has grown up and raised a generation of children to adulthood.

Realistically that puts the earliest date to get a decent understanding of the results of the social change to around 2030 - 2040.

Yup, it is also very hard with such studies because there are so many variables, but if you look at it not statistically but from a logical/ethical point of view, would you say that the wide acceptance and encouragment of fornication has been more harmful to society than beneficial?

Actually I do have a strong sense of morality regarding sex, and I expect that you and I probably agree on a great many parts of it.

I think that would be fantastic, however I don’t have very good secular arguments for someone non religious when it comes to sexual morality, do you see fornication as immoral?

As I said, the basis of my morality comes from axioms like “suffering is bad”. So if I wanted to determine if something is immoral I would look at whether it will result in suffering or happiness (both long term and short term) and how the two compare.

This is why I say I don’t know enough to comment with regards to incest or polygamy. I’ve not read any adequate research on the topic and have never met anyone who has been involved in this type of relationship.

The problem with this “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good” is that it’s all subjective. It does not explain or account for conscience.

Also, if there is no God, there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law and without moral law there is no distinction between right or wrong or good or evil, it is all subjective to the individual.

The other thing I don’t understand is that when people say God doesn’t exists, how do they explain getting something from nothing?

Please continue to next post -

 

[PRmerger]

So some acts which cannot result in procreation are ordered towards procreation but other similar acts which cannot result in procreation are not ordered towards procreation. Is that about the size of your argument?

Ontologically, yes.

I’m curious, what do you think “ordered towards” means?

It means its actions are directed towards its ends. Everything that is done is done in order to set the stage for the goal.

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

The two are separate issues, I have judged that there is nothing immoral in homosexual relationships based on substantial research on the topic and the relationships of very good friends of mine who are homosexual.

Like I mentioned before, I am curious to see your view on other sexual activities, because if you see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality than it should follow that there is nothing wrong with all sexual activities that have consent, such as fornication, incest, polygamy etc.

No, that’s exactly the point, the union is not reproductively compatible. The two people cannot be a mum and dad, at least not with each other.

Men and women are capable of the reproductive sexual act though.

Because the state benefits from people pairing off. Aside from the obvious benefits from our social structures having been designed for and by pair bonding individuals, couples who are in long term committed relationships are more socially stable, cost less in healthcare, have a lower tendency to crime, are more convenient to tax, etc etc. and all of that is entirely separate to the issue of making and raising children.

So what about two close friends in a commited friendship? such as roommates, or siblings living together.

When we talk about civil marriage we must remember no-fault divorce and thus makes the institution no different to if two roommates wish to live togther, why would a married couple recieve those benefits and simply divorce when they feel like it and roommates cannot recieve those benefits?

Next thing you know two guys who are roommates will get a marriage license to recieve benefits and simply divorce when they are no longer roommates, if marriage has nothing to do with “love of eros” with sexual intimacy, than really any loving union should be recognised as a marriage.

Part of it is down to international recognition. Lets say exactly equivalent rights were established in the US for people with a civil union. Now lets say that a couple with a civil union goes on holiday to another country. Do those rights apply? No. Because the country may define the rights of couples in a Civil Union completely differently, or may not recognise the relationship at all. But a married couple travelling in another country will automatically assume the rights of a married couple in that country.

But for example some countries recognise same sex marriage and others don’t, what happens there? do the countries who have not legalised same sex marriage have to recognise such couples as a marriage when they come from another country that does?

This of course is also part of the reason, segregation encourages discrimination by simple virtue of making that segregation. As we covered previously, with the black vs white public toilets example. Even if civil union and marriage were exactly identical legally it would still encourage discrimination.

Well for example when it comes to adoption, I don’t think it should be wrongful discrimination or unlawful for them to take into account the lack of a father figure or mother figure, that would be illogical, I think in this case it would be a just and neccessary discrimination, wouldn’t you?

??? It doesn’t, I was just using the example to highlight the fact that the moral zeitgeist has moved on, those who grew up believing that slavery is ok and refused to let go of the idea are all gone. You and me and everyone else will go the same way in our time.

My apologies, I understand, however I think you are wrong because it’s just like no-fault divorce and abortion. Everyone is still clearly against it and it’s not fadding away/out simply because it became law. The opposition of no-fault divorce and abortion will never go away just like same sex marriage, it would be naive to think that, so therefore I think it’s not like slavery at all.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I agree that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different from each other, but there again relationships of 20 year old newlyweds are different from those of 80 year old married couples. As I’m convinced would be the relationship between Bill and Melinda Gates vs Fred and Rose West (if you’ve heard of them?)

In fact there are probably more profound differences between those relationships than say between most heterosexual 20 year old couples and 20 year old homosexual couples.

If you need two relationships to be even remotely similar to consider them both to be marriage then I’m afraid marriage as it exists already completely fails.

They need to be male and female, because the two genders go together, just like pair bonding because there are two genders.

Funnily enough some pro slavery arguments back in those days cited the bible for support to their position too. I imagine they thought that people would continue to argue in support of slavery using the same arguments. But times moved on.

You would be mistaken to think that, just look at no-fault divorce and abortion.

Same sex marriage will be one of those when it is legalised. As Christians morality is not subjective and will not change depending on society.

That’s an interesting one, certainly pair bonding only seems to happen in sexually reproducing species, but of course many species have two genders and don’t pair bond. So clearly it isn’t a simple if-then relationship.

No doubt there is a relationship there, although what factors influence whether a sexually reproducing species is or is not pair bonding I couldn’t say. Mind you of course by the same token there must be a causal relationship between sexual reproduction and homosexuality as well.

Pair bonding makes sense for me because God created men and women, he created male and female to be united to one another in marriage, but again these are my beliefs, it’s hard to find subjective arguments for alot of this stuff, because like I said morality for those who are not religious is subjective, it is not written in concrete and will always be changing, which is the false assumption you are using for Christians in relation to our laws.

Why are you against incest or polygamy? Can you produce a secular argument against them or is it only your religion that makes you believe they are wrong?

I was hoping that you were against them and could provide me with a secualr argument

In any case I wouldn’t have a very good secular argument against them, but I am against incest and polygamy, primarily religious beliefs though, in the design of men and women.

Cheers

Candide

Thank you for reading
Josh