Secular argument against gay marriage

[JackieMom]

Obviously my Catholic perspective means nothing to non-Catholics and especially to the many people who are not religious. Is there a strong secular argument against gay marriage? It seems like a lot of the non-religious arguments I’ve read were either pretty weak or had slightly Christian undertones.

 

[davidn87]

I don’t see how you can have a secular argument about this or a lot of other issues really. If you take the basic atheist mindset “We came from nothing, there’s no point to anything we do, and we’re going back to nothing.”, then there’s no point arguing about “gay marriage” is there?

 

[JaKael02]

As a starting point, the God’s law is rooted in nature & what’s best for man. So the secular argument should be focused on how SSM harms society and is unnatural.

Mostly, the focus should be on the discrimination of the children adopted into a SSM. Each child has a human right to have a mom AND a dad.

If the secularist insists morality doesn’t exist, then ask them why we should not allow slavery, rape, & murder in an effort to weed out the weak and make ourselves stronger & more happy?

Just some thoughts. James

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato (not a Christian) discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.

“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle (not a Christian)
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moreover, if gay marriage is to be legally allowed on the grounds of equal rights, what’s to stop incestuous marriage and polygamy from also being justified by the same claim?

 

[JackieMom]

As a starting point, the God’s law is rooted in nature & what’s best for man. So the secular argument should be focused on how SSM harms society and is unnatural.

**Mostly, the focus should be on the discrimination of the children adopted into a SSM. Each child has a human right to have a mom AND a dad. **

If the secularist insists morality doesn’t exist, then ask them why we should not allow slavery, rape, & murder in an effort to weed out the weak and make ourselves stronger & more happy?

Just some thoughts. James

I tried this, and the other side said “we allow single parenthood by choice already.”

 

[JaKael02]

I tried this, and the other side said “we allow single parenthood by choice already.”

Yes I have heard that response too. I think it’s a straw-man case. No fault divorce and single parenting has done great harm to society, in my opinion.

Theirs no hiding the fact that 40% of Americans divorce. Now people just “don’t get married” but cohabitated. 50% of children are born out of wedlock. Can we be surprised our school systems are failing? Can we be surprised our children are hellions compared to just 20-30 years ago?

This is the future of our economy. Economies can’t grow when 50 million citizens are missing because they were aborted & 150 million citizens are raised with 1 parent to educate them. I’m sorry but 2 parents are better than 1, simply by economies of scale. Parents have limited time and splitting that time up between 2 parents is better than 1.

Unfortunately, your friend wont’ buy the argument. Their hearts have likely been darkened to the point of intellectual blindness due to their persistent sin.

Kindly - James

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. A right is something entitled to someone for existing, like the right to love whoever I want. A privilege is something granted by a government because the government gets something beneficial in return.

In the case of marriage, the government gets more people to govern through childbirth and society can continue.

Just as we restrict who can legally drive a car, we restrict who can legally be allowed to marry and the government could care less about who loves who–as an aside, anyone who says that marriage is about being able to say, “I love you” to their partner is introducing a non sequitur because you do not need governmental approval to say those three words.

 

[davidn87]

Moreover, if gay marriage is to be legally allowed on the grounds of equal rights, what’s to stop incestuous marriage and polygamy from also being justified by the same claim?

Ask “gay marriage” supporters that and they’ll crucify you! Somehow they see that as being totally different. Which is odd since they compare it to interracial marriage.

 

[JimG]

You might want to review this essay on the matter from Orson Scott Card.

Personally I see same sex marriage as objectionable mainly from a civil and societal standpoint. After all, there has been marriage since the dawn of civilization, and in all those thousands of years, there has never been same sex marriage.

Why not? Because every civilized society saw marriage as beneficial to civilization: Marriage resulted in families, and families ensure the next generations of citizens, taxpayers, soldiers, and everything else.

Many societies accepted homosexual behavior. They never accepted it as marriage. Because it isn’t marital, and can never be. It takes two opposite sexes even for marital relations occur. I’m not talking children; it’s more basic than that. Marital relations are impossible to homosexual couples, and therefore so is marriage.

Then if one really wants to get into the civilizational aspects of what marriage–real marriage–means to society, read Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” which surveys thousands of years of civilizations, societies, and how families were structured. Families evolve, but not wildly. They tend to transition from a patriarchal structure, to a domestic family structure. Those are both stable. When family structure seriously disintegrates, though, so does the underlying civilization. We are about there now.

So let’s go ahead and destroy family structure through contraception, divorce, fornication, and gay marriage. The next generation will have to live through the coming dark age of civilizational collapse brought on by the collapse of family structure.

The Catholic Church will, as always, help to rebuild.

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

Moreover, if gay marriage is to be legally allowed on the grounds of equal rights, what’s to stop incestuous marriage and polygamy from also being justified by the same claim?

People claim reason but then look at NAMBLA :banghead:

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t see how you can have a secular argument about this or a lot of other issues really. If you take the basic atheist mindset “We came from nothing, there’s no point to anything we do, and we’re going back to nothing.”, then there’s no point arguing about “gay marriage” is there?

Totally. That’s why I just laze around all day, and don’t have any ambitions in life, because life on its own totally isn’t worth living.

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

Totally. That’s why I just laze around all day, and don’t have any ambitions in life, because life on its own totally isn’t worth living.

Would you like to post actual meaningful answers and not just some nihilist tripe which disproves itself. To paraphrase the father of nihilism "[The] absence of the Eternal Truth [God] all other truth fades away.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t see how you can have a secular argument about this or a lot of other issues really. If you take the basic atheist mindset…]

Just wanted to point out, secularism <> atheism, though the two stances are compatible.

Moreover, if gay marriage is to be legally allowed on the grounds of equal rights, what’s to stop incestuous marriage and polygamy from also being justified by the same claim?

What’s stopping it now?

 

[Kilbourne]

I don’t have time to participate in this discussion, but check this out:

amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

 

[Stillness]

I don’t see how you can have a secular argument about this or a lot of other issues really. If you take the basic atheist mindset “We came from nothing, there’s no point to anything we do, and we’re going back to nothing.”, then there’s no point arguing about “gay marriage” is there?

Hilariously enough, it is because they are still following a religious mindset. They still behave as though there is absolute order and a predetermined goal in life. And therefore they still make moral judgments. But in place of religion they attach themselves to social and political movements which are just as pointless.

 

[Eleve]

I don’t see how you can have a secular argument about this or a lot of other issues really. If you take the basic atheist mindset “We came from nothing, there’s no point to anything we do, and we’re going back to nothing.”, then there’s no point arguing about “gay marriage” is there?

Atheism is the thesis that God does not exist. It is not the same as nihilism. It should be obvious that most atheists believe that some policies are superior to others. Otherwise, how could so many atheists think that it is better to allow same-sex marriage?

I don’t have time to participate in this discussion, but check this out:

amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

Yes, this is by far the best defense of the traditionalist position that I’ve seen, and it does not appeal to religion per se. However, there is a crucial premise in the argument - namely, the premise that comprehensive union is an intrinsic good - that I suspect many nonreligious people will find unsupported.

 

[vames]

What’s stopping it now?

The law. But when you have studies like this one who says that two parents regardless of their gender are better than one, there it’s an incentive to go further and say that 3 parents regardless of their gender are better than 2.
slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/06/california_bill_to_allow_three_parents.html

Polygamy is incomplete, unequal and unattractive as a cause to fight for, if it involves a man and several heterosexual wifes, as it is usually practiced where is legal. But a polyamorous marriage that involves “marital” relationships between 2-3-4 males is much more attractive, given that gay men tend to accept non-monogamous relationships way easier than straight people.

As gay people are richer than straight people as a group, gay marriage will be essentially an economic victory for relatively rich people (mostly men - gay men are twice as numerous as lesbians) who have enough money to accesorize their marriage with children obtained either by adoption or by using surrogate mothers, egg and sperm donors. Well, maybe some lobby for fiscal incentives to people who buy and sell such “services” will follow? Anyway, I can see a Hollywood drama about two gay men, a surrogate mother and their unfulfilled dream of a three-parent happy family, because of current discriminative laws. Or another movie about a single mother who struggles with raising her child until she discovers her bisexual nature in the arms of a lesbian couple who want to raise her child in a three-parent family. And so on.

 

[jwinch2]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10542949&postcount=11

Please see the above link. I posted articles that give great information on this exact subject.

Peace,

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The law. But when you have studies like this one who says that two parents regardless of their gender are better than one, there it’s an incentive to go further and say that 3 parents regardless of their gender are better than 2.

That very well may be. I have asked about information on how well of children are that are raised by several close family members. But there seems to be no data that I can find that
Examine such a family arrangement. Though this topic may stay far from the primary question of this thread.