Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

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.

But back in the real world there are far more children in single parent families following the painful break up of their mom and dad.

Gays may also adopt difficult kids which heterosexual couples turned down, kids who would otherwise remain institutionalized without a mom OR dad.

A stable loving relationship is probably the most important thing for the child.

 

[inocente]

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?

Slippery slope is classed as an informal fallacy.

In this case is it also easily mocked: Verily sirrah, if slaves are given their freedom, next babes in arms will be demanding the vote. Etc.

 

[inocente]

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.

Yes, government should refuse to marry all couples who can’t or won’t have children, or else throw them in prison if they don’t drop a baby every two years.

 

[inocente]

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.

So we’ll ignore societies where it was legal to marry girls just entering their teens, or marry lots of partners, or forced marriages, etc., because in some mystic sense they were all the same but PEOPLE, THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT.

Gays pay their taxes and contribute to society like all other citizens, and it’s unjust for the state to treat them differently. If you want them to be second class then you need a due cause in law, e.g. make it illegal and execute gays as the bible demands and it will “be on their own heads”.

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.

That argument was easily busted in Spain when it was pointed out that (a) those making it had been suspiciously quiet are more than 50 years of damage to marriage and only kicked up a fuss when gay marriage was on the agenda, and (b) it’s a bit silly to suggest straights won’t get married because gay people can, a bit like saying that marriage should only be for the rich and is damaged by letting us plebs in.

 

[vlf7972]

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.

I’ve tried using this argument before, but someone rebutted it by citing past Supreme Court rulings indicating that marriage (although not gay marriage specifically) was a right. I’m really not sure how to counter that other than saying that the Suprme Court ruled incorrectly (which sounds more like I’m just stating an opinion rather than providing a good argument).
edit - this is assuming we’re talking about America

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Yes, government should refuse to marry all couples who can’t or won’t have children, or else throw them in prison if they don’t drop a baby every two years.

Whether the married couple cannot or will not have children is irrelevant, that they are capable of having them is the relevant portion.

I am actually appalled that you, as a Baptist, are showing support for gay marriage. Have you not read Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, or Romans 1:25-27?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’ve tried using this argument before, but someone rebutted it by citing past Supreme Court rulings indicating that marriage (although not gay marriage specifically) was a right. I’m really not sure how to counter that other than saying that the Suprme Court ruled incorrectly (which sounds more like I’m just stating an opinion rather than providing a good argument).
edit - this is assuming we’re talking about America

The Supreme Court also said that slavery was okay, that segregation was okay, and that Obamacare was constitutional. Just because 9 people declare something, does not mean it is true.

 

[inocente]

Whether the married couple cannot or will not have children is irrelevant, that they are capable of having them is the relevant portion.

Que? If the couple cannot have children, in what sense are they capable of having children?

I am actually appalled that you, as a Baptist, are showing support for gay marriage. Have you not read Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, or Romans 1:25-27?

A key principle, which may or may not apply in some US congregations, is that we are each created in the image of God and so are competent to make our own moral and religious decisions before Him.

It’s interesting how Lev 18:22 always gets mentioned instead of Lev 20:13. I guess it’s embarrassing that the latter commands “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads”, meaning only those in favor of executing gays can claim to be following the bible.

I am actually appalled there have been so many threads on CAF about the supposed damage done by loving gay couples, yet hardly a mention of drugs, assault rifles, etc. Scape goats are just so twenty-first century.

The secular world might well be right for thinking Christians have made themselves thunderously irrelevant.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am actually appalled that you, as a Baptist, are showing support for gay marriage. Have you not read Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, or Romans 1:25-27?

From what I am seeing people are not necessarily taking a stance on gay marriage according to what form of Christianity that they follow. There are even Catholic supporters and other heterosexual Christians whose dispositions range from support to simply having no objection against it.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Que? If the couple cannot have children, in what sense are they capable of having children?

The faculties for procreation with heterosexuals exist, whether it works or not. With homosexuals, the faculties for procreation do not exist.

A key principle, which may or may not apply in some US congregations, is that we are each created in the image of God and so are competent to make our own moral and religious decisions before Him.

Except that moral good comes from God and His Word says that homosexuality is immoral.

It’s interesting how Lev 18:22 always gets mentioned instead of Lev 20:13. I guess it’s embarrassing that the latter commands “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads”, meaning only those in favor of executing gays can claim to be following the bible.

So your complaint is that I used only 3 of the 10 or 15 verses that discuss homosexuality in a (very) negative manner (as opposed to the none that discuss it in a positive manner)? I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I am actually appalled there have been so many threads on CAF about the supposed damage done by loving gay couples, yet hardly a mention of drugs, assault rifles, etc. Scape goats are just so twenty-first century.

Have there been threads about assault rifles? Or about drugs? Or other non-gay scape-goats? Mind you, these are serious questions; I do not recall seeing any of these on the Philosophy sub-forum, of which I rarely venture away from. If not, perhaps you should take the opportunity to start them and see what the people of this forum actually think.

The secular world might well be right for thinking Christians have made themselves thunderously irrelevant.

Only irrelevant in their world-view, but not actually irrelevant in reality.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

From what I am seeing people are not necessarily taking a stance on gay marriage according to what form of Christianity that they follow. There are even Catholic supporters and other heterosexual Christians whose dispositions range from support to simply having no objection against it.

Baptists are literal in their interpretation of the inerrant Bible and since the Bible says what it does about homosexuality, one should conclude that all Baptists be against homosexuality. Innocente is the first Baptist I have encountered who supports it–and living in Southern US, the number of Baptists I have met is quite high.

 

[Tyrion]

The secular world might well be right for thinking Christians have made themselves thunderously irrelevant.

A minor correction. Only a small subset of Christians fall into that category. And yes, they are irrelevant - thank God!

Of course they are very vocal, and try to emulate those Russians who were a small minority, but called themselves “Bolsheviks” (majory) and called their opponents “Mensheviks” (minory). They were successful in bamboozling the “crowd”. This particular subset of christians is not so lucky any more. Even their fellow catholics disagree with them, and actually those dissenters are the majority in real life - though not on these boards… unfortunately!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

Well, I seem to have found a few definitions of nihilism, some which would make me a nihilist and others that wouldn’t. Under (what I assume to be) your definition of nihilism, I’m probably not a nihilist. At any rate, I’d agree that life lacks any objective meanings, but I have my own goals and ambitions in life, I have hobbies and interests, and I do live a happy and fulfilling life. I give my life meaning. Life is its own reward. This idea that life can only be fulfilling or have value if you believe in God is rather depressing on your part, since it gives the impression that you don’t actually live a happy life but the idea of an afterlife/God sort of gives you the strength to carry on. Not really a pleasant idea, I’m afraid. Try harder next time.

At any rate, there are secular arguments against same-sex marriage. Namely the fact that if you allow two people of the same-sex to marry, you’ve automatically very much loosened the definition of marriage, which means its pretty much open to any group. If you allow two men or two women to marry, marriage becomes redundant, so you may as well completely do away with marriage if you’re going to allow anyone to marry. It serves no purpose.

 

[vlf7972]

Slippery slope is classed as an informal fallacy.

In this case is it also easily mocked: Verily sirrah, if slaves are given their freedom, next babes in arms will be demanding the vote. Etc.

Slippery slope is a fallacy, but it’s a legitimate claim that legalizing gay marriage would a precedent.

The Supreme Court also said that slavery was okay, that segregation was okay, and that Obamacare was constitutional. Just because 9 people declare something, does not mean it is true.

I completely agree, but it’s still not a good argument (because it’s circular logic/begging the question, i.e. you are trying to conclude that marriage is not a right by saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling is incorrect on the basis of marriage not being a right).

 

[kotim]

They can never get around the fact that homosexuals/bisexuals are dozens of times more likley to abuse a child sexually than a heterosexual. All the stats are there and easy to see, just shove them in the face of people who want to debate.

When we debate people it is not so much whether we or they are wrong its whether the other side is willing to agree that they are at least as hypocritical and discriminatory as us.

Why is this important you ask, because they refuse to see them selves as intolerant and making arguments. Its like arguing with an athiest, they are even easier to debate because the position they take has logical consequence to which where they never wish to go.

 

[BellsMom]

They can never get around the fact that homosexuals/bisexuals are dozens of times more likley to abuse a child sexually than a heterosexual. All the stats are there and easy to see, just shove them in the face of people who want to debate.

Until I see actual data to back up this claim, I will have to say hogwash. I believe that heterosexual males are by far the most prevalent sexual abusers.

 

[Ion]

The mental abuse of a child, to live with two guys and one pretends is his mom…

 

[Ion]

The mental abuse of a child, to live with two guys and one pretends is his mom…

Which can become even worse after a divorce, one guy pretending is the mom.

 

[JimG]

Is it really a good idea to equate sodomy with marriage? Those pushing for same sex marriage seem to think it is okay, because after all, heterosexuals can engage in sodomy too.

But marriage has always been about men and women. With same sex couples, marital relations----conjugal relations—are not even possible. No possibility of marital relations, no marriage.

If this is where we are going, our nation is doomed.

 

[kotim]

Bell(name removed by moderator),

unfortunatley you have no idea of what your talking about, I work in law enforcement and have had access to all sorts of stats from different support organsiations.

I do not bother to post the data because it is freely available on the internet. All you have to do is get statistics relating to percentages of both males and females abused. These figures will always be rubbery because people have agendas etc so you might see figures quoted somewhere between 10-35%. Usually the higher we get the more rubbery the figure. That is why I don’t bother posting stats becasue then people want to argue about which stats are more correct. The reality is we only need the stats for an indication, we don’t have to be exact if results are not close.

I will give you these statistics, Roughly 10% of boys are abused and 15% of girls. Now the same rubbery figures are out there for homosexuals. Simply put stats range from 1% to 10% and likewise the higher the figure the more rubbery. So again I will use a mid point of 5%, which by the way according to many organisations including pro homosexual organisations 5% is probably excessive.

So statistical analysis says 95 men in a hundred are heterosexual and with 15 women in a hundred abused it roughly equates to 1 in 6 men will sexually abuse a female child.

Now 10 boys in a hundred are sexually abused and 5 men in a hundred are responsible. So in effect every one of those 5 homosexual men abuse 2 boys each.

Strait away that tells you that homosexual men are 12 times more likely to be child sex offenders than heterosexual men. Now it is true that most offenders are multiple offenders but hat holds true for homosexual and well as heterosexuals

Now in the above argument I have been very fair to homosexuals as regards statistics. Go and look it up yourself.

I am prepared to actually bother supplying stats myself but if you want to go down that track then my simple requirement from you is that you publically proclaim my point as being correct If I can show you that the percentages are at least double the risk let alone 12-15 times more likely. Here I am calling you out, not only that I am happy to make so that we have the following issuance.

If homosexuals are the same or less likley to abuse children then I will never post on this site again. However if the opposite is true then your never to post on this site again, Can’t be more fair than that.