Secular argument against gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackieMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
The faculties for procreation with heterosexuals exist, whether it works or not. With homosexuals, the faculties for procreation do not exist.
Click to expand...
What’s that got to do with secular marriage?
Except that moral good comes from God and His Word says that homosexuality is immoral.
Click to expand...
His Word also says planting mixed crops is immoral, along with many other things which Christians routinely ignore. God gave each of us a conscience, we do well to use it.
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.
Click to expand...
My complaint was as stated - Lev 20:13 commands “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads”, so unless you’re in favor of executing gays, you have no claim to be following His Word.
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.
Click to expand...
I’m more interested in the sociological/anthropological reasons for the apparently insatiable desire to start increasingly desperate threads about gay marriage, even though it’s somewhat of a sideshow alongside the many real problems in the world.
inocente said:
The secular world might well be right for thinking Christians have made themselves thunderously irrelevant.
Alberti_Devoveo;10549071:
Only irrelevant in their world-view, but not actually irrelevant in reality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Here in Spain, two thirds of a traditionally strongly Catholic population agreed with the decision to legalize gay marriage.

Would the last person to leave the church please close the door on your way out.
 
inocente said:
His Word also says planting mixed crops is immoral, along with many other things which Christians routinely ignore. God gave each of us a conscience, we do well to use it.
Click to expand...
My complaint was as stated - Lev 20:13 commands “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads”, so unless you’re in favor of executing gays, you have no claim to be following His Word.
Click to expand...
I am no Bible expert so I may very well be mistaken regarding this, but didn’t both of those examples only apply to the Jews following the old covenant? The sin would be breaking the covenant, not “planting mixed crops” or “refusing to carry out the death penalty” in itself. Since Christians are not bound to the old covenant then breaking any of those laws is not a sin unless the action itself is a sin (e.g. having gay sex is still a sin, because the action itself is sinful). I don’t know about the mixed crops example, but didn’t Jesus specifically override the laws regarding condemning people for their sins (John 8)?
Here in Spain, two thirds of a traditionally strongly Catholic population agreed with the decision to legalize gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Would the last person to leave the church please close the door on your way out.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is not defined by the opinions of its members.
Take an unrelated issue: in the United States, the Obama Administration said that 98% of Catholic women use contraception. That statistic is false, but even if it were true then it would not mean that the Catholic Church approves of contraception.
 
vlf7972 said:
I am no Bible expert so I may very well be mistaken regarding this, but didn’t both of those examples only apply to the Jews following the old covenant? The sin would be breaking the covenant, not “planting mixed crops” or “refusing to carry out the death penalty” in itself. Since Christians are not bound to the old covenant then breaking any of those laws is not a sin unless the action itself is a sin (e.g. having gay sex is still a sin, because the action itself is sinful). I don’t know about the mixed crops example, but didn’t Jesus specifically override the laws regarding condemning people for their sins (John 8)?
Click to expand...
I think that’s complicated and there have been many disputes, but a key part of the new covenant is “I will put my laws in their minds / and write them on their hearts.” - Jer 31 & Heb 8.

It’s written on my heart that there’s no more reason to discriminate against gays than to discriminate against left-handed or blue-eyed people. That’s a simple conclusion which a lot of people reach, religious or not, while the arguments against gay marriage to me are complicated, disingenuous or sometimes just desperately silly.
The Catholic Church is not defined by the opinions of its members.
Take an unrelated issue: in the United States, the Obama Administration said that 98% of Catholic women use contraception. That statistic is false, but even if it were true then it would not mean that the Catholic Church approves of contraception.
Click to expand...
Sure, I’m just saying that the Church didn’t convince most Spanish to oppose gay marriage, instead it just gave them another reason/excuse to not go to Mass any more.
 
inocente said:
God gave each of us a conscience, we do well to use it…
Click to expand...
If you think it possible for your conscience to think something right that God thinks is wrong, you don’t understand conscience. For starters, we all have the same (deep) conscience, just as we all have the same human nature.
 
inocente said:
It’s written on my heart that there’s no more reason to discriminate against gays than to discriminate against left-handed or blue-eyed people. That’s a simple conclusion which a lot of people reach, religious or not, while the arguments against gay marriage to me are complicated, disingenuous or sometimes just desperately silly…
Click to expand...
Those who reach this conclusion are confused. You seem to think that all discrimination is unjust, which is a great mistake. The Church opposes all unjust discrimination of homosexuals; the injustice rampant today lies in claiming that homosexual acts and heterosexual acts are equivalent.

It is ironic that homosexuals themselves are quite clear in the belief that they do NOT see having sex with a man and with a woman as equivalent acts. They are seen as fundamentally different.(It is a cause for wonder that homosexuals do not insist that there is only ONE sexual orientation, that is Toward That Which Turns You On. But no, they do not want this. ) The argument is not actually that they are the same but that they MEAN the same thing and that the MEANING of all human sex is having a hot time with a person of one’s choosing (and bonding, if you’re into that.) For most of human history, this was regarded as a debased view of men AND women, and certainly of marriage.
 
markeverett49 said:
Those who reach this conclusion are confused. You seem to think that all discrimination is unjust, which is a great mistake. The Church opposes all unjust discrimination of homosexuals; the injustice rampant today lies in claiming that homosexual acts and heterosexual acts are equivalent.
Click to expand...
Prohibition of gay marriage doesn’t stop homosexual acts. If two homosexuals want to engage in sexual activity, they will.

As I understand it the issue in the Supreme Court deals with allowing homosexuals to engage in a contract of marriage (which encapsulates property inheritance, medical coverage and rights on medical decisions, sharing health benefits and tax breaks, and other societal and legal constructs). It’s not deciding whether or not Homosexuals can engage in sexual acts with each other.
 
inocente said:
…
My complaint was as stated - Lev 20:13 commands “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads”, so unless you’re in favor of executing gays, you have no claim to be following His Word.
…
Click to expand...
So, you either execute the sinner or otherwise forget the law. Doesn’t sound baptist at all…
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Prohibition of gay marriage doesn’t stop homosexual acts. If two homosexuals want to engage in sexual activity, they will. .
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that. It is inherently wrong nonetheless and they harm themselves by doing that. (All sinners harm themselves through their sins.) It is worse for society to err by recognizing same-sex unions as a marriage. This perverts the understanding of marriage, which is especially shaky among the young (-so many of whom grew up in what were once called “broken homes.”)
 
kotim said:
So statistical analysis says 95 men in a hundred are heterosexual
Click to expand...
This part stuck out for me.

If that’s the case, according to ‘statistical analysis’, what it tells us is that only 5% are homosexual.

Therefore, homosexuality isn’t the norm; as being portrayed by mainstream media.
 
markeverett49 said:
It is worse for society to err by recognizing same-sex unions as a marriage. This perverts the understanding of marriage, which is especially shaky among the young (-so many of whom grew up in what were once called “broken homes.”)
Click to expand...
Why is it bad for some one to have a different understanding of marriage? More specifically, what is it about marriage among homosexuals that would be problematic in a secular sense?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Why is it bad for some one to have a different understanding of marriage? More specifically, what is it about marriage among homosexuals that would be problematic in a secular sense?
Click to expand...
To have a ‘different’ understanding of marriage requires a ‘different’ set of beliefs that was otherwise set out/prescribed from the Church.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Why is it bad for some one to have a different understanding of marriage? More specifically, what is it about marriage among homosexuals that would be problematic in a secular sense?
Click to expand...
I see that you are ‘non religious’. Forgive me for ‘assuming’ that, you have not made attempts to ‘somewhat study’ the Catholic faith before thrusting that statement foreward?

I appologise if you did, and would ask kindly, on ‘what stance’ do you base your statements?
 
At_His_Feet said:
To have a ‘different’ understanding of marriage requires a ‘different’ set of beliefs that was otherwise set out/prescribed from the Church.
Click to expand...
If the difference is based on a falsehood it should not be held.
Beliefs based on falsehoods are inferior to those based on truth.
 
At_His_Feet said:
I see that you are ‘non religious’. Forgive me for ‘assuming’ that, you have not made attempts to ‘somewhat study’ the Catholic faith before thrusting that statement foreward?
Click to expand...
Let me refer back to the original message.
JackieMom said:
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?..]
Click to expand...
I was trying to stay aligned with the topic, so I asked for secular information.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Why is it bad for some one to have a different understanding of marriage? More specifically, what is it about marriage among homosexuals that would be problematic in a secular sense?
Click to expand...
Being mistaken is never an advantage… It is not possible for two members of the same sex to marry. They cannot make a marriage. And it is not bad enough that same-sex “marriage” may be legal, it is fast becoming expected of public schools to teach all students that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality and further, that anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

youtube.com/watch?v=8cQCi4ehXkg
 
markeverett49 said:
ThinkingSapien;10553810:
Why is it bad for some one to have a different understanding of marriage? More specifically, what is it about marriage among homosexuals that would be problematic in a secular sense?
Click to expand...
Being mistaken is never an advantage…
Click to expand...
I can think of scenarios in which being mistaken could be innocuous, have positive results, or have negative results. So I don’t think the “never” qualifier quite fits. But those scenarios are a different topic. I’m trying to find out why it’s bad for some one to have a different idea of marriage than what you’ve got in mind. It may play a significant role in answering the original question of this thread.
markeverett49 said:
And it is not bad enough that same-sex “marriage” may be legal,
Click to expand...
Okay, though my stance is that I’m not so sure it’s bad at all…
markeverett49 said:
it is fast becoming expected of public schools to teach all students that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality and further, that anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
Click to expand...
I think how the school reacts is a different issue and one with it’s own set of considerations. It may be worthy of a thread by itself. But I’ll steer clear of sharing my thoughts there since they would contribute to the topic of this thread.
 
Wel, if marriage is going to be changed in significance, then all religious people (not only christians) plus the vast majority of the atheist will call for the use of a new word instead. Anyway, homosexuals will not be able to say they do the same thing.
Is it worth the trouble?
 
Ion said:
Wel, if marriage is going to be changed in significance, then all religious people (not only christians) plus the vast majority of the atheist will call for the use of a new word instead.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…but it’s changed significance many times before while using the same label. To copy and paste something I noted in another thread:
ThinkingSapien said:
As far as I can tell the meaning/purpose/criteria for marriage is different over geography and has evolved over time. While there’s generally some association of a union from love associated with it in modern day western cultures that hasn’t always been the case and still is not the case world wide. …]
Click to expand...
Ion said:
Anyway, homosexuals will not be able to say they do the same thing. Is it worth the trouble?
Click to expand...
Not sure what this means, especially since people that engage in the contract of marriage are not required to do anything beyond their contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top