Secular argument against gay marriage

[markeverett49]

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.

It is most certainly NOT a different issue. It follows like night after day that the idea that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality that sex education in public schools will teach this. (It would seem that the one moral absolute secularists recognize is that opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage is hateful.)

The redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couplings denies the relation of human sexuality and children. It holds that that is just a quirk of evolution and that, okay, if people want to have kids, they can (-though they shouldn’t have many because that would be selfish), but people whose entire sex lives are devoted to acts that cannot result in pregnancy are on par with those who have children because sex is REALLY about the pleasure it gives to those engaged in it and no pleasure is better or worse than another, so sodomy is as dignified as conceiving a child.

I’m old enough to recall the social scientists championing the view that divorce is actually BETTER for children than living in a home where the parents are unhappy. People actually used to get divorced FOR the children (-or so they claimed.) It is hard to find a tenured social scientist today arguing that divorce benefits children. Such recollections make me wary of the results of a few short-term studies on same-sex parenting.

I think same-sex “marriage” itself will be the least of it-----most gay people won’t marry anyway–but the redefinition of marriage and the mis-education of youth for at least a generation will do great harm to the society.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is most certainly NOT a different issue. It follows like night after day that the idea that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality that sex education in public schools will teach this.

The issues are related, but different. Granting some one rights to engage in a legal contract doesn’t mandate that homosexual sexual activities be discussed in school. Though from what I’ve seen middle and high schoolers already know about same gender sexual activities.

…]but people whose entire sex lives are devoted to acts that cannot result in pregnancy…]

What does reproduction have to do with arguments against allowing homosexuals to engage in legal contracts?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What does reproduction have to do with arguments against allowing homosexuals to engage in legal contracts?

On what basis or grounds are the legal contracts being established?

It seems to me that having a mutual commitment that can be terminated at will by either party is no grounds for legal contract because the foundation for the contract is extremely problematic.

In a potentially fertile relationship, there is cause for the government to be involved in securing the rights of innocent third parties. In a relationship that is strictly one of mutual consent, the government has no reason to be involved at all and, thus, there is no reason to jeopardize the rights of children that ought to be protected even more than they currently are under the old terms, but will not be when marriage is redefined.
Children, for example, have a right to be cared for by a mother and father. That is a human biological norm and that right will be rescinded without just cause.

Furthermore, stipulating only a “loving and committed relationship” as the basis for the legal rights under the definition of marriage opens virtually any relationship to having the same legal rights as married couples who only gained those rights because of the additional burden of caring for children. Should, for example, sisters or brothers, living communally have the same legal rights as a married couple? Why? If yes, then why not any two persons? Why not three or five? The law will have simply lost any foothold for restricting those legal rights because it will be open to contest from virtually anyone with a mind to challenge the law.

If a biological reality such as fertility cannot hold up against legal challenge, then some nebulous term such as “loving commitment” will surely provide no basis upon which to ground a law.

 

[Ion]

Hmmm…but it’s changed significance many times before while using the same label. To copy and paste something I noted in another thread:

Not sure what this means, especially since people that engage in the contract of marriage are not required to do anything beyond their contract.

The semantics are different in the case of homosexual couple. In the case that the meaning of marriage is changed as to include homosexuals, people will simply start using another word for their heterosexual marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

The issues are related, but different. Granting some one rights to engage in a legal contract doesn’t mandate that homosexual sexual activities be discussed in school. Though from what I’ve seen middle and high schoolers already know about same gender sexual activities.

What does reproduction have to do with arguments against allowing homosexuals to engage in legal contracts?

As for the first comment, yes, school children have heard of same-sex activities, but this is not the same thing as being taught that they are a good thing. Children hear about many things–war and poverty, for example—without being told as matters of fact in classrooms that these are good things.

As for the second comment, homosexuals may enter into contracts. This isn’t in dispute. They can forge civil unions, for example. But what the movement wants is a) a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couplings and b) public schools to teach this is a good thing. (It is ironic that people who are so adamant about homosexuality NOT being a choice are so eager to influence the sex education of per-pubescent children and tell them that being gay is a good thing.)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As for the first comment, yes, school children have heard of same-sex activities, but this is not the same thing as being taught that they are a good thing. Children hear about many things–war and poverty, for example—without being told as matters of fact in classrooms that these are good things.

They’ve heard of it, and some of the students in school identify as homosexuals, see homosexual characters on their TV shows, or may even have people that identify as homosexuals in their lives as neighbors, relatives, or other loved ones. The environment in which the youth are growing up in and their spectrum of attitudes on homosexuals is also a topic I find interesting. But I’ll refrain from detailing that since it doesn’t advance the thread topic.

As for the second comment, homosexuals may enter into contracts. This isn’t in dispute. They can forge civil unions, for example.

Yes, they can. The contract of marriage automatically has other rules/benefits in it that are not necessarily included in civil unions and domestic partnerships.

• the legal ability to make decisions for a spouse that has become unable to do so
• filing joint income tax
• exemption from estate taxes for property left to spouse after death
• social security and disability benefits
• taking family leave to care for a spouse
• being able to automatically renew leases signed by spouse
• visiting rights in certain facilities (hospital, jail)

I personally have no problem or argument against some one being able to engage in a marriage contract for these thigns.

b) public schools to teach this is a good thing. (It is ironic that people who are so adamant about homosexuality NOT being a choice are so eager to influence the sex education of per-pubescent children and tell them that being gay is a good thing.)

I’ll take your word for it. I’ve never heard any proponents imply or state it is a “good thing.” Though I have seen it stated that it’s “not a bad thing.” (To some those statements may look equivalent, but they are not). And I’ve heard it stated that legalization of homosexual marriage is a “good thing.”

The semantics are different in the case of homosexual couple. In the case that the meaning of marriage is changed as to include homosexuals, people will simply start using another word for their heterosexual marriage.

That’s fine. Public usage of language and language as used in a legal contract do some times diverge a bit. As I understand the issue it’s about the legal definition.

On what basis or grounds are the legal contracts being established?

It seems to me that having a mutual commitment that can be terminated at will by either party is no grounds for legal contract because the foundation for the contract is extremely problematic.

I’m not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking what the motivations are for people that want to engage in a marriage contract? If so their motivations vary. Love, status, protection, money, Or are you asking about the requirements for two people to become married? Those requirements too have varied over time and place. In the USA by simply living together long enough in the same state before a certain date two people could be considered married (the date’s and whether or not living together constituted a marriage vary from state to state).

In a potentially fertile relationship, there is cause for the government to be involved in securing the rights of innocent third parties. In a relationship that is strictly one of mutual consent, the government has no reason to be involved at all and, thus, there is no reason to jeopardize the rights of children that ought to be protected even more than they currently are under the old terms, but will not be when marriage is redefined.

Since homosexuals can adopt children it would seem they aren’t completely excluded from this relationship between government, parent, and child. BTW: Lesbians can and do conceive children. Though without being able to engage in legal marriage such families are at a disadvantage of not being able to use the same tax breaks or have recognized shared legal custody of said child.

Furthermore, stipulating only a “loving and committed relationship” as the basis for the legal rights under the definition of marriage opens virtually any relationship to having the same legal rights as married couples who only gained those rights because of the additional burden of caring for children.

I don’t think any one has stipulated that (unless I missed something).

Should, for example, sisters or brothers, living communally have the same legal rights as a married couple? Why? If yes, then why not any two persons? Why not three or five?

Is this a “slippery slope” argument?

 

[markeverett49]

They’ve heard of it, and some of the students in school identify as homosexuals, see homosexual characters on their TV shows, or may even have people that identify as homosexuals in their lives as neighbors, relatives, or other loved ones. The environment in which the youth are growing up in and their spectrum of attitudes on homosexuals is also a topic I find interesting. But I’ll refrain from detailing that since it doesn’t advance the thread topic.

I will assume you are young. I’m old enough to remember a few decades ago when marriage was universally regarded as a good thing—the cornerstone of society, even—EXCEPT for many liberals and progressives who wrote and taught that marriage was fundamentally unjust and that it oppressed women, that it was ‘just a piece of paper,’ and we would be better off without it, or at best we should make marriage contracts renewable every five years or so because it was really ‘against nature’ to expect humans to bond for life.

Now many of these same people argue that same-sex marriage is a requirement of simple justice because marriage is such a good thing, both for the participants and for the society to which they belong.

Natural marriage produces and nurtures the next generation. This is a paramount concern of society—the cultivation of good citizens. But now the argument is that marriage is really about the sexual gratification of adults, that children are only accidentally related to sexuality, and that sodomy and human conception are equivalent acts (-because, you see, they are both important to the people engaged in them and that is the sole determinant of value here).

The secular argument against same-sex marriage is biological: you can’t have kids that way, and if you can’t have kids, the state’s interest in you staying together for a couple decades, at least, vanishes altogether. This, of course, is why such a big deal is made over same-sex couples adopting. Fewer same-sex couples want to adopt than to marry (and that’s a small enough group) but the principle they seek to establish here is that just as sex is not essentially about procreation, parenting isn’t either----“family isn’t about biology, it’s about love.” (As a rule, proponents of same-sex “marriage” oppose essentialism about everything except the belief that people essentially are or are not homosexual.)

 

[Ion]

I will assume you are young. I’m old enough to remember a few decades ago when marriage was universally regarded as a good thing—the cornerstone of society, even—EXCEPT for many liberals and progressives who wrote and taught that marriage was fundamentally unjust and that it oppressed women, that it was ‘just a piece of paper,’ and we would be better off without it, or at best we should make marriage contracts renewable every five years or so because it was really ‘against nature’ to expect humans to bond for life.

Now many of these same people argue that same-sex marriage is a requirement of simple justice because marriage is such a good thing, both for the participants and for the society to which they belong.

Natural marriage produces and nurtures the next generation. This is a paramount concern of society—the cultivation of good citizens. But now the argument is that marriage is really about the sexual gratification of adults, that children are only accidentally related to sexuality, and that sodomy and human conception are equivalent acts (-because, you see, they are both important to the people engaged in them and that is the sole determinant of value here).

The secular argument against same-sex marriage is biological: you can’t have kids that way, and if you can’t have kids, the state’s interest in you staying together for a couple decades, at least, vanishes altogether. This, of course, is why such a big deal is made over same-sex couples adopting. Fewer same-sex couples want to adopt than to marry (and that’s a small enough group) but the principle they seek to establish here is that just as sex is not essentially about procreation, parenting isn’t either----“family isn’t about biology, it’s about love.” (As a rule, proponents of same-sex “marriage” oppose essentialism about everything except the belief that people essentially are or are not homosexual.)

First of all, there should be a clear delimitation of love, real love, the one that last for a lifetime, from the “holywoodian” love, love at first sight or so, which is only the result of an unguided spirit, love that is going to die in couple of years anyway. But how to make such a delimitation?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is this a “slippery slope” argument?

More like a warning that a slippery slope lies ahead.

I’m merely stating that a redefinition of marriage without a clear ground for defining marriage beyond merely “a loving, committed relationship” relies on unclear criteria and creates its own slippery slope.

It is like claiming a “chair” is anything that can be sat on. Therefore, trees, sidewalks, the ground, rocks, etc. all become, by definition, “chairs.” The definition is rendered useless by its lack of specificity. We may as well not even use the word because, by definition, anything can be a chair. Worse, this becomes the basis for legal process. It is a total mess in the making. The result of thinking with organs that are not meant to engage in the process of reasoning.

 

[markeverett49]

Is this a “slippery slope” argument?

A “slippery slope” appeal is out of place here because same-sex “marriage” would be awful in its own right.

But since you brought it up, yesterday Jonathon Turley, a law professor at Georgetown (-I believe) and legal analyst who often appears on CNN, was interviewed on NPR this week and argued that advocates for the legal recognition of polygamy in the US are but ten years behind the advocates for same-sex marriage: we’re talking about consenting adults, so… Turley saw the recognition of polygamy as part of a “grander view” of marriage that is evolving

I found it curious that this subject was broached on NPR during the week of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage. After all, the idea that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy is something many same-sex advocates vehemently denied would ever happen. (Like ‘back in the day’ pro-choice advocates argued that there would NEVER be sex-selective abortions, but they are now commonplace. Infanticide is now seen as a needed backup for those “unfortunate” cases where abortion fails.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think any one has stipulated that (unless I missed something).

So present a stipulation of marriage that is clear, definitive and exclusionary without being “discriminatory” against other forms of relationships.

Clearly, if a biologically based definition of marriage cannot withstand being torn down as discriminatory, how can nebulous definitions based on “commitment” or “loving relationship” hold up any better? They won’t.

Sometimes, to paraphrase Freud, a slippery slope is just a slippery slope and not a phallacy {yes, intended.}

 

[markeverett49]

Perhaps it is my age showing—and although I’m more than merely middle aged, I’m not yet retirement age—but I am amazed at how easy it is for some people to think that having and raising children is merely incidental to marriage and nowhere near the heart of the matter.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The best commonsense argument against same-sex marriage is the same as the best commonsense argument against sodomy: the anus was not made for the penis.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So present a stipulation of marriage that is clear, definitive and exclusionary without being “discriminatory” against other forms of relationships.

I’d rather stick with the objective of the OP, which is finding the strong secular argument against gay marriage, instead of splintering out into other issues. Remember the main question was:

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.

The argument that seems to be repeated here is based on homosexuals not biologically reproduce (which isn’t quite true, as there are homosexuals that do decide to have children of their own). I am making the assumption that the motivation for finding an argument is in response to what appears to be growing support for homosexual marriage[1]. My assessment of the arguments (which I admit is subjective) is that this argument won’t have much of an impact on the younger generations. So I agree with JackieMom’s assessment. If the trend continues gay marriage will have increasing support with the passage of time and the arrival of new generations.

[1] - From Pew research center, see this article.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-20-13-1.png

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’d rather stick with the objective of the OP, which is finding the strong secular argument against gay marriage, instead of splintering out into other issues.

In case you missed it my point is that a strong secular argument against gay marriage is precisely that a redefinition of the word “marriage” to include gay marriage is legally untenable. That is why I asked you to provide an alternative definition that stands up to a legal challenge from the perspective that any definition which depends upon terms such as “loving commitment” or “relationship” as a basis for legal judgement will fail to provide any criteria for the exclusion of any kind of human relationship (two or more brothers, two or more sisters, parent-child, polyamorous, etc.) from being considered a marriage, except on arbitrary grounds.

In case it needs to be spelled out, the secular argument can be stated philosophically as: any redefinition of marriage to include gay marriage leads via *reductio ad absurdum * to logically compelling proponents of redefinition to having to include every kind of human relationship within the definition.

This is not a “splintering out;” it is asking you to think ahead to the repercussions of the option you advocate in order to decide if it really is a workable one. My impression was that you consider yourself a “thinking” human, but isn’t thinking ahead an aspect of that process?

Perhaps you are too narrow in your approach to thinking and believe only in an experimental approach: Let’s try it and see what comes about because humans are incapable of thinking into the future without conducting a trial? Making predictions or inferences are both beyond your capacity to reason thoughtfully, then?

For a more detailed version of this argument ”from legal untenability” see:

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/same-sex-marriage-and-the-infertility-objection

 

[markeverett49]

I’d rather stick with the objective of the OP, which is finding the strong secular argument against gay marriage, instead of splintering out into other issues. ]

I posted a short video that presented a strong, secular argument in favor of “natural marriage,” though perhaps that was in another thread. Here is the link:

youtube.com/watch?v=8cQCi4ehXkg

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’d rather stick with the objective of the OP, which is finding the strong secular argument against gay marriage, instead of splintering out into other issues. Remember the main question was:

The argument that seems to be repeated here is based on homosexuals not biologically reproduce (which isn’t quite true, as there are homosexuals that do decide to have children of their own). I am making the assumption that the motivation for finding an argument is in response to what appears to be growing support for homosexual marriage[1]. My assessment of the arguments (which I admit is subjective) is that this argument won’t have much of an impact on the younger generations. So I agree with JackieMom’s assessment. If the trend continues gay marriage will have increasing support with the passage of time and the arrival of new generations.

[1] - From Pew research center, see this article.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-20-13-1.png

I have provided articles for secular arguments against redefining marriage:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10551817&postcount=41

Likely reason why so many young people support redefining marriage in polls is because so many grow up in ‘broken homes,’ and are born out of wedlock, and so are many friends, and so there is little frame of reference to traditional marriage, to families where there are a married mother and father figure in the home

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’d rather stick with the objective of the OP, which is finding the strong secular argument against gay marriage, instead of splintering out into other issues. Remember the main question was:

The argument that seems to be repeated here is based on homosexuals not biologically reproduce (which isn’t quite true, as there are homosexuals that do decide to have children of their own). I am making the assumption that the motivation for finding an argument is in response to what appears to be growing support for homosexual marriage[1]. My assessment of the arguments (which I admit is subjective) is that this argument won’t have much of an impact on the younger generations. So I agree with JackieMom’s assessment. If the trend continues gay marriage will have increasing support with the passage of time and the arrival of new generations.

[1] - From Pew research center, see this article.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-20-13-1.png

I have provided articles for secular arguments against redefining marriage:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10551817&postcount=41

Likely reason why so many young people support redefining marriage in polls is because so many grow up in ‘broken homes,’ and are born out of wedlock, and so are friends, and there is little frame of reference to traditional marriage, to families where there are a married mother and father in the home

 

[markeverett49]

Likely reason why so many young people support redefining marriage in polls is because so many grow up in ‘broken homes,’ and are born out of wedlock, and so are friends, and there is little frame of reference to traditional marriage, to families where there are a married mother and father in the home

I think those reasons have their value but I think it worth stepping back to consider this: in any society at any time, the group Least Likely to offer sound moral advice is young people. It is a recent (and silly) notion that the youth are to be looked at as more morally astute than their elders.

If it is true that today’s youth are easily persuaded that homosexuality is a good thing, or that same-sex “marriage” is the equivalent of natural marriage, or even that sexual orientation–ANY sexual orientation–can be a locus of rights—does not commend the youth one whit, though it casts a damning light on their corrupt teachers and those who knew better but made no effort to correct the obvious errors.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In case you missed it my point is that a strong secular argument against gay marriage is precisely that a redefinition of the word “marriage” to include gay marriage is legally untenable. That is why I asked you to provide an alternative definition that stands up to a legal challenge from the perspective that any definition which depends upon terms such as “loving commitment” or “relationship” as a basis for legal judgement will fail to provide any criteria for the exclusion of any kind of human relationship (two or more brothers, two or more sisters, parent-child, polyamorous, etc.) from being considered a marriage, except on arbitrary grounds.

To make sure we are on the same page, since we are talking in a legal context when ever redefinition or marriage is mentioned I’m assuming that we are talking about the the removal of proscriptions (such as in statutes) from the requirements for the contract of marriage. Love or other similar emotional dispositions while are often stated as motivations for a marriage contract are not requirements for it; they are not part of any of the legal definitions that I’ve reviewed, so I think that can be dropped from consideration. It’s not being proposed that the statute on how closely related on can be to be married be challenged. If some one wants to challenge such a statute I’m sure there could be some interesting discussion around it, but that’s another topic for another thread.

And this is just my opinion, but I don’t think that discussion of the hypothetical siblings that want to enter a marriage contract would change the minds of those that have no problem with gay marriage.

This is not a “splintering out;” it is asking you to think ahead to the repercussions of the option you advocate in order to decide if it really is a workable one.

I think it is.

Perhaps you are too narrow in your approach to thinking and believe only in an experimental approach: Let’s try it and see what comes about because humans are incapable of thinking into the future without conducting a trial? Making predictions or inferences are both beyond your capacity to reason thoughtfully, then?

Hmmm…this could be from not having the benefit of face to face communicated, but I can’t help but get the feeling that there’s a not very nice undertone in communication here.

ILikely reason why so many young people support redefining marriage in polls is because so many grow up in ‘broken homes,’ and are born out of wedlock, and so are friends, and there is little frame of reference to traditional marriage, to families where there are a married mother and father in the home

I heard some one mention a similar comment on the news earlier, though there comment was based on trends for children born to unwed mothers. [1]

[1] - Data sources listed below chart. See this for details.
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/75_fig1.jpg