Secular argument against gay marriage

[LightFromLight]

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.

Surely marriage ought to be unique to man and woman due to their biological compatibility.

Gay marriage is an irrational idea. The push for “gay marriage” is driven by relative emotional values, not by logic.

 

[markeverett49]

Surely marriage ought to be unique to man and woman due to their biological compatibility.

Gay marriage is an irrational idea. The push for “gay marriage” is driven by relative emotional values, not by logic.

I find it interesting that so many liberals and progressives start out as moral / cultural relativists, but on this issue, they become absolutists! Ironic, isn’t it? A few members of the media have claimed that having on a person to argue against same-sex marriage would be equivalent to having on someone who was pro-racist to balance an anti-racist position. Curiouser and curiouser…

 

[inocente]

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.

How do you know what God thinks?

 

[inocente]

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.

Unjust discrimination is, for example, supposing that only those who think the same as you can see true MEANING.

You argument seems to be that might is right, but just because a majority have been prejudiced for most of human history doesn’t justify continuing the prejudice.

 

[inocente]

Here in Spain, two thirds of a traditionally strongly Catholic population agreed with the decision to legalize gay marriage.
Ion;10553627:

Can you provide a link?

For instance:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain

nytimes.com/2005/06/30/international/europe/30cnd-spain.html?_r=0

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.
Ion;10553641:

So, you either execute the sinner or otherwise forget the law. Doesn’t sound baptist at all…

As said previously, Baptists have freedom of conscience in Christ, so not sounding Baptist at all is exactly what should be expected.

 

[markeverett49]

How do you know what God thinks?

Divine revelation, mostly

 

[markeverett49]

Unjust discrimination is, for example, supposing that only those who think the same as you can see true MEANING.

You argument seems to be that might is right, but just because a majority have been prejudiced for most of human history doesn’t justify continuing the prejudice.

You are wrong twice. First, I think it was known that homosexual acts are wrong for centuries before I was born—it has nothing to do with me or what I think (-or you or what you think, for that matter.)

You’re begging the question by saying that thinking differently about homosexual acts than you now do amounts to prejudice. (Most sexual acts that are regarded as sinful are acts most often performed by heterosexual people; more heterosexuals than homosexuals fornicate, and as for masturbation, I’ve read that even some married people commit that sin.)

 

[inocente]

Divine revelation, mostly

“Mostly” ?

You are wrong twice. First, I think it was known that homosexual acts are wrong for centuries before I was born—it has nothing to do with me or what I think (-or you or what you think, for that matter.)

It was also “known” that slavery was right for centuries. That was also a mistake.

You’re begging the question by saying that thinking differently about homosexual acts than you now do amounts to prejudice. (Most sexual acts that are regarded as sinful are acts most often performed by heterosexual people; more heterosexuals than homosexuals fornicate, and as for masturbation, I’ve read that even some married people commit that sin.)

Your “regarded as sinful” is relative to who is doing the regarding. Also the thread is about secular arguments, and “sinful” is not a secular argument.

Homosexuality is found in many species and is perfectly natural, while homophobia is only found amongst humans, and even then only in certain cultures. Homophobia has been institutionalized for millennia in the West, but as with all phobias is irrational.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Mostly” ?
It was also “known” that slavery was right for centuries. That was also a mistake.

Incorrect. It was “justified” or rationalized in the minds of those who profited by it for centuries. It was thought wrong by many even then. You are generalizing just to make a point. A bad one at that.

Your “regarded as sinful” is relative to who is doing the regarding. Also the thread is about secular arguments, and “sinful” is not a secular argument.

Since God is the determiner and Creator of all that exists, including human beings, his views on the matter trump any moral thinking drummed up to justify wayward human passions.

Homosexuality is found in many species and is perfectly natural, while homophobia is only found amongst humans, and even then only in certain cultures. Homophobia has been institutionalized for millennia in the West, but as with all phobias is irrational.

Naturalistic fallacy! If it’s found in nature, it is ipso facto good. Lion males eat their babies in nature. Good moral practice?

Homophobia is only as irrational as those who try to smear others with the term.

 

[markeverett49]

“Mostly” ?

It was also “known” that slavery was right for centuries. That was also a mistake.

Your “regarded as sinful” is relative to who is doing the regarding. Also the thread is about secular arguments, and “sinful” is not a secular argument.

Homosexuality is found in many species and is perfectly natural, while homophobia is only found amongst humans, and even then only in certain cultures. Homophobia has been institutionalized for millennia in the West, but as with all phobias is irrational.

You asked me how I know what God thinks. I said, “divine revelation, mostly.” Reflection on that revelation by saints and scholars has helped, though of course such commentary is not itself revelation. Following revelation, I think man can know something of God through reason.

Actually, homosexuality—a regard of oneself as a homosexual person—is found only among human beings, and only about 3 % of them. Homosexual acts are observed among other species but in animals who a) also engage in heterosexual acts and b) use homosexual acts to establish dominance—which is to say, to humiliate the penetrated—rather than to express a sexual orientation. Neither of these types of behavior establish a homosexual orientation.

I agree that slavery is wrong.

Yes, regarding homosexual acts as “sinful” implies a perspective that takes note of sin. Some people do not recognize sin. Curiously, many of them regard what they see as “hate” and “bigotry” as deeply wrong yet neither is illegal. (It is not illegal, for example, for homosexual persons to call dehumanize heterosexuals by calling them “breeders.”) I think it is a sin to hate but that’s in the context of sin; outside that context, and short of such acts as, say, denying a person employment based on his religion, I am puzzled as to why vehement claims of “bigot” and “hater” are so often made against people who oppose same-sex “marriage.” (If being a “bigot” or “hater” is not a sin—and you’ve banished claims of sin from this secular argument—then what exactly is the objection to them? Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a citizen from thinking some people benighted, lost, or even evil—I have liberal friends who delight in competing to out-do each other in just how much they hate FOX news and Sarah Palin.)

 

[inocente]

Incorrect. It was “justified” or rationalized in the minds of those who profited by it for centuries. It was thought wrong by many even then. You are generalizing just to make a point. A bad one at that.

Did many people in ancient Greece and Rome and other cultures think slavery was wrong? Did many people in the early nineteenth century think child labor was wrong? Did many people up to the early twentieth century think women were as good as men?

Seems a bit of a coincidence if your morals happen to be the bestest ever.

Since God is the determiner and Creator of all that exists, including human beings, his views on the matter trump any moral thinking drummed up to justify wayward human passions.

The thread is about whether there’s a strong secular argument against gay marriage.

*Naturalistic fallacy! If it’s found in nature, it is ipso facto good. Lion males eat their babies in nature. Good moral practice?

Homophobia is only as irrational as those who try to smear others with the term.*

No, homosexuality is found in other species and so cannot be described as “disordered”. While contempt, hostility and prejudice towards homosexuals isn’t found in other species but only in some individuals in some human cultures, and so can be described as disordered.

 

[inocente]

You asked me how I know what God thinks. I said, “divine revelation, mostly.” Reflection on that revelation by saints and scholars has helped, though of course such commentary is not itself revelation. Following revelation, I think man can know something of God through reason.

Fair enough.

*Actually, homosexuality—a regard of oneself as a homosexual person—is found only among human beings, and only about 3 % of them. Homosexual acts are observed among other species but in animals who a) also engage in heterosexual acts and b) use homosexual acts to establish dominance—which is to say, to humiliate the penetrated—rather than to express a sexual orientation. Neither of these types of behavior establish a homosexual orientation. *

Your first sentence there makes an assumption which coincidentally is at the heart of some conspiracy theories - that there is a secret world movement of gays to overthrow civilization as we know it, etc., presumably much as there are also secret world movements of left-handed people, and brown-eyed people, etc.

But gays are primarily persons, and once society stops labeling them as gay, they no longer need regard themselves as gay, but just as persons.

Yes, regarding homosexual acts as “sinful” implies a perspective that takes note of sin. Some people do not recognize sin. Curiously, many of them regard what they see as “hate” and “bigotry” as deeply wrong yet neither is illegal. (It is not illegal, for example, for homosexual persons to call dehumanize heterosexuals by calling them “breeders.”) I think it is a sin to hate but that’s in the context of sin; outside that context, and short of such acts as, say, denying a person employment based on his religion, I am puzzled as to why vehement claims of “bigot” and “hater” are so often made against people who oppose same-sex “marriage.” (If being a “bigot” or “hater” is not a sin—and you’ve banished claims of sin from this secular argument—then what exactly is the objection to them? Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a citizen from thinking some people benighted, lost, or even evil—I have liberal friends who delight in competing to out-do each other in just how much they hate FOX news and Sarah Palin.)

Sticking with secular arguments, I’m not in the US but take article 1 of the UDHR:

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.

Thus if society is to treat some citizens as less free and equal than others, it must have very good reason. The objection is that those against gay marriage don’t have a good reason, or at least are keeping it a big secret if they do, and so they strike at the very heart of what it means to believe all people are created equal.

 

[markeverett49]

No, homosexuality is found in other species and so cannot be described as “disordered”. While contempt, hostility and prejudice towards homosexuals isn’t found in other species but only in some individuals in some human cultures, and so can be described as disordered.

The first sentence is false in two ways. 1) Homosexual acts have been observed in other species but the people doing he observing do not regard this as equivalent to a homosexual orientation because a) the same animals engage in heterosexual acts and b) the homosexual acts are often part of dominance rituals (-that is, attempts to humiliate the animal topped.) 2) Murder, rape, and infanticide are found in other species but no serious human being thinks this makes them acceptable, right, or ‘natural’ for human beings. Also, manias of various sorts have been observed in other species, but this does not make madness “natural” for humans, or even for the species in which this is exhibited.

 

[markeverett49]

Your first sentence there makes an assumption which coincidentally is at the heart of some conspiracy theories - that there is a secret world movement of gays to overthrow civilization as we know it, etc., presumably much as there are also secret world movements of left-handed people, and brown-eyed people, etc.

But gays are primarily persons, and once society stops labeling them as gay, they no longer need regard themselves as gay, but just as persons…

Are you serious? It wasn’t society who labelled homosexual persons as “gay.” The term was chosen by homosexual persons for themselves. Indeed, the idea that there are homosexual persons at all----as opposed to persons who sometimes engage in homosexual acts—is a notion championed by homosexual persons.

 

[inocente]

The first sentence is false in two ways. 1) Homosexual acts have been observed in other species but the people doing he observing do not regard this as equivalent to a homosexual orientation because a) the same animals engage in heterosexual acts and b) the homosexual acts are often part of dominance rituals (-that is, attempts to humiliate the animal topped.) 2) Murder, rape, and infanticide are found in other species but no serious human being thinks this makes them acceptable, right, or ‘natural’ for human beings. Also, manias of various sorts have been observed in other species, but this does not make madness “natural” for humans, or even for the species in which this is exhibited.

Jiminy cricket, gay marriage one minute then murder, rape, infanticide and madness the next. Run for the hills!

 

[inocente]

Are you serious? It wasn’t society who labelled homosexual persons as “gay.” The term was chosen by homosexual persons for themselves. Indeed, the idea that there are homosexual persons at all----as opposed to persons who sometimes engage in homosexual acts—is a notion championed by homosexual persons.

That gay conspiracy of yours is truly amazing - only 3% of the population and they somehow get the other 97% to do their bidding.

But no, it turns out the word was popularized by society, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

 

[markeverett49]

Jiminy cricket, gay marriage one minute then murder, rape, infanticide and madness the next. Run for the hills!

I did NOT claim that if same-sex “marriage” is recognized that those other things will follow. Rather, I listed those as behaviors exhibited in other species because you said homosexuality was natural because it is observed in other species. Your argument won’t hold.

 

[antoniont1]

To the OP,

Sorry I can’t participate in the discussion, but hope this helps!

COLUMN on The Tech (MIT’s oldest and largest newspaper & the first newspaper published on the web)
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

 

[JontheMaronite]

I believe that there are absolutely no good secular arguments or reasons to revise the definition and legal understanding of marriage to include same-sex couples. “Marriage Equality” is nothing more than a cheap and misleading slogan, a sham of an argument, and a textbook case of begging the question.

I believe that there are dozens of good secular arguments to preserve the meaning of marriage as a distinct union between man and women.

Some of these arguments:

-argument in regards to rights of children

-argument of the interest of civil society and why the government is involved with marriage in the first place

-argument for limited government

-procreation argument in regards to protecting the family

-philosophical argument concerning the distinct union and love between man and woman

-constitutional argument - marriage as defined in our government’s statutes and provisions, and as protected by SCOTUS rulings

-preservation of religious freedom argument (not arguing for or from a particular religion, but religious and conscientiousness freedoms which is a secular discussion)

I would be more than happy to elaborate on any of these.

 

[markeverett49]

That gay conspiracy of yours is truly amazing - only 3% of the population and they somehow get the other 97% to do their bidding.

But no, it turns out the word was popularized by society, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

I never mentioned a “gay conspiracy.”

“Gay” had a long history before it came to mean homosexual. Are you suggesting that the “G” in LGBT stands for “gay” against the will of homosexual persons who hate the term? It’s the term they prefer.