Secular argument against gay marriage

[Organ_freak]

I’ve searched this thread, and I haven’t seen any references to this just yet.
This is a purely economical argument againtst state recognition of homosexual unions. While it does not support the Catholic viewpoint regarding single parent families, it is a potent argument which can be used to help win this patricular debate.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
Post your thoughts.

 

[JulieSalveson]

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

Those single parents usually try to find a brother, uncle, grandpa, who will be a male influence on the child. I do believe that a child deserves to be raised by the feminine genius and the masculine genius, is a good argument. Its obvious that a man and a woman both bring different benefits to the table.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Sure ask them to think about a culture where no men married women, how long do you think that society would survive? Conclusion. Homosexual relationships are contrary to the moral law because if all people engaged in that life style the whole society would come to an end. That city, that state would die.

If homosexual life styles were perfectly normal and natural why didn’t the " powers that be " design men so they could have babies and why didn’t they design women so they could act as " natural " men if they wanted to? The " powers that be " did not design men and women so they could serve dual sexual functions, therefore such relationships are abnormal and not-natural.

Linus2nd

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I just found this thread and haven’t had time to read all the responses, although I have read the first two pages. (I’m borrowing someone else’s laptop right now.)

This is a subject that I have been somewhat perplexed about. Perplexed because it seems amazing that public opinion in our country has moved so fast and so far in favor of gay marriage. The secular argument is often voiced is, “Someone should be allowed to marry anyone they love.” Yet, that argument is not well thought out.

When I have brought this up to family members (who I really don’t know where they stand on the issue), they have said that it is just a phrase that is being used in order to fight for the gay “right” to marriage. I hate to go any further in discussions because so many people seem to be “jumping on the bandwagon”, as it were, that I prefer not to touch off a nerve and get into an argument.

I feel strongly, though, that the argument of, “People should be allowed to marry whomever they love,” if taken seriously in favor of gay marriage will then be used by others to push their own agendas for marriage. This opens up a pandora’s box. Not even looking at extreme situations, would you want your 12 year old to marry a 15 year old without your consent or knowledge? Of course, an extreme example would be that the 12 year old believes she (or he) is in love with a 28 year old (or older) and will be allowed marriage based on their right to marry who they love.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The demand for the same name for two intrinsically different relationships is an illogical and misguided desire for equality in every respect!

 

[tonyrey]

Those single parents usually try to find a brother, uncle, grandpa, who will be a male influence on the child. I do believe that a child deserves to be raised by the feminine genius and the masculine genius, is a good argument. Its obvious that a man and a woman both bring different benefits to the table.

Welcome to the forum, Julie. An irrefutable argument which demands that you become an active member!

 

[tonyrey]

I just found this thread and haven’t had time to read all the responses, although I have read the first two pages. (I’m borrowing someone else’s laptop right now.)

This is a subject that I have been somewhat perplexed about. Perplexed because it seems amazing that public opinion in our country has moved so fast and so far in favor of gay marriage. The secular argument is often voiced is, “Someone should be allowed to marry anyone they love.” Yet, that argument is not well thought out.

When I have brought this up to family members (who I really don’t know where they stand on the issue), they have said that it is just a phrase that is being used in order to fight for the gay “right” to marriage. I hate to go any further in discussions because so many people seem to be “jumping on the bandwagon”, as it were, that I prefer not to touch off a nerve and get into an argument.

I feel strongly, though, that the argument of, “People should be allowed to marry whomever they love,” if taken seriously in favor of gay marriage will then be used by others to push their own agendas for marriage. This opens up a pandora’s box. Not even looking at extreme situations, would you want your 12 year old to marry a 15 year old without your consent or knowledge? Of course, an extreme example would be that the 12 year old believes she (or he) is in love with a 28 year old (or older) and will be allowed marriage based on their right to marry who they love.

The demand for equality and “free” love has taken on a new and sinister meaning…

 

[SC4PROF]

There are many good arguments. Here is a link that I recently ran across that may help:
lifesitenews.com/blog/how-to-combat-flak-from-christians-for-teaching-biblical-sexual-ethics

Also; There is a great book by Frank Turek called “Correct, not Politically Correct”. It’s relatively inexpensive and an easy read. I cannot say enough good about the book.

PAX
jk

 

[antunesaa]

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.

I think the main argument must be spiritual, so this question will always be a little difficult to us Catholics. Nonetheless, I propose the following thoughts.

The don’t’s of the discussion:

1. Saying that same sex attraction is “unnatural”. Actually we cannot say that because the aception of “unnatural” that classical and medieval philosophers used was different from the current one. They said that homossexual acts were unnatural because they were opposed to the spiritual order, and not merely to the physical order. Today, people almost always use “unnatural” in the physicalist sense, that is, related to the natural world. So we cannot use the term today because it means one thing for the materialist and an entirely different thing for the spiritualist. And because of that, it becomes offensive. Moreover, in a certain sense it doesn’t even make sense to say that something is natural because it is more frequent; something can be natural while still being rare. I happen to think that our fallen nature actually makes it all too natural.
2. Accept that gay marriage is a right or is even remotely comparable to the elimination of slavery or interracial marriage. These assertions are really offensive for those affected by those old practices. Take slavery. The thing that slavery takes away from people is freedom. Freedom is a basic right of every human being. Gay marriage is obviously distinct because anyone who wants to marry a person of the same sex can - if he/she wants - marry one of the opposite sex. So gay marriage is an addition to existing privileges accessible to all, and not the extension of a right to people who previously did not have it, as with the elimination of slavery. As for interracial marriage, forbidding it was always very hard to justify because the trait that distinguished people (the supposed “race”) did not prevent the would-be couple to fulfill all the precepts and objectives of marriage. Again, gay marriage is different from this: it is obviously not compatible with the most salient purpose of marriage in virtually all civilizations and ages: generating new life.
3. Accept being called “homophobe” because you are against gay marriage. Call your opponent immediately “totalitarian”, “dogmatic” or “censor” if for a moment he/she uses the word. The gay movement tactics are just that: define (without discussion) gay marriage as a right; once you accept it and oppose it, you are obviously a scoundrel because you oppose people being granted a “right”. The way to counter this is force your opponent to prove that gay marriage is a right and not a privilege (which traditional marriage actually is). If there is no right, you can be perfectly oppose privileges being granted to this or that arrangement.

The do’s of the discussion.

1. The supposed moral principles used in the justification of gay marriage can be used (without absolutely no change at all) with any other practice currently (but most likely not in the future) questionable. This suggests that the case for gay marriage is a product of the age and not a fundamental right. For example, the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever they want if that does not affect anyone else can be used to push laws permitting incest and multiple marriages, regulating swinging couples, etc. etc. etc. Contrast this with traditional marriage. It is founded on two simple observations: that there are two sexes and that generating and rearing children is important and takes a considerable amount of time and energy. It is not hard to suppose that if there were three sexes, marriage would involve three people. Gay marriage is nothing of the sort. If gay couples cannot have children and the adoption of children is questionable (see below why I think this is so), there is no compelling reason why society should give gay couples the privileges it gives to other couples. Alternative legal norms (not specially directed at gay couples) could be easily devised to ensure that gay couples had access to certain services and privileges according to the general law.
2. The principle of prudence should ensure that, in general terms, children for adoption should not be given to gay couples or single people. Why should we deny children the simple privilege of having the possibility to contrast men and women in close relationship, thereby being able to at least understand the basic differences between the sexes? Again, no obvious reason for that if we place the interests of the child above the interests of the adopting couple or single person.

 

[JontheMaronite]

The demand for the same name for two intrinsically different relationships is an illogical and misguided desire for equality in every respect!

Agreed.

There was actually a solid piece on the question-begging tactic of invoking the generic truism of equality that was published on Public Discourse recently.

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/7912/

Also, Ryan Anderson (one of the authors of What is Marriage) has been very prolific with articles and interviews lately, providing us with digestible points and replies. I’m sure most of you have seen his interview on CNN with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman?

Here’s a recent interview in which he answers the main points proffered by “marriage equality advocates” very clearly, concisely, and fairly. catholicworldreport.com/Item/2167/defending_marriage_and_why_it_matters.aspx#.UWQps6KG18F

Here’s a recent Heritage report that he did which covers the secular arguments for protecting marriage as traditionally understood. heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

 

[Simon_Hurt]

I think the main argument must be spiritual, so this question will always be a little difficult to us Catholics. Nonetheless, I propose the following thoughts.

The don’t’s of the discussion:

1. Saying that same sex attraction is “unnatural”. Actually we cannot say that because the aception of “unnatural” that classical and medieval philosophers used was different from the current one. They said that homossexual acts were unnatural because they were opposed to the spiritual order, and not merely to the physical order. Today, people almost always use “unnatural” in the physicalist sense, that is, related to the natural world. So we cannot use the term today because it means one thing for the materialist and an entirely different thing for the spiritualist. And because of that, it becomes offensive. Moreover, in a certain sense it doesn’t even make sense to say that something is natural because it is more frequent; something can be natural while still being rare. I happen to think that our fallen nature actually makes it all too natural.
2. Accept that gay marriage is a right or is even remotely comparable to the elimination of slavery or interracial marriage. These assertions are really offensive for those affected by those old practices. Take slavery. The thing that slavery takes away from people is freedom. Freedom is a basic right of every human being. Gay marriage is obviously distinct because anyone who wants to marry a person of the same sex can - if he/she wants - marry one of the opposite sex. So gay marriage is an addition to existing privileges accessible to all, and not the extension of a right to people who previously did not have it, as with the elimination of slavery. As for interracial marriage, forbidding it was always very hard to justify because the trait that distinguished people (the supposed “race”) did not prevent the would-be couple to fulfill all the precepts and objectives of marriage. Again, gay marriage is different from this: it is obviously not compatible with the most salient purpose of marriage in virtually all civilizations and ages: generating new life.

This is not intrinsic to U.S. marriage laws. The most basic aspect of marriage is that it is a contract between two people.

1. Accept being called “homophobe” because you are against gay marriage. Call your opponent immediately “totalitarian”, “dogmatic” or “censor” if for a moment he/she uses the word. The gay movement tactics are just that: define (without discussion) gay marriage as a right; once you accept it and oppose it, you are obviously a scoundrel because you oppose people being granted a “right”. The way to counter this is force your opponent to prove that gay marriage is a right and not a privilege (which traditional marriage actually is). If there is no right, you can be perfectly oppose privileges being granted to this or that arrangement.

Traditional marriage is as much a privilege. Why should the U.S. government acknowledge and grant privileges to any relationship contracts?

The do’s of the discussion.

1. The supposed moral principles used in the justification of gay marriage can be used (without absolutely no change at all) with any other practice currently (but most likely not in the future) questionable. This suggests that the case for gay marriage is a product of the age and not a fundamental right. For example, the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever they want if that does not affect anyone else can be used to push laws permitting incest and multiple marriages, regulating swinging couples, etc. etc. etc. Contrast this with traditional marriage. It is founded on two simple observations: that there are two sexes and that generating and rearing children is important and takes a considerable amount of time and energy. It is not hard to suppose that if there were three sexes, marriage would involve three people. Gay marriage is nothing of the sort. If gay couples cannot have children and the adoption of children is questionable (see below why I think this is so), there is no compelling reason why society should give gay couples the privileges it gives to other couples. Alternative legal norms (not specially directed at gay couples) could be easily devised to ensure that gay couples had access to certain services and privileges according to the general law.

Slippery slope fallacy. You can argue unintended consequences for any type of legal reform. That does not make them justifiable.

1. The principle of prudence should ensure that, in general terms, children for adoption should not be given to gay couples or single people. Why should we deny children the simple privilege of having the possibility to contrast men and women in close relationship, thereby being able to at least understand the basic differences between the sexes? Again, no obvious reason for that if we place the interests of the child above the interests of the adopting couple or single person.

Yeah, let’s not provide children with supportive families because then they might not understand the difference between a penis and a vagina or how to interact with other humans

 

[markeverett49]

The Red Herring of "Marriage Equality"

Debates about marriage will only be cluttered up, and decisions confounded, if the issue is framed in the question-begging terms of “marriage equality.”

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

Thanks for posting that link. I got a lot out of that article.

 

[JontheMaronite]

Thanks for posting that link. I got a lot out of that article.

Glad you found it helpful.

This is not intrinsic to U.S. marriage laws. The most basic aspect of marriage is that it is a contract between two people.

When you take into account the fact that polygamy was practiced and tolerated for some time in the US, as well as other nations, the characteristic of “contract or union between two people” has never been the most basic (or the most commonly recognized) aspect or feature of marriage.

The universally recognized feature or principle of marriage is the anthropological truth of sexual complimentarity between the sexes. Marital relationships are not only emotional, but are ordered towards bearing and rearing children, and it is principally this second feature which serves as a compelling interest to the state.

The state has no compelling interest to recognize the mutual affection of adults. The state does take an interest in regulating marriage and solemnizing it precisely because marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father.

To quote Ryan:

“Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.”

 

[Acrossthedesert]

JackieMom,

Their arguments are a misinterpretation of equality. However, any sound argument cannot avoid the Creator of all things.

The Argument

A) Their proposition:
man + man = man + woman

B) therefore
man + man (-man) = man (-man) + woman
OR rather
man = woman (the proposition of the feminists)

C) Take any two individuals (e.g. Mark and Ken), stand them side by side and ask “Is Mark equivalent to Ken?” Though they share 99% of their DNA we would say that they are not equivalent. But suppose Mark and Ken were identical twins such that their DNA was equal; We would still see differences in their person and still conclude they are not equivalent. So the question should be posited** “HOW ARE WE EQUAL?**”

D) Historically, Christians have posited that we are equal in dignity (in value) since the first century.
|man| = |woman| (i.e. the absolute value of man is equal to the absolute value of woman)

E) The age of enlightenment reformulated this in more legal terms. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” -T. Jefferson
(i.e. WE ARE EQUAL IN THAT WE ARE ALL CREATED WITH CERTAIN NATURAL RIGHTS)

F) In the modern age, the communists/secularists have reformulated (corrupted) this statement by removing “the Creator”, thereby making themselves (the government) the sole source for all human rights.
(WHAT A HUMAN DISASTER!)

G) In our current age (the age of silliness) the secularists have applied equality to marriage. Birth control and abortion have allowed marriage to be defined without the possibility of children.

F) We are equal in natural rights. In that sense, does a woman have a natural right to an abortion? Does anyone have a natural right to a marriage license? Since, these rights are not granted by our very nature (i.e. by God), then these rights are granted by man. We are men which have the right to chose whether we promote life OR death. We have the right NOT to promote homosexuality or abortion. AND WE ARE RIGHTEOUS IN DOING SO!

G) Let’s not forget the Lords name “I AM that I AM” (i.e. 1=1) Exodus 3:14. God’s name is the law of identity which means all equality and formulations of creation come from his Word (Jesus Christ!)

 

[antunesaa]

This is not intrinsic to U.S. marriage laws. The most basic aspect of marriage is that it is a contract between two people.

Wrong. The fact that it takes two to marry is because there are two sexes, and not for any other reason. Even polygamic societies regulate separate man-woman relationships, like in some islamic societies, for instance. Therefore, marriage has always been a man-woman arrangement; everything else is a recent pretension.

Traditional marriage is as much a privilege. Why should the U.S. government acknowledge and grant privileges to any relationship contracts?

Go ask those who invented this kind of contract, some thousand years ago. But if you think hard you’ll understand that it might have something to do with the fact that marriage always has been directed to generating new life.

Slippery slope fallacy.

It’s not a fallacy; it is reality.

Yeah, let’s not provide children with supportive families because then they might not understand the difference between a penis and a vagina or how to interact with other humans

With your laws, you’re going to force people to participate in a gigantic farce. People are going to be forced to affirm that two men (or two women) form a couple which is equal to a man and a woman in all aspects, when what you see is that they lack the complementary nature of an heterogeneous couple and the central capacity of generating life. If you fail to do that, you’re going to go to jail. This is much more serious than mere religious freedom, or whatever. It’s forcing a disconnect between your discourse, how you must act, and what you see with your own eyes. Reminds me of Germany during the thirties: you were forced to say that Jews were inferior beings, when you knew they had a disproportionate representation in cultural and intelectual life. This kind of totalitarian law - like the gay marriage law - is a violence against your perception of the structure of reality, and therefore should not be approved.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

This is not intrinsic to U.S. marriage laws. The most basic aspect of marriage is that it is a contract between two people.

Traditional marriage is as much a privilege. Why should the U.S. government acknowledge and grant privileges to any relationship contracts?

Marriage licences were granted in order to keep track of marriages. They needed to keep track of marriages in order to convey benefits. They granted benefits to married couples because the family is essential to a healthy society. ** In effect, the people wished to promote marriage and family. **

Supporting gay marriage is, in effect, promoting homosexuality and indirectly corrupting the idea of marriage… thereby, undermining the institution.

 

[Simon_Hurt]

When you take into account the fact that polygamy was practiced and tolerated for some time in the US, as well as other nations, the characteristic of “contract or union between two people” has never been the most basic (or the most commonly recognized) aspect or feature of marriage.

The universally recognized feature or principle of marriage is the anthropological truth of sexual complimentarity between the sexes. Marital relationships are not only emotional, but are ordered towards bearing and rearing children, and it is principally this second feature which serves as a compelling interest to the state.

Not inherent in U.S. marriage laws

The state has no compelling interest to recognize the mutual affection of adults. The state does take an interest in regulating marriage and solemnizing it precisely because marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

If there is no compelling reason then gay people, infertile couples, and elderly people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they obviously cannot be part of a family unit. Also, apparently the U.S. needs more kids, because there aren’t enough in foster care already.

It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father.

Untrue

To quote Ryan:

“Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.”

You do realize that there can be gay childrearing couples, right? It would also make a “least restrictive means” (whatever that’s supposed to mean…) even lesser by allowing additional family support systems.

 

[markeverett49]

If there is no compelling reason then gay people, infertile couples, and elderly people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they obviously cannot be part of a family unit. .

You are blurring several things here.

First, everyone begins as part of a family. (We don’t give birth to ourselves, you know. Even if a child doesn’t know his mother and father, he has a mother and father, perhaps aunts and uncles as well, grandparents, perhaps siblings.)

Second, most elderly people who wish to marry were married before and have grown children.

Third, while all homosexual couplings are sterile, the infertility of heterosexual couples is not a) obvious to all (or even to the couple before marriage) and b) beyond remedy. (Many couples are, shall we say, less-than-optimally-fertile, which does not mean infertile but only that it is not so easy for the wife to become pregnant.)

Fourth, even if a couple is infertile this doesn’t mean it is wrong for them engage in the marital act but only that it is not expected to result in pregnancy. This is fundamentally different than engaging in a disorderd act that denies the complementarity of the sexes and is sterile by INTENT. (Both parties to a homosexual act may be fertile but that aspect of their being is excluded from the act. Freud—who was wrong about many things–said it was the criterion of judging something a perversion is that it bypassed reproduction in its aims and sought gratification independently; I think that’s a good rule of thumb.There is a difference between singing even though one does not sing well and lip synching…

 

[LightFromLight]

How do you know what God thinks?

Maybe he listened to him?

 

[inocente]

Maybe he listened to him?

I just heard God say that’s not the case.