Secular argument against gay marriage

[markeverett49]

Errr… never heard of adoption?

When no straight couple wants to adopt an orphan, would you rather he/she be raised in an institution or by a married gay couple?

Yes, I have heard of adoption. I’m in favor of it, though I would not allow same-sex couples to adopt, “married” or not.

I would restrict adoption to married (heterosexual) couples and they would be, I should hope, supported by the state in doing something that is for their own good, the good of the child, and the good of the community. The raising of children by their parents is best, followed by a married couple who adopt the child as their own. Both things are in the state’s best interest and should be encouraged.

In answer to your second question, I would recommend against allowing a same-sex couple to adopt a child, even if that meant that the alternative was to go un-adopted.

 

[tonyrey]

I think a great secular argument against gay marriage is “separation of Church and State.” The outcome of legalized gay marriage is that priests and minister will be fined or put in jail for not performing gay marriages. Do people really want that???

It is only a question of time. In the name of “tolerance” the Catholic Children’s Society in the UK has already been forced to close and a Catholic boarding house (family hotel) has been taken to court. Such is the nature of a secular society which fails to recognise the rights of minorities. When nothing is sacred everything is ultimately permissible - as we have already seen in the Massacre of the Innocents (millions of unborn babies) - and morality is replaced by expediency, following the example of King Herod…

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the fact that you seem to genuinely believe a child can be “counselled” and “supported” through a coercive and abusive sexual relationship such that they suffer no physical or psychological harm demonstrates that the “sex is bad unless God gives permission” approach to sexual morality is immature and hyperbolic.

This is spurious on your part. You define coercive and abusive as any interaction where an adult convinces a child of anything and, then, ipso facto, a sexual relationship is coercive and abusive, and therefore, wrong. No, what is wrong with an adult sexual relationship with a child is not that is necessarily coercive and abusive but that a child should not be the means for the sexual gratification of an adult, whether or not abuse is present. It is possible to engage a child in ways that are not coercive or abusive, but the presence of abuse or coercion are not what make it wrong. To argue that point, as you do, opens up the possibility of the counter argument that if an adult-child sexual encounter can be proven to not involve abuse or coercion then it could be morally acceptable. Are you prepared to accept that? Personally I am not.

What the point being made here is is that it is just wrong for a child to be used by an adult for sexual gratification, whether abuse or coercion exist is irrelevant to the matter. The reason it is wrong is because sex has a very specific purpose. Ultimately, it is to bring new human life into existence. There may be additional, beneficial aspects that go with that reality, but that end is what sex is about. Certainly, the compatability and love between the couple is a requirement for success in terms of securing the well-being of children, but the ultimate biological purpose and end of sex is not for individual gratification, it is for creating new life.
Divorced from that end, the ethics surrounding sex become very susceptible to distortion.

To portray this as “sex is bad without God’s permission” is nonsense. An attitude concerning sex that completely separates it from its connection to the creation of life and reduces it to the level of inconsequential gratification is precisely the attitude that has led to the explosion of the abortion and contraception industries as commercially viable enterprises, along with a multitude of moral failures on the part of ordinary human beings.

 

[LightFromLight]

Err… legalizing gay marriage allows the state to marry gays, while each religion is free to continue following its own rules on who it will and won’t marry. Can you name a country that has legalized gay marriage where that’s not the case?

People have been sued and lost their jobs because of their view of what marriage is. Only time will tell when its widespread. It isn’t even legal in the UK yet and people have lost jobs due to their view. Spain seems to separate the secular from the religious affairs quite well I must say.

On another note, how can you want this? Do you believe in the Gospel?

 

[BrunoMaria]

Gay and lesbian form of living, has at all times been in vogue among certain sinful circles. It’s never been normal tough. All - those committing this sin as those who never even thought of it, always knew that it’s perverse. Otherwise Mosaic laws wouldn’t condemn homosexuality - as well as 1.250 years later in many biblical verses, such as 1Cor 6,9: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals.

If however they would remain among themselves in sin, it wouldn’t be so harmful to the rest of the world. But no; they demonstrate aggressively a imagined “righteousness” of their lifestyle and moreover so, they betray children into the sin of homosexual life. Therefor it is a severe thread to as well the secular, as the spiritual world. It obscures the truth and obfuscates the common mind by this darkness and tyranny of wrong leaders of opinion. Why surrenders the world to these master of that spin and allows their ill opinion to become a “new truth” even the Protestant Church fell for and now even marries same-sex couples? It’s hard to believe that the whole world - state after state presently drowns in this hellish vortex of wrong spin, propaganda and indoctrination!

Beyond that and in addition to this disaster, the adopted children of homo- and lesbian “couples” will not only inevitably sexually abused (which such proponents of course fiercely deny) as homosexual couples have no natural hindrance to do so. These kids also will teased by other children for living within same-sex couples. “Who of the two is your Dad - who the Mom? - What do they do?” Finally - since indoctrinated that this perversity is “normal” they even might spread such lifestyle. It’s all the same possible that they suddenly will be disgusted at these “parents”. It’s simply a disgrace and desaster of worst social, secular as well as religious kind.

Yours
Bruno

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
When no straight couple wants to adopt an orphan, would you rather he/she be raised in an institution or by a married gay couple? **

If I was the heterosexual child in question, I would prefer to be raised in an institution. I would be far less likely to be corrupted by the example of sodomites.

Do you have evidence? Can you prove any type of corruption that would be more likely to occur with gay parents than with straight parents or in an institution?

When I googled “orphan abuse”, the hits were for institutions:

guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184828/Revealed-decades-ritual-child-abuse-Catholic-schools-orphanages-damned-report.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplessis_Orphans

 

[inocente]

Yes, I have heard of adoption. I’m in favor of it, though I would not allow same-sex couples to adopt, “married” or not.

I would restrict adoption to married (heterosexual) couples and they would be, I should hope, supported by the state in doing something that is for their own good, the good of the child, and the good of the community. The raising of children by their parents is best, followed by a married couple who adopt the child as their own. Both things are in the state’s best interest and should be encouraged.

In answer to your second question, I would recommend against allowing a same-sex couple to adopt a child, even if that meant that the alternative was to go un-adopted.

Do you have a good reason for your opinion? I think the vast majority of care professionals would say an institution is the worst place for the child, and being raised in a loving home is far better, and they’d have evidence to back that up.

 

[inocente]

On another note, how can you want this? Do you believe in the Gospel?

It’s because I believe in the gospel - the gospel is rational, unlike homophobia.

 

[Sair]

This is spurious on your part. You define coercive and abusive as any interaction where an adult convinces a child of anything and, then, ipso facto, a sexual relationship is coercive and abusive, and therefore, wrong. No, what is wrong with an adult sexual relationship with a child is not that is necessarily coercive and abusive but that a child should not be the means for the sexual gratification of an adult, whether or not abuse is present. It is possible to engage a child in ways that are not coercive or abusive, but the presence of abuse or coercion are not what make it wrong. To argue that point, as you do, opens up the possibility of the counter argument that if an adult-child sexual encounter can be proven to not involve abuse or coercion then it could be morally acceptable. Are you prepared to accept that? Personally I am not.

But a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is necessarily coercive and abusive - the child doesn’t have the emotional wherewithal to successfully cope with such a relationship and must necessarily be at the mercy of the adult’s will in this regard.

What the point being made here is is that it is just wrong for a child to be used by an adult for sexual gratification, whether abuse or coercion exist is irrelevant to the matter. The reason it is wrong is because sex has a very specific purpose. Ultimately, it is to bring new human life into existence. There may be additional, beneficial aspects that go with that reality, but that end is what sex is about. Certainly, the compatability and love between the couple is a requirement for success in terms of securing the well-being of children, but the ultimate biological purpose and end of sex is not for individual gratification, it is for creating new life.
Divorced from that end, the ethics surrounding sex become very susceptible to distortion.

To portray this as “sex is bad without God’s permission” is nonsense. An attitude concerning sex that completely separates it from its connection to the creation of life and reduces it to the level of inconsequential gratification is precisely the attitude that has led to the explosion of the abortion and contraception industries as commercially viable enterprises, along with a multitude of moral failures on the part of ordinary human beings.

What a narrow understanding of the effects of sexual intimacy. If you understand everything else in the world according to its perceived primary end, do you also refuse medical attention on the grounds that disease is ‘meant’ to kill? Do you live in a cave because houses are an artificial construct? Do you wear only natural fibres, rather than succumb to the temptations of synthetics? Do you avoid any interference in the natural world? If not, then sticking to a strictly biologically based “ultimate end” interpretation of what sex is for is hypocritical. And in any case, if sex is primarily for reproduction, then that doesn’t cancel out abusive relationships with children - most girls begin to menstruate around 12 years of age, when our society still considers them children, and when they are still emotionally immature. The biological function of sex could easily be fulfilled if an adult male had sex with a young girl, but that doesn’t make it morally acceptable for such a relationship to take place.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Do you have evidence? Can you prove any type of corruption that would be more likely to occur with gay parents than with straight parents or in an institution?

The evidence I have is common sense. But that appears not to be the kind of evidence you would accept.

It’s because I believe in the gospel - the gospel is rational, unlike homophobia.

If you think same-sex marriage is advocated in the gospels, please point to the relevant passages. Thank you.

(By the way, such a passage should indicate approval of sodomy, which is implied by same-sex marriage.)

 

[BrunoMaria]

Can you prove any type of corruption that would be more likely to occur with gay parents than with straight parents or in an institution?

I’m afraid this is an answer that doesn’t have the slightest clue what it’s all about.
How can anyone approve the situation of a child being put amidst a sinful group?!

 

[inocente]

I’m afraid this is an answer that doesn’t have the slightest clue what it’s all about.
How can anyone approve the situation of a child being put amidst a sinful group?!

The thread is about good secular arguments, not about various religious opinions on what is or isn’t a sin.

 

[inocente]

Do you have evidence? Can you prove any type of corruption that would be more likely to occur with gay parents than with straight parents or in an institution?

The evidence I have is common sense. But that appears not to be the kind of evidence you would accept.

So you don’t have any evidence, just an opinion.

It’s because I believe in the gospel - the gospel is rational, unlike homophobia.

If you think same-sex marriage is advocated in the gospels, please point to the relevant passages. Thank you.

(By the way, such a passage should indicate approval of sodomy, which is implied by same-sex marriage.)

Wow, that takes bible literalism to a whole new level. Try reading the NT again, and this time take note of all the bits where Jesus says please don’t reduce love and His kingdom to a list of rules, then you’ll understand the good news.

Seriously, do it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you don’t have any evidence, just an opinion.

Wow, that takes bible literalism to a whole new level. Try reading the NT again, and this time take note of all the bits where Jesus says please don’t reduce love and His kingdom to a list of rules, then you’ll understand the good news.

Seriously, do it.

Obviously, a reply to our post must be contrary to the intent of this thread, but I have been seriously reading the Bible for many years and have not reached your conclusion. In fact, I agree with the Church on this point about gay marriage

You are only partially correct about reducing love and the kingdom to rules because rules can be followed externally by appearances only, but that doesn’t mean we abandon rules completely, just see them in perspective. Love has to be internal and requires greater (not lesser) consistency and adherence. As Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, as is clear from his Sermon on the Mount: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt 5:28) He also made it very clear that marriage is between one woman and one man.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh…” (Matt 19:5)

Before you go on with this, read the following words of Jesus very carefully:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. ( Matt 5:17-20)

 

[markeverett49]

Do you have a good reason for your opinion? I think the vast majority of care professionals would say an institution is the worst place for the child, and being raised in a loving home is far better, and they’d have evidence to back that up.

I prefer adoption into the home of a married (heterosexual) couple, yes. I do not think institutions are picnics.

Here’s a example of abuse twice-over involving a same-sex couple:
nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

Why they were allowed to adopt nine boys is beyond me. Even those who think same-sex couples make fine parents, two guys raising nine boys? Then, of course, there’s the rape of some of the boys.

Not that all same-sex couples adopt children to sexually abuse them. I’m not saying that. I think most mean well, but as it happens, nearly everyone means well, but just because you mean well doesn’t mean you do well. I think it best for children to be raised by their mother and father; short of that, a married (heterosexual) couple who model a loving, nurturing male-female bond. In no case do I think it a good idea to let a same-sex couple play “mom and dad” to a child.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is necessarily coercive and abusive - the child doesn’t have the emotional wherewithal to successfully cope with such a relationship and must necessarily be at the mercy of the adult’s will in this regard.

You have a very stereotyped view of children. The issue is complicated by the fact that only adults with disturbed views of sexuality would even think of targeting children and therefore likely exert a coercive force in the relationship.

On the other hand, it could be argued that anyone with a view of sex as divorced from its principal end of creation must have a rather narcissistic and self-oriented purpose for it, since its purpose can then only be one of self or mutual gratification rather than creation.

What a narrow understanding of the effects of sexual intimacy. If you understand everything else in the world according to its perceived primary end, do you also refuse medical attention on the grounds that disease is ‘meant’ to kill?

Creation of new life is akin to a disease “meant to kill?” What a superlatively inane response.

Do you live in a cave because houses are an artificial construct? Do you wear only natural fibres, rather than succumb to the temptations of synthetics? Do you avoid any interference in the natural world? If not, then sticking to a strictly biologically based “ultimate end” interpretation of what sex is for is hypocritical. And in any case, if sex is primarily for reproduction, then that doesn’t cancel out abusive relationships with children - most girls begin to menstruate around 12 years of age, when our society still considers them children, and when they are still emotionally immature. The biological function of sex could easily be fulfilled if an adult male had sex with a young girl, but that doesn’t make it morally acceptable for such a relationship to take place.

Creating new life does not merely mean creating it irrespective of the circumstances. What it does mean is understanding this power in light of the miracle that it is and the awesome gift that we have been given. Creating new life means being responsible for and looking after these new human beings we have created. It is a magical gift that we should treat with awe and profound respect, not disdain and frivolity. Frankly, it is you who are advocating taking this power that humans have, separating it from its capacity to create life and treating it as a source of frivolous amusement, as if its real power can be safely ignored or disregarded because humans have come up with effective disposal techniques that defuse the power and make it inconsequential, completely disregarding the millions of abortions each year where life is relegated to the trashbin of time. You seem to care about children, but in reality you have no issue with millions being killed for the sake of a philosophy of gratification that you claim does no direct harm. Really? Does no harm?

Do you really think God is fine with a frivolous abuse of a power that is clearly intended for a purpose and that should be seriously treated as miraculous when it is being reduced to nothing more than a gratuitous amusement by self-absorbed human beings?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

So you don’t have any evidence, just an opinion.

Common sense means self evident … as I said, not the kind of evidence you appreciate.

Wow, that takes bible literalism to a whole new level. Try reading the NT again, and this time take note of all the bits where Jesus says please don’t reduce love and His kingdom to a list of rules, then you’ll understand the good news.

You didn’t answer my question. Try again. Where in the New Testament are we taught that same-sex marriages are holy and approved by our Lord?

 

[tonyrey]

You have a very stereotyped view of children. The issue is complicated by the fact that only adults with disturbed views of sexuality would even think of targeting children and therefore likely exert a coercive force in the relationship.

On the other hand, it could be argued that anyone with a view of sex as divorced from its principal end of creation must have a rather narcissistic and self-oriented purpose for it, since its purpose can then only be one of self or mutual gratification rather than creation.

Creation of new life is akin to a disease “meant to kill?” What a superlatively inane response.

Creating new life does not merely mean creating it irrespective of the circumstances. What it does mean is understanding this power in light of the miracle that it is and the awesome gift that we have been given. Creating new life means being responsible for and looking after these new human beings we have created. It is a magical gift that we should treat with awe and profound respect, not disdain and frivolity. Frankly, it is you who are advocating taking this power that humans have, separating it from its capacity to create life and treating it as a source of frivolous amusement, as if its real power can be safely ignored or disregarded because humans have come up with effective disposal techniques that defuse the power and make it inconsequential, completely disregarding the millions of abortions each year where life is relegated to the trashbin of time. You seem to care about children, but in reality you have no issue with millions being killed for the sake of a philosophy of gratification that you claim does no direct harm. Really? Does no harm?

Do you really think God is fine with a frivolous abuse of a power that is clearly intended for a purpose and that should be seriously treated as miraculous when it is being reduced to nothing more than a gratuitous amusement by self-absorbed human beings?

You’ve summed it up in a nutshell. “gratification” is the key word…

 

[tonyrey]

A powerful secular argument against the demand for gay marriage is that it is a case of overcompensation motivated by the paranoia and inferiority complex of those who believe it will demonstrate that everyone has equal rights in every respect! Sympathy and compassion for the victims of injustice and prejudice should not persuade us to allow the foundation of society to be destroyed in the name of “tolerance”. To do so would be to encourage the permissiveness which has already fragmented families and caused immense suffering for fathers, mothers and children alike.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The most powerful argument against same-sex marriage is that it is ludicrous in the extreme.

Never in the history of the world has it been countenanced by any civilization until now.

That should be a sign that we live in a society so depraved that no others have equaled us.