Secular argument against gay marriage

[tonyrey]

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.

Its uniqueness is regarded by its apostles as a sign of progress whereas in reality it is taking permissiveness to its logical conclusion and endowing every form of sexual relationship with the cloak of legality - as if human laws are necessarily just and beneficial for society - in addition to being a futile attempt on the part of the enemies of religion to destroy the spiritual significance of marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**… a futile attempt on the part of the enemies of religion to destroy the spiritual significance of marriage. **

I hope you are right that it’s futile. Unfortunately, even a dominantly Catholic Supreme court is no guarantee.

 

[LightFromLight]

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

Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Really? The gospel is rational, unlike homosexual behaviour. Also, condemning the act isn’t homophobia. Homophobia would be verbally or physically abusing a person for the solely because of their sexual orientation.

 

[BrunoMaria]

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

A real good secular argument against gay marriage, is the described horror of a child being put amidst a same-sex couple. We soon have a lot of emotionally disturbed adults who had to spend their childhood among such.

It’s not at all irrelevant if it’s a sin or not. Nothing in our life is of purely secular relevance. All there is, all we do or think, all we are for or against, must inevitably be matched and checked up with God’s will. If it’s quite obviously versus God’s will, it’s versus God and so incredible and sin.

There are no various religious opinions, but the one and only word, teaching and doctrine of Jesus Christ. Though seen from different angles - depending on the denomination, there is but one truth all will see the day they died: Jesus Christ and those He appointed to spread His singular truth - St. Peter, later all who where present in the Pentecost-incident and finally St. Paul, who gave a clear answer to your question in Romans 1:26-27 the last poster quoted.

Yours
Bruno

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

**… a futile attempt on the part of the enemies of religion to destroy the spiritual significance of marriage. **

I hope you are right that it’s futile. Unfortunately, even a dominantly Catholic Supreme court is no guarantee.

In this world, alas, evil often has its moment of triumph - as the Crucifixion of Jesus demonstrates - but in the long term its victory is an illusion, thank God…

 

[inocente]

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)

Off-topic as you say, but when the law expert asks Jesus “And who is my neighbor?”, Jesus gives the opposite of a legalistic reply, instead telling the parable of the Good Samaritan - the Law isn’t a rulebook and its commands can’t be turned into a rulebook, legalism is the death of the kingdom.

As Paul says He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. - 2 Cor 3:6-8

 

[inocente]

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.

Jiminy Cricket, I hope the authorities are being investigated over that case, something went badly wrong there.

We could trade reports of various bad parenting from around the world but it would be unjust to base social policy on a few headlines (or we’d ban gasoline due to this case).

I don’t believe you’ll find any statistical evidence to support your view that straights are better at “playing mom and dad” to an adopted child.

 

[inocente]

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

This is a philosophy forum, and your opinion that it’s evidence is just evidence of your opinion, which is what’s called a circular argument. And anyway many more peoples’ “common sense” now comes to the exact opposite conclusion from your “common sense”.

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?

It’s in the entire gospel, the Spirit.

Seek, and ye shall find.

Although if your “common sense” really tells you the NT prescribes every answer in the universe, let me know the chapter and verse of the section about whether to buy a Toyota pickup.

 

[inocente]

Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Really? The gospel is rational, unlike homosexual behaviour. Also, condemning the act isn’t homophobia. Homophobia would be verbally or physically abusing a person for the solely because of their sexual orientation.

This is off-topic, we should be sticking to secular arguments. But I wish people would read the entire letter and not just pick verses out of context.

Paul is writing of those who “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles”. Does that describe the Catholic homosexual sitting in the pew next to you?

“They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.” Does that describe the Catholic homosexual sitting in the pew next to you?

Paul seems to be writing about some sect who have given up their Christian or Jewish faith - “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”. They are so depraved that as to engage in the opposite of their natural sexual orientation.

But whatever, Paul then continues in chapter 2 with “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else”. The “therefore” means in chapter 1 he was setting up his argument about conflict in the church, not blurting out an incoherent aside about gays.

Anyway, the thread’s about secular arguments.

 

[inocente]

A real good secular argument against gay marriage, is the described horror of a child being put amidst a same-sex couple. We soon have a lot of emotionally disturbed adults who had to spend their childhood among such.

I guess you could also argue that some children would be horrified at having ginger-haired or black or poor parents. Not a great argument then.

*It’s not at all irrelevant if it’s a sin or not. Nothing in our life is of purely secular relevance. All there is, all we do or think, all we are for or against, must inevitably be matched and checked up with God’s will. If it’s quite obviously versus God’s will, it’s versus God and so incredible and sin.

There are no various religious opinions, but the one and only word, teaching and doctrine of Jesus Christ. Though seen from different angles - depending on the denomination, there is but one truth all will see the day they died: Jesus Christ and those He appointed to spread His singular truth - St. Peter, later all who where present in the Pentecost-incident and finally St. Paul, who gave a clear answer to your question in Romans 1:26-27 the last poster quoted.*

That’s your opinion as a Catholic. The Quakers are one religious group who perform gay marriages. As I said, there are various religious opinions.

 

[markeverett49]

I don’t need statistical evidence to know that a man and a woman married to each other model a man and woman married to each other better than do either two men or two women “married” to each other.

I am amazed at how people who describe themselves as homosexual are adamant that a guy and another guy is equivalent to a guy and a girl. That men and women are different is what allows them as a couple to provide what neither can alone (or with another member of the same sex.)

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, some sections of society would welcome that. The state has already crossed the line of separation in this regard by recognising marriages conducted within the contstraints of religion, so your argument here is rather spurious.

Your objection is entirely spurious! In the UK the state has already fined a Christian couple for not accepting a homosexual couple as guests in their boarding house and forced the Catholic Children’s (Adoption) Society to close down… If gay marriages are legalised it is only a question of time before priests and ministers are punished for refusing to comply.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t need statistical evidence to know that a man and a woman married to each other model a man and woman married to each other better than do either two men or two women “married” to each other.

I am amazed at how people who describe themselves as homosexual are adamant that a guy and another guy is equivalent to a guy and a girl. That men and women are different is what allows them as a couple to provide what neither can alone (or with another member of the same sex.)

It’s one of the weakest arguments I have ever come across!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**I don’t believe you’ll find any statistical evidence to support your view that straights are better at “playing mom and dad” to an adopted child. **

I’m afraid that’s because you don’t believe in common sense.

Or as Mark Twain put it: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

 

[tonyrey]

inocente

**I don’t believe you’ll find any statistical evidence to support your view that straights are better at “playing mom and dad” to an adopted child. **

I’m afraid that’s because you don’t believe in common sense.

Or as Mark Twain put it: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

I wonder how many heterosexual advocates of gay marriage would prefer to have been brought up by two men - or two women… Even more interesting would be the reasons they give for their preference but I doubt if any will be forthcoming on this forum.

 

[markeverett49]

I wonder how many heterosexual advocates of gay marriage would prefer to have been brought up by two men - or two women… Even more interesting would be the reasons they give for their preference but I doubt if any will be forthcoming on this forum.

I wonder how many children being brought up with “two moms” or “two dads” wish they had one of each like a normal family… (“Normal” used to be a pejorative but now many people who once used it that way now delight in praising same-sex couples as so normal…)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I wonder how many heterosexual advocates of gay marriage would prefer to have been brought up by two men - or two women… Even more interesting would be the reasons they give for their preference but I doubt if any will be forthcoming on this forum.

I don’t think having access to that information would provide much for the discussion going on here.

You’ll find that some people are glad they are not members of groups that have been treated negatively by their society. Not necessarily because that individual views the group negatively, but because being a member of the group would also mean being the target for some types of negative treatment. Ex: In USA history for people of heritage other than European it wasn’t uncommon for there to be negative reactions to their heritage. There were instances (and still are instances, if you go to the right region and are looking in the right group) of people that wished they were not part of their ethnic group because of this treatment.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think having access to that information would provide much for the discussion going on here.

You’ll find that some people are glad they are not members of groups that have been treated negatively by their society. Not necessarily because that individual views the group negatively, but because being a member of the group would also mean being the target for some types of negative treatment. Ex: In USA history for people of heritage other than European it wasn’t uncommon for there to be negative reactions to their heritage. There were instances (and still are instances, if you go to the right region and are looking in the right group) of people that wished they were not part of their ethnic group because of this treatment.

I agree but that is an additional rather than a primary consideration where children are concerned. They spend most of their time at home and are deeply affected by life with their father and mother. In a family no man or woman can adequately replace a person of the opposite sex. It stands to reason that two men or two women replacing a father and mother is neither natural nor advisable.

 

[tonyrey]

I wonder how many children being brought up with “two moms” or “two dads” wish they had one of each like a normal family… (“Normal” used to be a pejorative but now many people who once used it that way now delight in praising same-sex couples as so normal…)

It may be genetically normal for a small minority of adults but it is certainly not psychologically normal for children to be deprived of a father or mother - as I know to my cost - or for a parent to attempt to fulfil the role of the opposite sex in the family.

 

[inocente]

I don’t need statistical evidence to know that a man and a woman married to each other model a man and woman married to each other better than do either two men or two women “married” to each other.

I am amazed at how people who describe themselves as homosexual are adamant that a guy and another guy is equivalent to a guy and a girl. That men and women are different is what allows them as a couple to provide what neither can alone (or with another member of the same sex.)

If you can’t state any rationale for your opinion other than bafflement that anyone could think differently then it’s hard for others to distinguish it from prejudice.

For instance without changing the form of your first paragraph but merely by making a substitution, your opponents could unkindly rewrite it as “I don’t need statistical evidence to know that a white man and a white woman married to each other model a man and woman married to each other better than do either a white man and a black woman or a black man and a white woman “married” to each other.”

See the problem? You need to avoid making it easy for your opponents to sling mud.