Secular argument against gay marriage

[tonyrey]

And this is still off-topic, the thread is about secular arguments.

Civil partnerships already have the same legal consequences as marriages. Why is it necessary for them to receive the same name?

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey

I thought I would add my secular argument aswell.

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually compared to a man and a woman the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

I think same sex marriage supporters are very skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality are accused of speaking against homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

“pretend” is the key word!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Jesus was not an advocate of the iPhone or strawberry ice cream either.**

These are not moral issues and this thread is not about strawberry ice cream.

Your use of the word sodomy is very ambiguous since it’s defined as “any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex” and as such is something some heterosexuals do. Are you saying heterosexual sodomites are harmful, or homosexual sodomites, or homosexuals who aren’t sodomites, or what?

Nothing ambiguous about it. The penis was not designed for the anus. Sodomy is unnatural and wrong and unhealthy, whether between two heterosexuals or two same sex partners. St. Paul is right on and you are way off.

Again, there is no historical record in the history of the world of any civilization being so zany and uncouth as the contemplate same sex marriage. But of course, this will not stop the zany and uncouth from demanding their will be done.

 

[markeverett49]

First, the perpetual continuance of a practice cannot be justified by arguing that we don’t know what will happen if it stops, or we would never have seen an end to slavery or child labor or many other things.

Second, I quoted a section from the study which states a finding supported by other studies, not an assumption:

Regardless of parental sexual orientation, parents who reported less parenting stress, use of more effective disciplinary techniques, and greater happiness in their couple relationships had children who were described as well-adjusted. Thus, our results provide further evidence that family process variables are more closely tied to child outcomes than is family structure.

As for First, that train runs the other way too: novel practices might lead to disastrous results.
Second and Third, when you talk about successful parents you are talking about hetrerosexual parents, not same-sex couples because there are a) too few of them to generalize, and b) they are of such recent origin that no long-term studies are possible.

It does you no good to look at research about opposite-sex couples and say things would be the same for same-sex ones. They’re different kinds of couples.

 

[LightFromLight]

Jesus was not an advocate of the iPhone or strawberry ice cream either.

:

This is theologically unsound. Ice Cream is a divine substance.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Light

**This is theologically unsound. Ice Cream is a divine substance. **

Chocolate, Vanilla, and Holy Strawberry!

 

[inocente]

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.

In Spain this form of argument got very confused as it seems to conflict directly with the Church’s own teaching.

CCC 2358 says “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”, which would seem to require that society treats law-abiding citizens who happen to be gay equally to law-abiding citizens who happen not to be gay.

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.

Again, this is confusing since the UK law enforces the Church’s teaching that every sign of discrimination should be avoided (and a quick google shows it to have been passed by the parliament with a thumping majority).

If gay marriages are legalised it is only a question of time before priests and ministers are punished for refusing to comply.

I completely agree that legislation must safeguard ministers and priests, and from what I’ve seen the UK proposal does this. Do you not agree?

The uniqueness of gay marriage 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…

The issue for supporters of gay marriage is that in a civil setting avoiding discrimination takes moral precedence.

There is nothing whatsoever to prevent couples of any sexual orientation becoming legally united with all the privileges of marriage.

The irrational insistence on **being regarded as having a relationship which is identical in every respect - even in name - with that of a man and a woman **is motivated by a perverse desire to undermine its traditional status.

The insidious attack on marriage is another example of the current onslaught on religion from every conceivable angle. In the UK even the feast of Whitsun has been renamed the “Spring Bank Holiday”.

While having some sympathy with your lament for the golden age of your youth, slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

And it says here that Whitsun is the seventh Sunday after Easter, while Spring Bank Holiday is on a Monday.

 

[inocente]

Civil partnerships already have the same legal consequences as marriages. Why is it necessary for them to receive the same name?

There seem to be a number of differences in the UK – see here.

 

[inocente]

Nothing ambiguous about it. The penis was not designed for the anus. Sodomy is unnatural and wrong and unhealthy, whether between two heterosexuals or two same sex partners. St. Paul is right on and you are way off.

You’re still not using the word as it is defined, and I’m finding your logic confusing too.

Do you want to ban heterosexual couples who do it from adopting? If not, why?

Do you do want to ban homosexual couples who don’t do it (it’s not even possible for lesbians)? If so, why?

Again, there is no historical record in the history of the world of any civilization being so zany and uncouth as the contemplate same sex marriage. But of course, this will not stop the zany and uncouth from demanding their will be done.

That logic says we shouldn’t drive cars because the Persians didn’t and shouldn’t cure cancer because the Romans didn’t. Yikes.

The OP asks for a strong secular argument against gay marriage. Do you have any?

 

[inocente]

As for First, that train runs the other way too: novel practices might lead to disastrous results.

But that’s an argument for never changing anything.

*Second and Third, when you talk about successful parents you are talking about hetrerosexual parents, not same-sex couples because there are a) too few of them to generalize, and b) they are of such recent origin that no long-term studies are possible.

It does you no good to look at research about opposite-sex couples and say things would be the same for same-sex ones. They’re different kinds of couples.*

The research compared both.

 

[inocente]

This is theologically unsound. Ice Cream is a divine substance.

Given the subject of the thread, only vanilla.

 

[josh987654321]

The OP asks for a strong secular argument against gay marriage. Do you have any?

I do, I will repeat it for you, please read this inocente and let me know what you think, thank you.

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually compared to a man and a woman the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a nation/state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

inocente if you still fail to see why it’s harmful to legalise an illusion like same sex marriage and enforce others to play along with this lie, please read this - catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf

Also if people say “we shouldn’t force our definition of marriage onto everyone else by saying it’s between a man and a woman” than what right do these people have to force their definition of marriage between two people onto those in a polygamous relationship or other perverse kind? it’s hypocrisy at it’s best, complete double standards.

So if they legalise same sex marriage, they have to also legalise polygamous marriage, they have no grounds to refuse it, to even try to refuse it after legalising same sex marriage is absolutly hypocritical, further redefinitions of marriage are inevitable once same sex marriage is legalised.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Do you want to ban heterosexual couples who do it from adopting? If not, why?**

Who do anal sex? And how would you know they do it unless you ask them?

This is weird logic. Do we have to ask heterosexuals if they are sodomites? Whereas we can pretty well assume that same sex couples who are married are sodomites.

The OP asks for a strong secular argument against gay marriage. Do you have any?

The three strongest secular arguments are:

that it is unnatural (the penis was not made for the anus, and the mouth was not made for eating the vagina).

that sodomy is unhealthy both for body and soul. See the statistics on health problems due to sodomy.

that the world universally and through all time (until the present) has abhorred sodomy and has never countenanced in any society the marriage of same sex people.

 

[inocente]

I do, I will repeat it for you, please read this inocente and let me know what you think, thank you.

OK

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually compared to a man and a woman the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

That’s not a secular argument. It relies on a belief that body parts have purposes, which in turn requires a belief that they were designed by a designer-deity who had a purpose in mind for each part. That’s a religious belief only held by some religious folk.

Most of the rest of your post seems to rely on this premise and so isn’t secular either.

*So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a nation/state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.*

Sorry, couldn’t follow that. Civil marriage is about society recognizing two citizens’ love and commitment to each other.

inocente if you still fail to see why it’s harmful to legalise an illusion like same sex marriage and enforce others to play along with this lie, please read this - catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf

That’s a bit long so I only skimmed it but didn’t see any secular arguments.

Also if people say “we shouldn’t force our definition of marriage onto everyone else by saying it’s between a man and a woman” than what right do these people have to force their definition of marriage between two people onto those in a polygamous relationship or other perverse kind? it’s hypocrisy at it’s best, complete double standards.

We live in democracies - how is the tiny minority of gays forcing its definition on the rest of us?

And your slippery slope doesn’t follow, people are not clamoring for legalized polygamy.

So if they legalise same sex marriage, they have to also legalise polygamous marriage, they have no grounds to refuse it, to even try to refuse it after legalising same sex marriage is absolutly hypocritical, further redefinitions of marriage are inevitable once same sex marriage is legalised.

Who are “they”? Do you mean the representatives that get elected?

Stand for election if you want to make a difference bro.

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
Do you want to ban heterosexual couples who do it from adopting? If not, why?**

Who do anal sex? And how would you know they do it unless you ask them?

This is weird logic. Do we have to ask heterosexuals if they are sodomites? Whereas we can pretty well assume that same sex couples who are married are sodomites.

Sweeping assumptions, one rule for the rich and another for the poor. You really can’t see why a lot of people disagree with that way of thinking?

• The three strongest secular arguments are:

that it is unnatural (the penis was not made for the anus, and the mouth was not made for eating the vagina).*

That’s a religious belief, and even then is only held by some religious people.

that sodomy is unhealthy both for body and soul. See the statistics on health problems due to sodomy.

Irrelevant, those practices apply to straight as well as gay people, we are discussing gay marriage.

*that the world universally and through all time (until the present) has abhorred sodomy and has never countenanced in any society the marriage of same sex people.
*

Irrelevant, we’re not ancestor worshipers.

Those the best you’ve got?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t see how you can have a secular argument about this or a lot of other issues really. If you take the basic atheist mindset “We came from nothing, there’s no point to anything we do, and we’re going back to nothing.”, then there’s no point arguing about “gay marriage” is there?

You may, because the reasons for state support of traditional marriage and for changes in marriage throughout history are very secular and tied to worldly reasons such as politics and economics.

Sorry, couldn’t follow that. Civil marriage is about society recognizing two citizens’ love and commitment to each other.

Actually, it’s about two people having kids to ensure the continued survival of the state. Beyond that, love and commitment have no intrinsic value to the state.

Besides, gay relationships are much less stable and there are considerable commitment issues.

Not a good investment.

You really can’t see why a lot of people disagree with that way of thinking?

So, being popular makes you right?

We live in democracies - how is the tiny minority of gays forcing its definition on the rest of us?

Bed and breakfast owners sued

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/christian-bb-owners-sued-over-refusing-gay-guests-can-now-turn-away-homosexual-couples-8545706.html

Photographer sued in state that doesn’t even have civil “gay marriages”

scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/

These can also be used in response to “how does ‘gay marriage’ affect you?”

And your slippery slope doesn’t follow, people are not clamoring for legalized polygamy.

Maryland Muslim notes “gay marriage” passage good news for polygamy?

creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/maryland-imam-says-gay-marriage-bill-incentive-for-polygamous-muslim-men/

bluecollarphilosophy.com/2012/03/muslims-looks-for-a-path-to-polygamy-after-maryland-embraces-gay-marriage/

“UK legally recognizes Islamic wives”

arabianbusiness.com/uk-legally-recognises-multiple-islamic-wives-121789.html

 

[davidv]

OK

That’s not a secular argument. It relies on a belief that body parts have purposes, which in turn requires a belief that they were designed by a designer-deity who had a purpose in mind for each part. That’s a religious belief only held by some religious folk.

[snip]

What definition of secular includes the dogma that there is no purposes to body parts.

 

[SuperLuigi]

We live in democracies - how is the tiny minority of gays forcing its definition on the rest of us?

To further elaborate, it’s hardly a “tiny minority”. While not all GLBTQ folks agree with so-called “gay marriage”, the cause has since been taken over largely by straights who get all bent out of shape over those who support traditional marriage and as one UIUC commentator noted, is “so they can get some kind of badge to be admitted into some social circles”.

 

[JimG]

That’s not a secular argument. It relies on a belief that body parts have purposes, which in turn requires a belief that they were designed by a designer-deity who had a purpose in mind for each part. That’s a religious belief only held by some religious folk.

Just browsing through the thread, this comment astonished me. Biologists recognize that bodily parts have a purpose, and that says nothing about their religious beliefs. I am simply astonished that the mere recognition that men and women are anatomically different for a reason is taken as a “religious” belief!

Apparently any recognition of the obvious facts of nature is taken as a “religious” argument. Truly astonishing.

 

[inocente]

Actually, it’s about two people having kids to ensure the continued survival of the state. Beyond that, love and commitment have no intrinsic value to the state.

By your logic a Catholic marriage is about two people having kids to ensure the continued survival of the Church.

*Besides, gay relationships are much less stable and there are considerable commitment issues. *

Ban gays from getting married and then criticize them for not having stable relationships. Kind of like not educating girls and then criticizing women for not being educated.

So, being popular makes you right?

No, reading what’s written makes you right.

Bed and breakfast owners sued

I love conspiracy theories - a tiny minority of gays somehow get everyone else to vote for their guys to make the equality laws.

Maryland Muslim notes “gay marriage” passage good news for polygamy?

And also on the twilight zone tonight… by all means link extremist bloggers, they can only increase support for gay marriage.