Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

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.

Nothing to do with the obvious fact that men and women are anatomically different, there are no purposes in evolution, there are no design agencies to assign purposes in evolution.

btw for anyone who doesn’t know that’s a banned subject, see the stickies.

 

[JimG]

Nothing to do with the obvious fact that men and women are anatomically different, there are no purposes in evolution, there are no design agencies to assign purposes in evolution.

btw for anyone who doesn’t know that’s a banned subject, see the stickies.

I’m not talking about evolution. I’m acknowledging the obvious fact that there are two sexes, that there are obvious anatomical differences, and that the sexes are complementary.

Recognizing that the eyes are for seeing, that ears are for hearing, that reproductive systems are for reproduction, does not strike me as a religious tenet; it’s only biology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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

It is not a religious belief. It is a secular instinct that the penis was not made for the mouth or for the anus, and the vagina was not made for the mouth. It violates common sense to believe otherwise. Aristotle and Plato said so, and they were not Catholics.

Irrelevant, we’re not ancestor worshipers.

Yes, we are. If we weren’t we’d be living only in the present … a sad and primitive place to be.

Those the best you’ve got?

One more: heterosexual children have a right to heterosexual parents.

 

[markeverett49]

There is a related fallacy of calling something a slippery slope that isn’t. Legalizing same-sex marriage presents a fine example. This isn’t—whichever side one is on—a “little thing” or a “small step.” It is a radical break with tradition and law. When someone says that this may lead to, say, polygamy, that is not calling this a slippery slope, it’s realizing that would be pretty much the same thing! (ie, a contractual bond among consenting adults who want it to be called marriage.)

The ‘slippery slope’ defense was used against Pope Paul VI when he issued “Humanae Vitae” in the '60s. As we all know now, he was right!

 

[inocente]

It is not a religious belief. It is a secular instinct that the penis was not made for the mouth or for the anus, and the vagina was not made for the mouth. It violates common sense to believe otherwise. Aristotle and Plato said so, and they were not Catholics.

It’s endearingly naive of you to think that heterosexuals, with around 97% of the population, don’t account for far more “misuse” of some of those body parts that you keep on and on about.

They obviously don’t share your instincts or what you think is common sense.

Irrelevant, we’re not ancestor worshipers.

Yes, we are. If we weren’t we’d be living only in the present … a sad and primitive place to be.

I worship God.

Those the best you’ve got?

One more: heterosexual children have a right to heterosexual parents.

That’s not an argument against gay marriage, and how do you know which children will turn out to be heterosexual anyway? It also sounds prejudiced: do intelligent children have a right to intelligent parents, and sporty children a right to sporty parents, etc?

 

[markeverett49]

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.

You mistake “secular argument” for “something you agree with.” It is COMMONPLACE in biology to speak of the purposes / functions of body parts—ears are for hearing, eyes are for seeing, and the genitalia of humans facilitate reproduction. This is not some odd religious notion, it’s the way things are. That we are a sexually reproducing species and only the male-female coupling facilitates that is the truth. Religious thinkers may see religious significance in that but it’s not as if “secular” thinkers deny that body parts have functions. (For example, we have learned a lot about the brain from studying the victims of trauma to specific parts of the brain because an injury in one place may make it harder to recognize faces while injury to another makes it hard to speak.) Well, YOU deny it but you are out of synch with, uh, Mainstream Secular Thought which holds that biology is a real science and it assumes that body parts have functions, and that goes for the stomachs, lungs, and genitalia of human beings.

 

[inocente]

There is a related fallacy of calling something a slippery slope that isn’t. Legalizing same-sex marriage presents a fine example. This isn’t—whichever side one is on—a “little thing” or a “small step.” It is a radical break with tradition and law. When someone says that this may lead to, say, polygamy, that is not calling this a slippery slope, it’s realizing that would be pretty much the same thing! (ie, a contractual bond among consenting adults who want it to be called marriage.)

The conversation was about the UK, which currently has civil unions, so civil gay marriage is not a big step.

We live in democracies, and in a number of countries the majority want gay marriage and an end to discrimination. It’s illogical to fear that will lead to equal rights for polygamists or whatever when there’s nothing like a majority for it.

 

[markeverett49]

The conversation was about the UK, which currently has civil unions, so civil gay marriage is not a big step.

We live in democracies, and in a number of countries the majority want gay marriage and an end to discrimination. It’s illogical to fear that will lead to equal rights for polygamists or whatever when there’s nothing like a majority for it.

I think many homosexual persons in the UK regarded it as a very big step.

I realize you consider restricting marriage to heterosexual couples to be discrimination but it’s begging the question to assume it in an argument about same-sex marriage!

 

[tonyrey]

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

Not one of them is a valid objection to the preservation - rather than distortion - of traditional marriage provided that the necessary legal modifications are implemented.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It is a biological fact in addition to the Christian belief that man and woman are created for each other.

 

[tonyrey]

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

To think otherwise is to rejecting a **biological **fact.

 

[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***

1. Confusion in Spain does not justify the demand for equal rights in** every** respect.
2. 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”.
3. 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 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).

1. What **is **confusing is the use of the same term for two essentially different relationships.
2. To do so is discrimination against the traditional and religious concept of marriage based on the prejudice and scepticism of so-called “humanists”.

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?

1. There is no guarantee that the law will not be modified to conform with secular demands for absolute equality.

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.

1. It is a false assumption that the use of different terms for different relationships constitutes discrimination.
2. Avoiding discrimination in a civil setting takes moral precedence over religious beliefs for those who oppose religion.

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.

1. Ad hominem plus evasion of the fact that the feast of Whitsun has been removed from the calendar to suppress as far as possible references to Christianity.

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

1. Quibbling doesn’t alter the fact that the feast of Whitsun has been removed from the calendar to suppress as far as possible references to Christianity .

 

[josh987654321]

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.

Id have a rebuttal argument, but every other post after basically put all my views forward.

Maybe you are using your ears to read my argument and thus why you can’t understand

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

It’s a very good read, I strongly recommend reading through it thoroughly - catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf

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

It’s no longer a minority when these delusional people legalise same sex marriage, this illusion will be provided for the next generation aswell, it will confirm the illusion for society.

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

Yes they are, It might take a little time, but it has to happen, it’s hypocritical for people pro same sex marriage not to allow it, it’s already being argued in canada, for the same reason they legalised same sex marriage, it’s the same reason they have to legalise polygamous marriage haha, thats irony for you.
healthland.time.com/2010/12/01/will-polygamy-be-legalized-in-canada/

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

Whoever supports same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

****It’s endearingly naive of you to think that heterosexuals, with around 97% of the population, don’t account for far more “misuse” of some of those body parts that you keep on and on about.

They obviously don’t share your instincts or what you think is common sense.****

I think you mean to say some heterosexuals are sodomites. That’s true. And they know it’s sinful, as they know that fornication and adultery is sinful. However, they don’t get married to prove they are sodomites. They get married to prove they are first and foremost heterosexuals.
**
I worship God.**

But I suspect you despise St. Paul for that comment in Romans.

and how do you know which children will turn out to be heterosexual anyway?

And how do you know which ones won’t?

**It also sounds prejudiced: do intelligent children have a right to intelligent parents, and sporty children a right to sporty parents, etc? **

Nice try.

**there are no purposes in evolution, there are no design agencies to assign purposes in evolution. **

Ever heard of Natural Selection?

We design a hammer to hit with.

Nature designs wood and steel so that we can design a hammer. Nature designs an ocean so that we can design ships. Nature designs air so that we can design airplanes. Nature designs earth so that we can design cars and trains. Nature designs brains so that we can figure out what Nature has designed.

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.

By this logic we must treat law abiding citizens who happen to be polygamists equally to law abiding citizens who happen to be monogamists. So are you arguing for legalized polygamy as well? Yes or no? I’ll bet I don’t get a yes or no!

 

[inocente]

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”.

The thread is about a strong secular argument, not weak conspiracy theories.

 

[inocente]

I’m not talking about evolution. I’m acknowledging the obvious fact that there are two sexes, that there are obvious anatomical differences, and that the sexes are complementary.

Recognizing that the eyes are for seeing, that ears are for hearing, that reproductive systems are for reproduction, does not strike me as a religious tenet; it’s only biology.

Sure, but that way of speaking doesn’t work for lots of things. Is a mouth for speaking, breathing, eating, drinking, kissing, playing the saxophone, blowing bubbles?

You might loosely say it of something like eyes but it’s not actually true, eyes don’t see, they send information to be processed by the visual cortex, they’re just one a part of the system that sees.

And what was being claimed is much more specific - that certain body parts are made for a particular purpose and morally ought not be used for another purpose, which requires a Maker who judges.

Not sure where that claim comes from, certainly it would be a gross misreading of Aquinas to reduce his natural law down to what appears to be an obsession with the anus.

You mistake “secular argument” for “something you agree with.” It is COMMONPLACE in biology to speak of the purposes / functions of body parts—ears are for hearing, eyes are for seeing, and the genitalia of humans facilitate reproduction. This is not some odd religious notion, it’s the way things are. That we are a sexually reproducing species and only the male-female coupling facilitates that is the truth. Religious thinkers may see religious significance in that but it’s not as if “secular” thinkers deny that body parts have functions. (For example, we have learned a lot about the brain from studying the victims of trauma to specific parts of the brain because an injury in one place may make it harder to recognize faces while injury to another makes it hard to speak.) Well, YOU deny it but you are out of synch with, uh, Mainstream Secular Thought which holds that biology is a real science and it assumes that body parts have functions, and that goes for the stomachs, lungs, and genitalia of human beings.

I like the capitalized Mainstream Secular Thought.

Please see above.

 

[inocente]

Not one of them is a valid objection to the preservation - rather than distortion - of traditional marriage provided that the necessary legal modifications are implemented.

Your parliament apparently disagrees with you.

 

[inocente]

It is a biological fact in addition to the Christian belief that man and woman are created for each other.

Creationism isn’t what’s meant by biology.

 

[inocente]

1. Confusion in Spain does not justify the demand for equal rights in** every** respect.

I’m very happy for you to stick to confusing arguments - they didn’t work in Spain and won’t work anywhere else.

2. 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”.

Don’t blame me, I didn’t write CCC 2358.

3. To do so would be to encourage the permissiveness which has already fragmented families and caused immense suffering for fathers, mothers and children alike.

Letting people marry instead of having to live out of wedlock encourages permissiveness? On what planet?

*4. What **is ***confusing is the use of the same term for two essentially different relationships.

1. To do so is discrimination against the traditional and religious concept of marriage based on the prejudice and scepticism of so-called “humanists”.

Again, I didn’t write CCC 2358.

6. There is no guarantee that the law will not be modified to conform with secular demands for absolute equality.

Well make sure there is a guarantee then.

*7. It is a false assumption that the use of different terms for different relationships constitutes discrimination.

1. Avoiding discrimination in a civil setting takes moral precedence over religious beliefs for those who oppose religion.

1. Ad hominem plus evasion of the fact that the feast of Whitsun has been removed from the calendar to suppress as far as possible references to Christianity.

1. Quibbling doesn’t alter the fact that the feast of Whitsun* has been removed from the calendar to suppress as far as possible references to Christianity .

When all else fails, start a conspiracy theory.

 

[inocente]

It’s no longer a minority when these delusional people legalise same sex marriage, this illusion will be provided for the next generation aswell, it will confirm the illusion for society.

Sorry, didn’t understand.

Yes they are, It might take a little time, but it has to happen, it’s hypocritical for people pro same sex marriage not to allow it, it’s already being argued in canada, for the same reason they legalised same sex marriage, it’s the same reason they have to legalise polygamous marriage haha, thats irony for you.
healthland.time.com/2010/12/01/will-polygamy-be-legalized-in-canada/

Err … it says “Some Mormon groups and civil libertarians claim that the law is unconstitutional because it violates rights to freedom of religion”.

Are you against freedom of religion then?