Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

I think you mean to say some heterosexuals are sodomites.

I mean what I write, not what you want me to write.

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.

Surely only an obsessive bigot would get married to prove they’re heterosexual?

I worship God.

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

I suspect you’ve never read Paul, but how about we stay off the personal comments and stick to the subject?

***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.

Where in heaven’s name did you get that from?

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!

It’s up to you if you think the CCC is referring to polygamists.

And no I’m not arguing for legalized polygamy. It’s very pleasing that you have no arguments left and have been reduced to trying to poison the well.

 

[josh987654321]

Sorry, didn’t understand.

Sorry, I don’t understand either, why do you want to legalise same sex marriage?

I have tried to sell my argument against same sex marriage being law, could you please sell me your argument as to why we should recognise homosexual unions as marriages?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[markeverett49]

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

You have heard a strong secular argument over and over and instead of meeting the challenge, you say either “that is not secular because some religious people believe it” or “that argument didn’t work in Spain.”

Many truths are held by religious people AND secularists, such as that rape is wrong, children need to be educated, and people should not text while driving. The “doctrine of two truths” (-religious and non-religious truth) is rejected by all Christian churches of which I am aware, and certainly by the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

That might be proof of the lack of a rational constitution or moral fibre in present day Spain and elsewhere. It doesn’t disprove tonyrey’s argument. The fact that Fascism or Communism overwhelmed Europe and other parts of the world in the last century is not proof of the moral correctness of either of those political systems. I am sure there were individual German citizens who welcomed Fascism early on, but were left with great regret when its true nature became apparent. I suspect you will have the same bad taste in your mouth 20 or 30 years from today when European society will have degenerated beyond recognition.

Perhaps the scientist mentality of “let’s see what happens” will prove, with finality, that the scientific method is not applicable to moral matters such as these. Science concerns itself with observing past events and to predicting what is possible or likely. It says nothing about what “should” happen in the future. That is where moral sensibilities and responsibilities take over. The abdication of moral principles as an “experiment” concerning the future of humanity will prove very costly. Everyone, especially those who call themselves Christian and should have known better, who were complicit in their advocation of this “experiment” will bear responsibility for the outcomes. I suggest you spend some time reflecting on exactly what you are advocating before you spout any more on the subject.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I suspect you’ve never read Paul, but how about we stay off the personal comments and stick to the subject?

Sorry you don’t like Paul, and apparently think that on the subject of homosexuality you are smarter than Paul, Plato and Aristotle…

**And no I’m not arguing for legalized polygamy. It’s very pleasing that you have no arguments left and have been reduced to trying to poison the well. **

O.K. now that you have committed yourself against legalized polygamy, what is different about justifying same-sex marriage that justifies it, whereas polygamy is not justified?

As a self-described Christian, you are certainly poisoning the well when you argue for legalizing sodomite marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

Perhaps the scientist mentality of “let’s see what happens” will prove, with finality, that the scientific method is not applicable to moral matters such as these.

I’m reading Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill” and she draws a parallel between the Cold War and the consequences of the pill. To wit, MASSIVE evidence abounds about both but just as many in the West refused to denounce communism (-it was a cliche among Western academics that the anti-communists were much more dangerous than the communists). Now that the Berlin Wall is down and the Soviet Union has dissolved, it is hard to find people in the West who still argue that THAT system was superior to ours, though multitudes of educated people did at the time.

Now, as for the sexual revolution: the evidence that its heaviest load has fallen on the weakest shoulders (-children and their mothers), that divorce has disastrous consequences on the lives of children, that children raised in single-parent homes fare worse than those raised in two-parent homes, that millions of women find themselves dating / living with / married to men who are so enamored of pornography that they rarely want to have sex with the flesh-and-blood women available to them, and of course, that men who are predators are Just Loving It nowadays because they get lots of sex with lots of women, make no commitments, and have no children to take care of, and many men who aren’t in that category put off marrying so long that they become child-men (-if you don’t believe me, ask any woman you know about “child-men” or “Peter Pans” they have known and then stand back)… All of this is abundantly documented in peer-reviewed journals. There’s no controversy about the data. The main task of those who refuse to see any downside to the sexual revolution (-o, did I forget to mention the skyrocketing rate of STDs?) is to Explain Away all this evidence. Eberstadt calls this effort “The Will to Disbelieve.” (<<The disbelievers are those who see this mountain of evidence but cannot believe that there were any negative consequences to the sexual revolution.)

I highly recommend Eberstadt’s book. Here’s a link
amazon.com/Adam-Eve-After-Pill-Revolution/dp/1586176277/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366479754&sr=1-1&keywords=eberstadt%2C+adam+and+eve

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, as for the sexual revolution: the evidence that its heaviest load has fallen on the weakest shoulders (-children and their mothers), that divorce has disastrous consequences on the lives of children, that children raised in single-parent homes fare worse than those raised in two-parent homes, that millions of women find themselves dating / living with / married to men who are so enamored of pornography that they rarely want to have sex with the flesh-and-blood women available to them, and of course, that men who are predators are Just Loving It nowadays because they get lots of sex with lots of women, make no commitments, and have no children to take care of, and many men who aren’t in that category put off marrying so long that they become child-men (-if you don’t believe me, ask any woman you know about “child-men” or “Peter Pans” they have known and then stand back)… All of this is abundantly documented in peer-reviewed journals. There’s no controversy about the data. The main task of those who refuse to see any downside to the sexual revolution (-o, did I forget to mention the skyrocketing rate of STDs?) is to Explain Away all this evidence. Eberstadt calls this effort “The Will to Disbelieve.” (<<The disbelievers are those who see this mountain of evidence but cannot believe that there were any negative consequences to the sexual revolution.)

It seems apparent that many women, too, have simply given up the “burden” of caring for children on their own, so the observation can be made that along with the Peter Pans, many women have likewise abdicated their responsibilities and have become child-women, under the guise of right to choose.

This also explains the rise in same sex behaviour/advocacy: gratuitous sex without any risk of childbearing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

This also explains the rise in same sex behaviour/advocacy: gratuitous sex without any risk of childbearing.

Another possible explanation for the rise of same sex marriage advocacy would be the increased opportunities for two married men to adopt heterosexual little boys … for what purpose one wonders.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m reading Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill” and she draws a parallel between the Cold War and the consequences of the pill. To wit, MASSIVE evidence abounds about both but just as many in the West refused to denounce communism (-it was a cliche among Western academics that the anti-communists were much more dangerous than the communists). Now that the Berlin Wall is down and the Soviet Union has dissolved, it is hard to find people in the West who still argue that THAT system was superior to ours, though multitudes of educated people did at the time.

Now, as for the sexual revolution: the evidence that its heaviest load has fallen on the weakest shoulders (-children and their mothers), that divorce has disastrous consequences on the lives of children, that children raised in single-parent homes fare worse than those raised in two-parent homes, that millions of women find themselves dating / living with / married to men who are so enamored of pornography that they rarely want to have sex with the flesh-and-blood women available to them, and of course, that men who are predators are Just Loving It nowadays because they get lots of sex with lots of women, make no commitments, and have no children to take care of, and many men who aren’t in that category put off marrying so long that they become child-men (-if you don’t believe me, ask any woman you know about “child-men” or “Peter Pans” they have known and then stand back)… All of this is abundantly documented in peer-reviewed journals. There’s no controversy about the data. The main task of those who refuse to see any downside to the sexual revolution (-o, did I forget to mention the skyrocketing rate of STDs?) is to Explain Away all this evidence. Eberstadt calls this effort “The Will to Disbelieve.” (<<The disbelievers are those who see this mountain of evidence but cannot believe that there were any negative consequences to the sexual revolution.)

I highly recommend Eberstadt’s book. Here’s a link
amazon.com/Adam-Eve-After-Pill-Revolution/dp/1586176277/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366479754&sr=1-1&keywords=eberstadt%2C+adam+and+eve

To deny that permissiveness is pernicious is wishful thinking…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Political decisions are hardly a reliable basis for morality…

 

[tonyrey]

Creationism isn’t what’s meant by biology.

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

 

[tonyrey]

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

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

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

Again, I didn’t write CCC 2358.

Well make sure there is a guarantee then.

When all else fails, start a conspiracy theory.

You have not refuted the points I have made.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems apparent that many women, too, have simply given up the “burden” of caring for children on their own, so the observation can be made that along with the Peter Pans, many women have likewise abdicated their responsibilities and have become child-women, under the guise of right to choose.

This also explains the rise in same sex behaviour/advocacy: gratuitous sex without any risk of childbearing.

The widespread abdication of responsibility is another argument against the secular claim that marriage should be extended to all sexual relationships.

It is both ironic and hilarious that many heterosexual couples think marriage is a meaningless, old-fashioned custom that can be safely ignored and discarded whereas homosexuals believe it is an essential sign of equality and integration in society!

 

[tws]

YES, there is statistical data showing same-sex parenting NEGATIVELY impacts children during and after they leave home.

1. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

Compared with children raised in opposite sex households, same-sex parented children have higher rates of suicidal thinking, molestation and rape while growing up, and during adulthood, higher rates of unemployment, infidelity, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, recipients of psychotherapy, and lower likelihood of reporting themselves as entirely heterosexual.

a. Study summary: lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap/

b. Media response: lifesitenews.com/news/media-still-lying-about-mark-regnerus-report

c. Actual published study: ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf

1. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School

Children of married parents are 35% more likely to make normal progress through school when compared to children who grow up in same-sex households. Children with cohabiting heterosexual parents were 15% more likely to make normal progress and 23% more likely with single moms.

a. Study summary: lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study/

b. Actual published study: maggiegallagher.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Allen-et-al-Demography-2012.pdf

 

[John_Savage]

There is no secular arguments. There are only desires and rationalizations. I’ll give an example and then get back to marriage.

Economy: Broadly speaking, leftists want equality and rightists want growth and economic freedom. They can compromise, but never agree because their goals are different.

In the marriage debate, among secularists, there are those who want, for aesthetic or societal-direction reasons, a continuation of the Christian understanding of marriage. There are those who think SS acts as disgusting or who otherwise dislike homosexuals.

The true-believers on this side are religious people who want society to stay in accord with Christian or other religious teachings.

On the other side are compassion/equality people who don’t want to hurt people’s feelings or to make people feel bad. They want equality among all relationships. They don’t see how marriage rates or teaching SSM in school or birth rates affect them or their quality of life. Even though it’s true, quoting statistics is useless. They don’t care. It’s wearying to uphold a standard and it’s not worth the effort. They also don’t want to be called names by the cool people.

The true believers in this camp are people who hate religion and want to spite Christians or people who want a stamp of approval on this practice.

The only way for trad-marriage folks to win this argument is to make society more like the true believers, religious. That will give them motivation to fight.

 

[josh987654321]

There is no secular arguments. There are only desires and rationalizations. I’ll give an example and then get back to marriage.

Economy: Broadly speaking, leftists want equality and rightists want growth and economic freedom. They can compromise, but never agree because their goals are different.

In the marriage debate, among secularists, there are those who want, for aesthetic or societal-direction reasons, a continuation of the Christian understanding of marriage. There are those who think SS acts as disgusting or who otherwise dislike homosexuals.

The true-believers on this side are religious people who want society to stay in accord with Christian or other religious teachings.

On the other side are compassion/equality people who don’t want to hurt people’s feelings or to make people feel bad. They want equality among all relationships. They don’t see how marriage rates or teaching SSM in school or birth rates affect them or their quality of life. Even though it’s true, quoting statistics is useless. They don’t care. It’s wearying to uphold a standard and it’s not worth the effort. They also don’t want to be called names by the cool people.

The true believers in this camp are people who hate religion and want to spite Christians or people who want a stamp of approval on this practice.

The only way for trad-marriage folks to win this argument is to make society more like the true believers, religious. That will give them motivation to fight.

You are right, there is no secular argument for opposing same sex marriage.

It’s all based on religion, we need to be educating christians on the importance and benefits to society on keeping chrisitan values in our legal system that governs us, as to be Christian and pro same sex marriage with regards to the law is a contradiction.

So when it comes to athiest’s being pro-same sex marriage, I think it’s best to just agree to disagree with them and let democracy take it’s course, as we will never persuade these people to be against same sex marriage unless we persuade them to become christian.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[John_Savage]

In case you didn’t get my point, there’s no secular argument for anything. There are only desires. There’s no secular case for marriage between two people, either. If that’s what you want, then you can come up with something to exclude all other types of arrangements, but you’d just be rationalizing your desires. For example, why would you limit marriage to two people? Why between people? How many parents should/can children have? Why marriage at all. Any definition you have to exclude would just be some excuse to legislate your desire.

Atheists can be against SSM. AFAIK, Cuba, North Korea, China, and other secular places don’t have SSM, but that’s only because they don’t feel like it.

You are right, there is no secular argument for opposing same sex marriage.

It’s all based on religion, we need to be educating christians on the importance and benefits to society on keeping chrisitan values in our legal system that governs us, as to be Christian and pro same sex marriage with regards to the law is a contradiction.

So when it comes to athiest’s being pro-same sex marriage, I think it’s best to just agree to disagree with them and let democracy take it’s course, as we will never persuade these people to be against same sex marriage unless we persuade them to become christian.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

YES, there is statistical data showing same-sex parenting NEGATIVELY impacts children during and after they leave home.

1. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

Compared with children raised in opposite sex households, same-sex parented children have higher rates of suicidal thinking, molestation and rape while growing up, and during adulthood, higher rates of unemployment, infidelity, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, recipients of psychotherapy, and lower likelihood of reporting themselves as entirely heterosexual.

a. Study summary: lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap/

b. Media response: lifesitenews.com/news/media-still-lying-about-mark-regnerus-report

c. Actual published study: ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf

1. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School

Children of married parents are 35% more likely to make normal progress through school when compared to children who grow up in same-sex households. Children with cohabiting heterosexual parents were 15% more likely to make normal progress and 23% more likely with single moms.

a. Study summary: lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study/

b. Actual published study: maggiegallagher.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Allen-et-al-Demography-2012.pdf

Valuable information which confirms conclusions based on biological facts and common sense.

 

[markeverett49]

You are right, there is no secular argument for opposing same sex marriage.

Of course there is. it has been made over and over. It is hard to find a single prominent secularist thinker between the years, say, 500 BC and 1980 AD who advocated for same-sex marriage. Heck, it’s hard enough to find gay people who advocated for same-sex marriage during that time.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mark

Of course there is. it has been made over and over. It is hard to find a single prominent secularist thinker between the years, say, 500 BC and 1980 AD who advocated for same-sex marriage. Heck, it’s hard enough to find gay people who advocated for same-sex marriage during that time.

That fact alone proves the bizarre nature of same-sex marriage.