Secular argument against gay marriage

[JimG]

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.

It’s bizarre because it goes against common sense—the common sense of every civilized society in history. The fact that there are two genders is obvious. The fact that men and women are needed to bring the next generation into the world has always been obvious. The state has always had an interest in regulating and affirming that union because it has an interest in the continuance of civilization. Some societies have easily tolerated same sex behavior, but they have not endowed such behavior with state approval because it is of no benefit to the state. Marriage—between man and woman—does provide a benefit to the state.

The institution itself is the means of societal self-preservation and continuance. The institution itself is an institution ordered to the continuance of civilization, regardless of whether or not any particular individual couple has many children or no children.

All these facts have been obvious for 10,000 years. It is only in recent decades that society seems at risk of losing its common sense and its sanity, by proposing to give recognition to an impossibility: same-sex ‘marriage.’

 

[tws]

There are SOUND arguments against same-sex marriage, but unfortunately, there are no EFFECTIVE arguments against same-sex marriage. Not in Western society.
We are arguing over fundamental views of what sexuality and marriage is about. It is extremely difficult to convince someone – over the internet, no less - that their understanding of sexuality is distorted.

Perspective One: sex is fundamentally about procreation. This is why we have two sexes with complimentary sexual organs. We have urges to come together, and when we do, children are often produced. The sexual enjoyment is the ‘reward’ our bodies give us for engaging in the procreative process. But our bodies are designed as they are to bring about new life. Marriage is an arrangement primarily intended for ensuring the healthy upbringing of children by their biological parents. This is the Catholic perspective and is pretty much what every culture has practiced since the dawn of written history.

Perspective Two: Sex is fundamentally about enjoyment. It is about the sensual experience, the high, and the individual fulfillment it brings. Children can be a byproduct of the pleasurable event, but they are secondary in importance. The possibility of childbearing can be blocked, or a pregnancy aborted, if desired. Marriage is also an arrangement primarily for bonding people, but procreation and child rearing is not central to the bonding. This is the secular perspective and a new invention.

Over the past 50 years or so, Western society has adopted sex for pleasure as the first principle, and this has brought forth:

Contraception
Abortion
Pornography
No fault divorce
Sex outside marriage
Serial sexual encounters
…and you could add to this list.

The fundamental belief of sex for enjoyment is everywhere and has been weaving its ways into the psyche of the Western masses for decades. It is ingrained in many Christians, too. It is a normal part of what it means to be American or European. In setting the principle of sex enjoyment as a first principle, the stage is set to welcome homosexuality into society, and recognize same-sex marriage as an authentic relationship. Again, it puts the enjoyment of the individual first. If pleasurable sex can be achieved through same-sex coupling, that is ok. It fits well within the fundamental principle. If children are impacted negatively, so be it. What matters most is honoring the sensual preferences of individuals and a preferred marital bond.

You can see this dynamic at play in France, and sex for enjoyment has triumphed. There were several marches organized and attended by over a million people each on behalf of protecting traditional marriage and rearing of children by heterosexual couples. They appealed to the fundamental that sex is for procreation and marriage is for child rearing. The government of France legalized same-sex marriage anyway. The government embraced the principle of sexual gratification as the more important consideration and the individual wish to bond with whomever as the criteria for marriage. The considerations of children are secondary.

So where we are left as Catholics and Christians is trying to overturn a fundamental notion about sex and marriage in an increasingly secular world. We are going to lose. Same-sex marriage will be legalized in virtually every Western country (including all US states) over the next 30 years. The trends in the acceptance rate of same-sex marriage are only upward (in the US, anyway), and among young people, over 70% approve of it. Of course, this is the same generation that fully embraces sex for enjoyment as a fundamental principle.

Again, there are SOUND arguments against same-sex marriage, but there are no EFFECTIVE arguments because Western society has made sexual enjoyment the first principle of sexuality.

 

[markeverett49]

There are SOUND arguments against same-sex marriage, but unfortunately, there are no EFFECTIVE arguments against same-sex marriage. Not in Western society. .

Well, same-sex marriage has been voted down in some places, so it is too much to say that no arguments are effective. However, I grant the larger point (as I take it) that the push for same-sex marriage is yet another fruit from the poisoned tree known as the sexual revolution. The terrible consequences are detailed in study after study across decade after decade, yet proponents of that revolution cannot regard any of them for what they are. As Mary Eberstadt suggests in her book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” these sophisticated intellectuals are a lot like the ones who spent the Cold War arguing the only thing we have to fear is ANTI-Communism.

 

[josh987654321]

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.

Every secular argument I have come accross can be rebutteled, as when you say a homosexual union cannot be recognised as a marriage because of X, they will find a heterosexual couple already recognised as a marriage already doing X.

If they change the law to include same sex unions as marriages, we will just not recognise them as marriages, kind of like how we don’t recognise divorcees marriages.

It really comes down to, if our society becomes more secular from religion, than the majority will be able to vote for the re-definition of marriage which will undefine marriage for those who don’t have a strong belief in marriage anyway and will be harmful to society just like no-fault divorce, but it will not change what marriage means for those like me who know the true definition according to christ it will not undefine our definition of marriage.

It’s really whether Christians want to vote for the removal of christian values from the law that governs us, thats why we need to reach christians with this, because to be christian and pro-same sex marriage with regards to the law is a massive contradiction.

If you think about it, what will they gain from redefining marriage to include homosexual couples? what rights will these unions gain that they don’t already have? the point of the debate is just over the word and they will never change my view or other religious views of marriage between a man and a woman regardless of what the law wants to recognise.

It will only come down to if the law forces this onto us, in which we can stand up against it, as we have our freedom of religion, because divorcees are not recognised as a marriage and yet the law includes that into the definition, I know it’s not the same as a homosexual union, but it is still going to be similar I think.

But does this mean we should give up and not stand for tradition marriage? most definatly not, all christians should be voting for traditional marriage, it would be a contradiction to be christian and pro-same sex marriage regarding law, it would be beneficial for society to maintain christian values in our legal system that governs us.

So really the only argument is the religious argument, and we have the right to vote for our definition of marriage being only between a man and a woman, if that is still the popular consensus of marriage, than there will be no need for a redefinition.

If there is a redefinition, we will not recognise it, only the law will recognise it as the law rcognises scientology marriages and marriages between divorcees that we do not recognise nor do we teach.

We can help a little bit with the others though, by letting them know that if same sex marriage is legalised, than they have no grounds in which to refuse polygamous marriage as thet would be hypocritical, so further definition will be inevitable, this might cause some to think about what they are supporting, but for alot they wont really care.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Yeah, there are two atheists groups with similar names here in Atlanta. One is vehemently against SSM (or homosexuals in general), the other is very welcoming to them. The accepting group makes it exceedingly clear that they do not want to be confused for the other group.

 

[antoniont1]

Every secular argument I have come accross can be rebutteled, as when you say a homosexual union cannot be recognised as a marriage because of X, they will find a heterosexual couple already recognised as a marriage already doing X.
…]
Thank you for reading
Josh

Likewise, every secular argument for SSM can be rebutted, if the person arguing for it has the patience to listen to you instead of calling you a bigot…

I’m still catching up with the arguments in this thread, and I’ll probably jump in later

 

[inocente]

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

In countries where gay marriage is legal, the winning argument is simply that society must treat all citizens equally unless there is good cause to do otherwise, and here there is no sufficiently good cause to do otherwise.

The Spanish prime minister summed it up:

*There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.

Aware that some people and institutions profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs. - José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero*

 

[inocente]

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.

When I said the arguments were confusing, I mean that they didn’t work on most people.

Perhaps you’re correct and it’s the fault of the people that they get confused, but that won’t change the fact that they find the arguments confusing. Telling entire societies that they lack moral fiber will likely confuse them even more (are you including Canada, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa and parts of the US, Brazil and Mexico, all of which legalized gay marriage?).

You can either spend your time defending confusing arguments and lose the war, or come up with less confusing arguments and win, up to you.

 

[inocente]

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

How is actually reading Paul not liking him?

Paul, Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are significant writers with momentous ideas and it would be sad if their ideals were reduced to the gutter. Read Romans from beginning to end and learn that Paul is speaking of much higher matters than anuses.

***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.

There’s absolutely no call for polygamy where I live, don’t know about the US, but at the end of the day we live in democracies.

Two thirds of Catholics in Spain approved legalizing gay marriage. Are you saying that they also are “self-described Christians”? Does your Church teach that you, a lay Catholic, are authorized to judge the faith of others? Are you following Christ or your ego here?

“It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs”. Go read the stickies or you’ll get yourself reported.

 

[josh987654321]

In countries where gay marriage is legal, the winning argument is simply that society must treat all citizens equally unless there is good cause to do otherwise, and here there is no sufficiently good cause to do otherwise.

This is where I think you miss understand, I agree that all citizens should be treated equally unless there is good cause to do otherwise, but don’t you think there is good cause to treat a homosexual union differently to a heterosexual union in regards to calling/recognising them as a marriage?

Given the differences in the physical human anatomy of a man and a woman and the compatability of a man and a woman, I thought that the union of two men or two women and a man and a woman would be fundamentally different, they are treated equally under law, but does that mean we should call all women, men? would that be the only way to treat men and women equally?

I would very much like to know, what do you think marriage is?

The Spanish prime minister summed it up:

There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.

This law I think undefines marriage, do you think society is better off by recognising homosexual unions as a marriages? could you please tell me what value has this given to your understanding of marriage?

Aware that some people and institutions profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

Does that mean that women suffer senseless suffering because we refuse to call them men?

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs. - José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

I think this is like saying, if we percieve something like the acts of homosexuality as moral, than it will stop people from abusing and insulting these people, no one steps back to see that people shouldn’t be abusing or insulting anyone and that the acts of homosexuality don’t need to be viewed as moral when they are not.

I think this is like saying, something is not a sin, therefore no one will hate the sinner, instead of saying hate the sin and not the sinner.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Two thirds of Catholics in Spain approved legalizing gay marriage. Are you saying that they also are “self-described Christians”? Does your Church teach that you, a lay Catholic, are authorized to judge the faith of others? Are you following Christ or your ego here?

I think two thirds of christians who approved legalizing gay marriage are a contradiction, to be christian means to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, why would they vote for the removal of that definition from the legal system that governs them? why would they vote for the removal of christian values that they believe are beneficial for society from their legal system?

I don’t think it make’s any sense for a Christian to be pro same sex marriage in regards to the law.

Thats like saying “I believe marriage to be only between a man and a woman, however I also believe that homosexuals can marry” can you see the contradiction?

I ask you, what is your definition of marriage?

If you say only between a man and a woman, than why would you be pro a completely different definition? it doesn’t make any sense to me, please help me to understand because I can’t wrap my head around that kind of thinking.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Arthropod]

Obviously my Catholic perspective means nothing to non-Catholics and especially to the many people who are not religious. Is there a strong secular argument against gay marriage? It seems like a lot of the non-religious arguments I’ve read were either pretty weak or had slightly Christian undertones.

This is good.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

 

[tonyrey]

This is good.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

:clapping: Many thanks for that reference to a superb, moving article which is eminently reasonable and based on personal experience. It is undoubtedly the best analysis of the subject I have read - and irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

…
When all else fails, start a conspiracy theory.

In that case I would like to see how you refute the article (by a homosexual) referred to by Arthropod:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Spanish prime minister summed it up:

There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married…

I find this an interesting observation given that he provides absolutely no reason to think it to be true. He doesn’t seem to regard providing compelling evidence in support to be necessary, which says something of his view of marriage.

If a patient (marriage) was in great danger of not surviving as viable, for the doctor in charge to allow experimentation on the patient by various inexperienced concoctors of “novel remedies” demonstrates quite clearly that the doctor has given up all hope. He may even mutter to himself, “What harm could it do to the patient?” This attitude signals that the doctor has given up all hope that the patient can make a recovery. I suspect there is something of this attitude of futility in the Spanish leader’s message. In other words, “What damage could it do to marriage considering that marriage appears to be a dying institution? Why not let the experimenters in and attempt their own brand of fiddling with the institution? What damage can be done, since marriage is in a state of rigor mortis?”

To be clear, this is not an attitude one would have if they had any real concern for marriage as an institution. It is the perspective one would take if the survival of marriage were of no real concern. What damage, after all, could be done, since the patient is already moribund?

 

[markeverett49]

In countries where gay marriage is legal, the winning argument is simply that society must treat all citizens equally unless there is good cause to do otherwise, and here there is no sufficiently good cause to do otherwise.]

There is very good reason to see a vast difference between heterosexual couplings that would, in the natural course of things, produce children who need two decades of oversight, and same-sex couplings which can never produce offspring. The sexual revolution has been hard on marriage----and deliberately, defiantly so. (It is ironic, to say the least, that many intellectuals who now argue for same-sex marriage were arguing twenty years ago that marriage was an oppressive institution we would be better off without.) This is one more log on the fire of the West’s smug self-destruction.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think two thirds of christians who approved legalizing gay marriage are a contradiction, to be christian means to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, why would they vote for the removal of that definition from the legal system that governs them?

That looks like a true Scottsman, as that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for either the definitions of Christian that I find or the Nicene Creed.

I don’t think it make’s any sense for a Christian to be pro same sex marriage in regards to the law.

It could indicate that some one is for SSM, or that the person isn’t against it (which is not quite the same territory as being for it, but may be a reason that some one cast a vote to allow it).

 

[tonyrey]

I find this an interesting observation given that he provides absolutely no reason to think it to be true. He doesn’t seem to regard providing compelling evidence in support to be necessary, which says something of his view of marriage.

If a patient (marriage) was in great danger of not surviving as viable, for the doctor in charge to allow experimentation on the patient by various inexperienced concoctors of “novel remedies” demonstrates quite clearly that the doctor has given up all hope. He may even mutter to himself, “What harm could it do to the patient?” This attitude signals that the doctor has given up all hope that the patient can make a recovery. I suspect there is something of this attitude of futility in the Spanish leader’s message. In other words, “What damage could it do to marriage considering that marriage appears to be a dying institution? Why not let the experimenters in and attempt their own brand of fiddling with the institution? What damage can be done, since marriage is in a state of rigor mortis?”

To be clear, this is not an attitude one would have if they had any real concern for marriage as an institution. It is the perspective one would take if the survival of marriage were of no real concern. What damage, after all, could be done, since the patient is already moribund?

In a secular society it is an illogical desire to be recognised as equal to heterosexuals according to a virtually obsolete custom which has no spiritual significance!

 

[josh987654321]

That looks like a true Scottsman, as that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for either the definitions of Christian that I find or the Nicene Creed.

Any Chrisitan will clearly tell you that marriage is only between a man and a woman, they would have to be Ignorant in that respect of their faith to be christian and think homosexuals can marry.

They are separating their religious beliefs from the law, which is a contradiction, because it’s saying in regards to religion, “I believe homosexuals cannot marry”, in regards to law “I think homosexuals can and should marry.” which doesn’t make sense, I feel like grabbing these people and saying what the hell are you thinking, what do you think marriage is? why would you vote for something different to your belief of marriage?

Too many don’t realise that homosexual marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage, which it obviously isn’t, thats why they want to change the definition to include both.

In many cases the only thing they have gained is the word ‘marriage’.

It could indicate that some one is for SSM, or that the person isn’t against it (which is not quite the same territory as being for it, but may be a reason that some one cast a vote to allow it).

What do Chrisitans think marriage is? I know what it means as a Christian and it clearly doesn’t include a homosexual union.

So your example is like them saying “I believe marriage to be only between a man and a woman, I also believe homosexuals can marry one another” which is a massive contradiction.

What are these Christians saying to themselves when they cast a vote in support for same sex marriage, I really don’t understand it.

They are separating their beliefs from the law, because they say “don’t force your beliefs on me” which is just a dodge that many buy into, if I believe marriage to be only between a man and a woman, how could I than say “oh but that is a belief derived from religion and I don’t want to force my religion onto others, so I’ll vote for same sex marriage” it’s a massive contradiction, it’s the law that has taken a religious word and wants to redefine it away from Christian values, why would Christians support that?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Any Chrisitan will clearly tell you that marriage is only between a man and a woman

Some will express this view. Not all do.

why would you vote for something different to your belief of marriage?

I think it’s fair to say that their views on marriage and yours don’t perfectly align.

What do Chrisitans think marriage is?

There’s a spectrum of views. Some hate the idea, some don’t care, some are in full support. Some are still evaluating it.

So your example is like them saying “I believe marriage to be only between a man and a woman, I also believe homosexuals can marry one another” which is a massive contradiction.

The Christian’s that I’ve heard express support for the marriage of homosexuals don’t say that. In general what I’ve heard them say is “I don’t have a problem with it. If they want to marry let them marry” (or some variant of that).

What are these Christians saying to themselves when they cast a vote in support for same sex marriage, I really don’t understand it.

Don’t read too much into it. It may not be saying too much more than what’s written on the ballot.