Secular argument against gay marriage

[Peter_Plato]

Sure, and of course exactly the same thing applies to the argument Acrossthedesert gave as well.

Kant distinguished between hypothetical imperatives which are conditional upon the end desired and categorical imperatives which are logically inconsistent with rational well-being.

Hypothetical imperatives only apply to someone willing a particular end:
if I wish to satisfy hunger, I should eat something;
if I wish to have knowledge on a certain subject, I should take the time to learn about it.

These are like your prospective teacher deliberating about becoming a professional teacher. It would not be immoral of her/him to decide either way because neither would be imperative in a categorical sense. Neither willing everyone to become teachers nor willing no one to do so would be conducive to the well-being of any or all rational human beings, so there is nothing categorically or morally imperative in the issue of choosing to become a teacher as a general principle.

That does not preclude that for some (pedophiles, alcoholics, etc.) there might be particular circumstances that would make it immoral for these individuals to consider doing so.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, according to Kant concerns an absolute or unconditional requirement that must apply in all circumstances precisely because it is inconsistent with rational considerations of well-being. Categorical imperatives are both required and justified as logically necessary to bring about what no one would deny is for the well-being of any or all human beings.

Kant’s first formulation goes like this:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

What he means are morally obligatory principles, i.e., those which are binding on all moral creatures, are those that you can consistently will to become universal law.

He attempted to distinguish between morally binding principles and those which are merely pragmatic or practical towards certain ends. Only those which can be willed universally are those which are morally binding and obligatory.

Clearly, becoming a teacher (in the narrow sense of profession) is not a moral principle. Attempting to make it a moral principle runs into precisely the problem you pointed out. You cannot consistently and reasonably will that everyone become a teacher, so it does not function as a categorical imperative.

You claimed there was a problem with Kant’s universalizability criterion, but that is not what your example demonstrates. It only demonstrates (though questionably) that becoming a teacher does not fit Kant’s categorical criteria to determine whether becoming a teacher is obligatory for anyone.

As to Acrossthedesert’s claim:

I have wrote several responses to your thread, but it just dawned on me what you were actually asking.

Does the Truth exist without God? Can we truly have a secular argument that is valid?

**At the individual level, I would say no. **

In general (anthropologically speaking) you could use Kant’s categorical imperative.

Categorical Imperative:
If you want to test if an action is moral, try adopting the action as a universal rule. If the universal rule does not undermine itself than most likely the action is moral.

For example, say stealing was universally adopted. If everyone steals than nobody would even think of a right to ownership, and therefore the action (stealing) would not truly exist. Stealing depends on most people believing in ownership and a few stealing what the others have accumulated (owned).

Say that gay marriage was universally adopted. If everyone had a gay marriage then no children would be had and the human race would cease to exist. The universality of gay marriage undermines the idea of gay marriage and therefore, gay marriage is not moral.

He is claiming that a moral choice to “become gay” cannot be morally sanctioned because such a choice would lead to the end of the human race.

There is a bigger problem with your analogy, however, because it is quite consistent to will that everyone be a “teacher” in the fuller sense of the word. If everyone went out of their way to share their valued skills, knowledge and talents with others, that indeed would be conducive to the well-being of all. Even doctors can and must learn from others in order to become competent, so passing on the skills of knowledge of any profession might indeed be a moral imperative.

Your analogy actually fails to mitigate Acrossthedesert’s argument, but instead supports it. A case can be made for teaching others to be an imperative based upon doing so being conducive of the good of all, though not in the narrow sense that you attempted to argue.

 

[CandideWest]

He attempted to distinguish between morally binding principles and those which are merely pragmatic or practical towards certain ends. Only those which can be willed universally are those which are morally binding and obligatory.

Agreed.

Clearly, becoming a teacher (in the narrow sense of profession) is not a moral principle. Attempting to make it a moral principle runs into precisely the problem you pointed out. You cannot consistently and reasonably will that everyone become a teacher, so it does not function as a categorical imperative.

Exactly and please note that in my example I used the term “school teacher” not just “teacher” to make a clear division between the profession and anyone who performs the act of providing instruction.

You claimed there was a problem with Kant’s universalizability criterion, but that is not what your example demonstrates.

No, I claimed that there was a problem with the argument Acrossthedesert tried to present using Kants tool.

It only demonstrates (though questionably) that becoming a teacher does not fit Kant’s categorical criteria to determine whether becoming a teacher is obligatory for anyone.

Agreed.

He is claiming that a moral choice to “become gay” cannot be morally sanctioned because such a choice would lead to the end of the human race.

No, read it again, he’s not made any mention in there about “becoming gay” he’s talking about everyone having a gay marriage.

And the conclusion he should have reached (as you have neatly demonstrated above for my “being a school teacher”) is - that “having a gay marriage” is not MORALLY OBLIGATORY for everyone.

Which I don’t think anyone would argue against. But Acrossthedesert incorrectly stated as the conclusion that “therefore, gay marriage is not moral.”

Hence his argument was incorrect.

There is a bigger problem with your analogy, however, because it is quite consistent to will that everyone be a “teacher” in the fuller sense of the word. If everyone went out of their way to share their valued skills, knowledge and talents with others, that indeed would be conducive to the well-being of all. Even doctors can and must learn from others in order to become competent, so passing on the skills of knowledge of any profession might indeed be a moral imperative.

Dealt with already, hence why I used the term “school teacher”.

Your analogy actually fails to mitigate Acrossthedesert’s argument, but instead supports it. A case can be made for teaching others to be an imperative based upon doing so being conducive of the good of all, though not in the narrow sense that you attempted to argue.

Hopefully this is now covered too.

I figured it would be better to provide an example showing that the argument didn’t work and let him work out why not for himself. But I’m sure your explanation above will do the job if he didn’t realise after my initial post.

 

[livingwordunity]

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?

That’s only if people take secularism/atheism to its logical conclusion which most people don’t. Most only stick to the emotional level without scratching the surface of anything deep and rational. So what we can bring up is the fact that statistically active homosexuals have much higher suicide rates even in countries that completely accept the “gay lifestyle” and so-called “same-sex marriage”. And a much higher percentage of them (in particular “gay” and bisexual men) get HIV/AIDS. The CDC and other experts and government studies confirm this. And these are far from being conservative sources since they even seem to apologize for the statistics which make the “gay lifestyle” look dangerous and unhealthy.

Sources:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly and please note that in my example I used the term “school teacher” not just “teacher” to make a clear division between the profession and anyone who performs the act of providing instruction.

No, I claimed that there was a problem with the argument Acrossthedesert tried to present using Kants tool.

Actually, your original post in reply to Acrossthedesert was to claim that Kant’s categorical imperative was problematic. My point is that you haven’t shown that at all.

The fact is that many things which we consider to be a moral behaviour (such as teaching the next generation) fail the categorical imperative test. Thus it is a useless test.

Neither have you shown that Acrossthedesert’s use of Kant’s universalizability principle is relevantly the same as your teacher example.

Your argument falls on both counts.

 

[CandideWest]

Actually, your original post in reply to Acrossthedesert was to claim that Kant’s categorical imperative was problematic. My point is that you haven’t shown that at all.

Ahh, sorry should probably have been more specific. To be clear I was arguing against Acrossthedesert’s attempt to use the argument against gay marriage, not arguing against Kants original principle.

Neither have you shown that Acrossthedesert’s use of Kant’s universalizability principle is relevantly the same as your teacher example.

Sorry, I deliberately constructed the argument for the school teachers in the same way to make the two arguments logically equivalent. I thought this was self evident and would therefore require no more detailed explanation.

But here is a breakdown of the logic in the two arguments of clarity. First Acrossthedesert:

1. If we make “having a homosexual marriage” a categorical imperative everyone will have one.
2. Everyone having a homosexual marriage would be catastrophic for the human race.
3. Therefore homosexual marriage is not moral.

My school teacher argument:

1. If we make “being a school teacher” a categorical imperative everyone will be one.
2. Everyone being a school teacher would be catastrophic for the human race.
3. Therefore being a school teacher is not moral.

As you have correctly pointed out. The error in both arguments lies in point 3, where the conclusion should have been that it is not morally obligatory.

Your argument falls on both counts.

I’ll grant I didn’t provide as much of a detailed breakdown as I could have, but you demonstrated yourself that my argument does work and indeed why it works.

 

[inocente]

The lesbian atheist is like the writer who doesn’t know how to tell a story and so keeps starting and abandoning ****** ideas and publishing nothing.

Your argument seems to be that because people hold different moral values, NO moral view may can inform the law because that would amount to “dictatorship” over those with different views. But all laws presume that Something Is Wrong (-why pass a law against texting while driving unless you think there’s something wrong with it?; further, why OPPOSE such a law unless you think there is something wrong with it?). On your view, nothing is or can be really wrong. There are just different views about what is wrong.

Thus it is not really wrong to base a law on religious belief. O sure, secularists will claim this is unfair and wrong, but hey, that’s just THEIR view and they have no more right to “dictate” law than religious people. (<<<<This is seldom noticed but secularists tend to assume that BECAUSE they are secular, when they impose their will, through law, on believers that this is a good thing although they insist that if believers imposed their will, through law, on secularists that this would be a horrorshow. This is what most kids recognize as trying to have it both ways; many adults still try to play this rigged game, but clear-eyed people won’t fall for the con.)

There are over a billion Catholics in the world so please spell out in detail, citing evidence, exactly how your “secularists” impose their will on believers in democracies.

The reality is that the majority impose their will and you are just as much a secularist when it comes to the morals of other religions - you don’t accept them just because others believe in them, you only accept them if they make sense to you.

Everyone else, including the atheist lesbian, has the same right as you.

 

[inocente]

No, what this this thread has proved is that you ignore all secular arguments (or fallaciously dismiss them as No True Scotsman) and then go back to saying there are only religious arguments and that those cannot be any good.

Question: why CAN’T a religious argument be a good one? Yes, some people are not believers but that is their problem, not the problem with a religious argument. I understand the notion that a secularist may not ACCEPT a religious argument but this does not mean anything is wrong with the argument.

But back to the main point: you have never addressed this secular argument, which I have posted at least three times now:

youtube.com/watch?v=8cQCi4ehXkg

This isn’t my thread and I’m not the arbiter of what makes a great argument. More countries are legalizing gay marriage because the arguments against it have failed repeatedly, the secular arguments because they haven’t been very strong, and the religious arguments because too few believed them.

I’ve tried to debate a video before but it quickly became a waste of time without a transcript, and it turned out that a number of posters don’t have broadband and couldn’t watch it anyway. Your video starts by repeating an argument which has already been discussed. Perhaps you could transcribe any argument you like which hasn’t been discussed.

 

[inocente]

Mr Inocent, the bible is a collection of scripture. It is not a legal book, though the scripture contains the law. Scripture is not a history book, though scripture has historical elements, Scripture is not a science book, though scripture has reason and logic.

You sound like an atheist rather than a Baptist. ** Jesus is a person**. You seem to know HIS story (the bible), but not know Him. Tu sabes de Jesus pero no LE conceces. Jesus is a person, pray more and maybe you will “concocer” Jesus Christ.

P.S. this thread proves nothing more than that “We wish to see Jesus”. Do you have a secular argument for the existence of love? God is love

My dear brother in Christ,** the truth is a person, Jesus Christ.** How can you have any logical discussion without the truth? The premise of this thread is where lies the problem.

I’ve no interest in your opinion of what I sound like, please read the stickies, stop discussing me, and start discussing the OP.

 

[inocente]

Your logic is defective. Single-parent families do not exist by choice. Their existence is due to the breakdown of their marriage. You are encouraging the establishment of homosexual “families” which deprive children of a father or mother deliberately - for which there is no possible excuse.

So when a husband has an affair and his wife finds out, the breakdown of their marriage has nothing to do with his choice? Please give examples of marriages where the breakdown had nothing to do with choices, along with your comments on why the spouses had no free will.

The existence of a law does not imply that it is for the benefit of the children.
Your substitution is invalid because discrimination on the ground of colour* is ***discrimination. The preservation of traditional marriage is based on the rational understanding of their biological, psychological and social roles as the father and mother who are united to their children and to each other as a unique and irreplaceable community. Any deviation from that norm is unjustified.

You are trying to rearrange the words to rescue your argument but it still won’t work. Substituting again, the preservation of traditional slavery IS still discrimination.

Taken to its logically absurd conclusion your argument implies that everyone should have equal rights in every respect regardless of the effect on society - and on children in particular. Polyamorists, polygamists, bisexuals and perverts should all be allowed to wreak havoc and accelerate the vortex of misery in permissive societies. When marriage to be a sacred institution and caters for politically expedient policies it ceases to have any moral significance whatsoever. The effect of extending marriage to every form of sexual taste and inclination is to distort it into a meaningless human institution geared to adult interests regardless of the harm it does to children.

I wasn’t making an argument, rather I was critiquing your use of the idea of “a normal human relationship” to defend opposition to gay adoption. What constitutes “a normal human relationship” varies greatly. It depends on culture, history, etc. and is definitely not set in stone. What is “normal” changes with every passing generation.

*Perhaps if you were a child faced with that prospect you might modify your views - although I doubt it because you have completely ignored the following facts:

To extend heterosexual marriage to a homosexual relationship is a radical change no matter what euphemism you care to use. You are glossing over the fundamental physical and psychological differences between the two sexes, ignoring the importance of the complementarity of the male and female personalities in raising a family and seeking to destroy the basis of normal family life* in a misguided attempt to compensate homosexuals for the injustice they have endured in the past and demonstrate that they have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in every respect. Do you really think that the imitation of a heterosexual custom which is becoming increasingly rare is going to have a profound influence on the status of homosexuals in society?

Yes I do. It is not a criminal offense to be homosexual, but society authorizes discrimination against homosexuals when it treats them differently without good reason.

btw is it currently illegal in the UK for homosexuals to adopt children? Unless it is, then whether they’re married or not won’t change anything to do with them raising families.

What is your primary reason for advocating gay marriage?

A society which treats law abiding citizens equally is better than one which doesn’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A society which treats law abiding citizens equally is better than one which doesn’t.

A society which takes from the “haves” and gives to the “have nots” is better, by your grounds, than one which does not. Communism, then, should be the ideal, at least according to your equality criterion.

The problem with your line of thought is that you do not distinguish the relevant conditions under which equality ought to be imposed by society. Theft can be justified as a means for equalizing ownership of property, yet it is not clear that equality is the only relevant criterion by which a “just” society operates.

Furthermore, equality as a general principle should only apply where the cases are, in fact, equal. However, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal. They are vastly different. One is normally fecund, while the other never is. That is a relevant difference which makes equal treatment suspect. What you are advocating is treating unlike cases as if they were alike without demonstrating why that ought to be the case.

Why should we treat homosexual relationships as if they were the same as heterosexual ones? I haven’t seen a good argument to do so, other than this vague appeal to equality. Demonstrate first how they are equal in order to expect equal treatment.

This is a specious “argument” on your part.

 

[inocente]

I wasn’t talking in respect to the law, I was talking in respect to the Immoral sexual acts of homosexuality. Why can you not see that?

I saw it, but you said “The sexual acts of homosexuality are acts of grave depravity, they are a cancer to the soul”.

Do you have any evidence for that statement, any reasoning?

This is where you are mistaken. I am not telling people what they can and can’t do. I am saying that a homosexual union is not a marriage. I am not trying to make such a union illegal. I am trying to preserve the institution of marriage, because marriage is important.

As long as you’re OK with one person one vote, that’s fine.

How come you get to be the dictator? how come you get to dominate us? why should me or anyone else submit to you and your genderless view of marriage? I happen to know that men and women are designed for one another. That only a man and a woman are compatible in such ways. I can’t help it if others are too foolish to see the basic differences between men and women and thier sexual compatibility with one another.

If a particular man believes he is designed for a particular woman, and vice versa, if they believe they are “soul mates”, why can’t two men believe they are soul mates too? If a man and a woman believe they are sexually compatible, why not two men or two women? How come you “happen to know” better than them and get to call others foolish?

You are the one trying to change marriage to make it genderless. I am merely saying that gender does matter when it comes to such a union. Why does gender no longer matter when it comes to a physical relationship?

No one is trying to make marriage genderless, for most people gender matters a lot. But a physical relationship doesn’t depend on marriage, and it debases marriage to suggest otherwise.

*Only men and women are sexually compatible. Two men or two women do not have this compatibility because of the basic anatomy of a man and a woman. They are therefore not a marriage when united in such ways.

I don’t expect you to magically agree with me. I expect you to wake up and see that only a man and a woman are compatible sexually. It is in our physical make up. The obvious differences between men and women. Why do you not understand? How much more black and white can I make this for you?

How could you morally promote sexual relations between two men or two women? This is what you are doing with same sex marriage. It is Immoral.*

It’s up to the individuals to decide if they’re sexually compatible, you don’t get to decide for anyone else…

Even then your argument is discriminatory - you don’t care what “grave depravities” married heterosexuals get up to, yet you assume the worst about homosexuals. Even then it’s irrational - unmarried people can get up to just as many “grave depravities” as married people.
josh987654321;10702940:

Yes. But giving heterosexual unions marriage does not approve of any “grave depravities.” By giving homosexual unions marriage. It absolutly approves of such “grave depravities.”

As I said, you don’t care what “grave depravities” married heterosexuals get up to, yet you assume the worst about homosexuals.

My argument is very clear and very logical. You are blinded by the term “equality.” All behaviours are not equal. I thought it would be very clear for everyone that when it comes to physical sexual relations that only a man and a woman are compatible in such ways directed towards procreation. So why do you want to view two men or two women with the same physically compatibility? this whole equality for everything is madness.

Civil marriage still isn’t about procreation, just like it wasn’t about procreation when discussed earlier on the thread, and just like it’s never been about procreation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Civil marriage still isn’t about procreation, just like it wasn’t about procreation when discussed earlier on the thread, and just like it’s never been about procreation.

This is a peculiar claim given that most married couples have or want children. If it not about having or wanting children why would anyone get married in the first place? Married love is about having that love become realized in children that come about from the union. It IS about family.

If it was only about pairing, marriage would never have been a concern of the state. Why would the state care about who you are having a relationship with if it were simply the concern of you and your partner whether you continue or end it? What justification does the state have for being involved if that is the case? Zip. Nada.

 

[inocente]

It is only against the law because the law, rightly, recognizes that the safety of citizens would be jeopardized by allowing anyone to drive. It is not the mere fact that it is against the law that makes it wrong. It is the fact that the safety of others hangs in the balance.

The law does not have the final say. Otherwise, things simply become right when a law is passed to sanction them. That is nonsense because then we could not question whether laws themselves are right or not.

The point is that it is possible to drive without a license, just as it is possible to have sex and make babies without a marriage license. So what? The question still remains whether either of them are right or not irrespective of what the law holds. The law itself just might be wrong on the matter if it allows and does not sanction individuals misusing a capacity to the endangerment of others.

Clearly, that millions of unborn individuals are put to death each year by others with the blessing of government laws demonstrates that the law does not protect all equally but favors those with power and voting privileges. In modern western states tyranny by the elite oligarchy (possessors of money. power and status) is the norm, whether you recognize it or not.

These governments are moving towards buttressing their power against anyone who doubts or questions their right to rule as oligarchical elites. Free speech will soon become a thing of the past as we inexorably move towards the consolidation of power in the hands of the wealthy under the guise of security and protection. Be careful which rights you argue in favour of, especially when the rights of some are ignored or trampled upon under a veneer of “liberty.”

Christ did not come to aid and abet the worldly elite. Someday, even you might discover that. To date you seem to have completely either lost sight of or have ignored the depth of the Gospel message.

Regarding SSM, the law has become blind to the rights of children, favouring instead the right of those with loud voices demanding the right to pleasure themselves without censure. Having the blessing of corrupt government laws does not make right what is intrinsically not.

So to summarize, there’s lot of stuff going on in the world you don’t like.

 

[inocente]

A society which treats law abiding citizens equally is better than one which doesn’t.
Peter Plato;10707773:

A society which takes from the “haves” and gives to the “have nots” is better, by your grounds, than one which does not. Communism, then, should be the ideal, at least according to your equality criterion.

The problem with your line of thought is that you do not distinguish the relevant conditions under which equality ought to be imposed by society. Theft can be justified as a means for equalizing ownership of property, yet it is not clear that equality is the only relevant criterion by which a “just” society operates.

Theft is illegal. I said “law abiding” citizens. You’re arguing against what you thought I might have said, not against what I said. Please validate your arguments before posting, it will save all of us a lot of time.

*Furthermore, equality as a general principle should only apply where the cases are, in fact, equal. However, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal. They are vastly different. One is normally fecund, while the other never is. That is a relevant difference which makes equal treatment suspect. What you are advocating is treating unlike cases as if they were alike without demonstrating why that ought to be the case.

Why should we treat homosexual relationships as if they were the same as heterosexual ones? I haven’t seen a good argument to do so, other than this vague appeal to equality. Demonstrate first how they are equal in order to expect equal treatment.

This is a specious “argument” on your part.*

You’d be the one to know.

My argument is that all law-abiding citizens should be equal before the law, which is based on the golden rule. Do you not agree with other Catholics about “love the sinner hate the sin”, do you think homosexuals are subhuman and as such cannot possibly have relationships equaling heterosexual relationships?

 

[inocente]

This is a peculiar claim given that most married couples have or want children. If it not about having or wanting children why would anyone get married in the first place? Married love is about having that love become realized in children that come about from the union. It IS about family.

We went round this before, there’s nothing about procreation in the vows, the ceremony, etc.

And it’s incorrect to only consider married couples, you need to consider the other side too or it’s biased. The percentage of couples in long-term relationships who want to raise a family may well be much the same whether married or unmarried.

If it was only about pairing, marriage would never have been a concern of the state. Why would the state care about who you are having a relationship with if it were simply the concern of you and your partner whether you continue or end it? What justification does the state have for being involved if that is the case? Zip. Nada.

It is the view of some that the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business.

Legalizing gay marriage won’t stop heterosexuals getting married, so if civil marriage really is predicated on procreation in your country it won’t be damaged.

 

[markeverett49]

This isn’t my thread and I’m not the arbiter of what makes a great argument. More countries are legalizing gay marriage because the arguments against it have failed repeatedly, the secular arguments because they haven’t been very strong, and the religious arguments because too few believed them…

You seem to think that because person A doesn’t accept argument B that the argument has failed. This does not follow. (Furthermore, you’re smart enough to know this doesn’t follow.)

Some people don’t accept the argument that they should set aside money for a rainy day—in fact, perhaps the majority reject the argument that saving money is in their own best interest—but it does not follow from this that the argument is bad. On the contrary, the argument is sound as a dollar (-well, sound as a dollar once was.) But most people don’t WANT to do it, so they brush off the argument.

The argument in the video is straightforward. Let those without broadband worry about themselves. I say you can’t answer the arguments there because you have refused at least three invitations to do so, claiming instead that there are no good secular arguments.

 

[josh987654321]

I saw it, but you said “The sexual acts of homosexuality are acts of grave depravity, they are a cancer to the soul”.

Do you have any evidence for that statement, any reasoning?

My reasoning is that the sexual relations between people of the same sex are disorderly passions, they are disordered acts, it goes against the natural law, against the truth that God created them male and female to be united in such ways.

I don’t know why you refuse to see this truth inocente, I think you have a good heart and that you are trying to help homosexuals incoente, but I think you are doing it the wrong way. I think you are missguided, what do you tell yourself when you promote the sexual acts of homosexuality? do you really think homosexuals acting on such sexual desires is good for them and something to be encouraged?

To really help homosexuals we must help them see that their desires are not acts to be encouraged, just like if we want to help heterosexuals we help them see that their desires for fornication, prostitution, etc are not acts to be encouraged. That we must all have sexual morality, that sex is not harmless fun to be experimented with.

As long as you’re OK with one person one vote, that’s fine.

I am okay with that, but I would like for you to join me in my vote because if we cannot convince you and you cannot convince us, than how can we expect others to make a morally right decision on this?

If a particular man believes he is designed for a particular woman, and vice versa, if they believe they are “soul mates”, why can’t two men believe they are soul mates too? If a man and a woman believe they are sexually compatible, why not two men or two women? How come you “happen to know” better than them and get to call others foolish?

It’s not whether a man and a woman “believe” they are sexually compatible, it’s that they know that they are sexually compatible, it is the truth written into nature itself, the truth that only a man and a woman are created to be compatible in such a way for one another because of the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman. Two men or two women do not have the “right parts” for such sexual compatibility, therefore what ever it is that they do to try and imitate such sexual acts is simply wrong.

No one is trying to make marriage genderless, for most people gender matters a lot. But a physical relationship doesn’t depend on marriage, and it debases marriage to suggest otherwise.

Of course marriage becomes genderless when same sex marriage is introduced. Marriage is the full giving of one self to the other, which includes mentally and physically (sexually).

The sexual act consumates the marriage. Therefore marriage does have alot to do with sexual acts.

It is not just the commitment of love, it is also the consummation of love through the sexual act open to procreation and family.

You really want to encourage homosexuals to try and consummate their union through disorderly sexual acts?

It’s up to the individuals to decide if they’re sexually compatible, you don’t get to decide for anyone else…

I didn’t think it was up to anyone, I thought that it would be up to nature itself, the anatomy of a man and a woman, the fact that only a man and a woman are designed for one another in such ways sexually towards procreation.

As I said, you don’t care what “grave depravities” married heterosexuals get up to, yet you assume the worst about homosexuals.

Like I said before. I do care. It’s that same sex marriage absolutly approves of “grave depravities” however heterosexual marriage doesn’t approve of “grave depravities.”

Those grave depravities are wrong regardless of whether it is a heterosexual union or a homosexual union, however marriage does not and should not approve of any “grave depravities.”

When it comes to a heterosexual union, they can sexually consumate such a union without any sexual “grave depravities” and the same simply cannot be said for a homosexual union as they just don’t have the “right parts” to consumate such a union in a moral and ordered way.

Civil marriage still isn’t about procreation, just like it wasn’t about procreation when discussed earlier on the thread, and just like it’s never been about procreation.

Marriage is largely about procreation, it is about providing a strong foundation in which to raise and support a family.

In regards to marriage I am talking about how both unions consumate such a union, heterosexuals can consumate their union in a moral and ordered way while it is physically impossible for homosexuals to consumate their union in such a way, any sexual activity in trying to consumate a homosexual union is disordered and immoral.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

So when a husband has an affair and his wife finds out, the breakdown of their marriage has nothing to do with his choice? Please give examples of marriages where the breakdown had nothing to do with choices, along with your comments on why the spouses had no free will.

1. Heterosexuals do not intend their marriage to break down when they get married.
2. Heterosexuals do not intend their children to be brought up without a father or mother.
3. Homosexuals intend their children to be brought up without a father or mother.
4. The existence of a law does not imply that it is necessarily for the benefit of the children.
5. The preservation of traditional marriage is based on the rational understanding of their biological, psychological and social roles as the father and mother who are united to their children and to each other as a unique and irreplaceable community.

The preservation of traditional slavery IS still discrimination.

1. It is absurd to equate marriage with “traditional slavery”.
2. Taken to its logically absurd conclusion your argument implies that everyone should have equal rights in every respect regardless of the effect on society - and on children in particular. Polyamorists, polygamists, bisexuals and perverts should all be allowed to wreak havoc and accelerate the vortex of misery in permissive societies. When marriage to be a sacred institution and caters for politically expedient policies it ceases to have any moral significance whatsoever. The effect of extending marriage to every form of sexual taste and inclination is to distort it into a meaningless human institution geared to adult interests regardless of the harm it does to children.

What constitutes “a normal human relationship” varies greatly. It depends on culture, history, etc. and is definitely not set in stone. What is “normal” changes with every passing generation.

1. Sexual intercourse between two homosexuals is not a normal biological relationship.
2. The deliberate exclusion of a father or mother from the family is neither biologically or socially normal.
3. If the basis of morality changes with every passing generation there are no absolute moral values.
4. If the basis of morality changes with every passing generation there is no reason why polyamorists, polygamists, bisexuals and perverts should not be allowed to marry whoever they like.
5. Do you believe the majority decide what is morally right and wrong?
6. Perhaps if you were a child faced with that prospect you might modify your views.
7. To extend heterosexual marriage to a homosexual relationship is a radical change no matter what euphemism you care to use.
8. You are glossing over the fundamental physical and psychological differences between the two sexes, ignoring the importance of the complementarity of the male and female personalities in raising a family and seeking to destroy the basis of normal family life.
9. Your argument is a misguided attempt to compensate homosexuals for the injustice they have endured in the past and demonstrate that they have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in every respect.

Do you really think that the imitation of a heterosexual custom which is becoming increasingly rare is going to have a profound influence on the status of homosexuals in society?

Yes I do. It is not a criminal offense to be homosexual, but society authorizes discrimination against homosexuals when it treats them differently without good reason.

1. There is nothing to prevent homosexuals having the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

btw is it currently illegal in the UK for homosexuals to adopt children? Unless it is, then whether they’re married or not won’t change anything to do with them raising families.

1. Moral values and principles are not determined by laws or the way people behave.
2. The law that homosexuals can adopt children does not imply that it is morally justified.

What is your primary reason for advocating gay marriage?

A society which treats law abiding citizens equally is better than one which doesn’t.

1. Does giving a different name to a fundamentally different relationship contravene the principle of equality ? If so why?

 

[CandideWest]

This is a peculiar claim given that most married couples have or want children. If it not about having or wanting children why would anyone get married in the first place? Married love is about having that love become realized in children that come about from the union. It IS about family.

Odd argument, I have a number of married friends who have no children and have no intention of having any. Are you really going to argue that their love is somehow not suitable for a marriage?

If it was only about pairing, marriage would never have been a concern of the state. Why would the state care about who you are having a relationship with if it were simply the concern of you and your partner whether you continue or end it? What justification does the state have for being involved if that is the case? Zip. Nada.

Incorrect. The state has an interest in people getting married because marriage has a stabilising influence on social structure. Our species evolved in a way which lead pair bonding to be most common and our social structures have subsequently evolved to suit.

Are you trying to argue that if a couple get married but don’t have children then they shouldn’t receive any of the benefits married couples gain from the state?

 

[JimG]

Our species evolved in a way which lead pair bonding to be most common and our social structures have subsequently evolved to suit.

This is an interesting observation, especially so since the ‘pair bonding’ recognized by the state since the dawn of civilization has always involved men and women, as a matter of course. Even those cultures which accepted homosexual behavior did not bestow the benefits of marriage upon it. There was no reason to do so. It had no possibility of providing the state what was necessary for its continuance and for the common good: the next generation of citizens.

And it still does not. Same sex behaviors, whatever they are, cannot be conjugal, cannot be marital, can never form the basis for natural families. Same sex couples can never be sexually complementary, and as a result can never be married. It is an impossibility. All they can do for the institution of marriage is to drive the final nail into its coffin.