Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

By the starting point, I mean that sexual complementarity is what makes marriage possible.

I disagree. I believe that a loving relationship is what makes marriage possible.

Love has many meanings from the emotional to the spiritual. The marriage vows promise permanency. Emotions come and go. Can one promise love, for better for worse, in sickness and in health, until death? Absolutely, but it is a commitment of the will, not something dependent on a fleeting emotion. Feelings of love follow the decision to love.

Sure, of course this applies equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

In many societies marriages were arranged by parents. Does that mean that there was no love? Of course there was love, and love became stronger because the parties decided to love. Did parents ever arrange a marriage between same sex couples? I don’t think so.

So?

I love my mother, my father, my brother, my sister, and my good friends. I don’t marry them.

Same here

Marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman which promises mutual permanency and fidelity, and unites parents to their children, and children to their parents and families.

Marriage is open to life, and it is so because of the sexual complementarity of husband and wife. A marriage in which marital relations is impossible is a contradiction in terms. That is why gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility.

I understand that is your view and I’m happy for you to continue to hold that view. But as far as I can tell this is based on your religious views and not on any secular arguments.

 

[CandideWest]

We are not in opposition to any other kind of love between homosexuals, it is just the “love of eros” and this love of eros is a part of marriage, it is not the only love in marriage but it is a part of the love required for marriage, therefore same sex marriage means to support and encourage the “love of eros” between homosexuals, which is wrong.

… according to your personal religious views.

Fair enough, I disagree.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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:

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.

Well said, Peter Plato.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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.

CandideWest, Did you ever read “Humanae Vitae”?
We as Catholics are morally obligated to support marriage having (a) spiritual union and open to (b) proCreation.

So, let us say we accept a universal rule that we have ONLY spiritual unions that were CLOSED to proCreation. (due to homosexuality, sterilization, contraception, or what ever)

Would this not undermine the purpose of marriage? Both in a Christian meaning and a practical sense concerning the continuation of the human race?

(I do apologize, I failed to see that you had “none” placed in your affiliation. I would invite you to believe in Christ. “Blessed are those who are poor in spirit…” (it took me near a lifetime to understand this proclamation from the sermon on the mount.)

Don’t focus on the rules… you will not understand the rules until you understand the Gospel.

Jesus came so that we may have life, and have it more abundantly! - John 10:10

 

[JimG]

I understand that is your view and I’m happy for you to continue to hold that view. But as far as I can tell this is based on your religious views and not on any secular arguments.

No, it is based on the common view of every human civilization since the dawn of history. not the last few decades which have undertaken to dismantle that common view of marriage. The common heritage was based on the nature of man and woman, the necessity for the generation and raising of children, the need for the continuance of civilization. I don’t think that tossing it aside for something as impossible as ‘same sex marriage’ is wise, either for individuals, for society, or for civilization.

But sometimes in the course of history, entire civilizations go astray. This is one of those times.

 

[CandideWest]

CandideWest, Did you ever read “Humanae Vitae”?
We as Catholics are morally obligated to support marriage having (a) spiritual union and open to (b) proCreation.

Nope. And again that is a religious document based on religious beliefs. Not a secular argument.

So, let us say we accept a universal rule that we have ONLY spiritual unions that were CLOSED to proCreation. (due to homosexuality, sterilization, contraception, or what ever)

Would this not undermine the purpose of marriage? Both in a Christian meaning and a practical sense concerning the continuation of the human race?

It would undermine part of it certainly… but what is your point? Is someone proposing that the law is changed in this way? Clearly it’s more than a little silly.

(I do apologize, I failed to see that you had “none” placed in your affiliation. I would invite you to believe in Christ. “Blessed are those who are poor in spirit…” (it took me near a lifetime to understand this proclamation from the sermon on the mount.)

No thanks, I spent decades as a Christian. It was a nice comforting set of beliefs when i was younger but ultimately I’ve outgrown them now.

 

[CandideWest]

No, it is based on the common view of every human civilization since the dawn of history.

Not true, both ancient China and the Roman Empire recognised homosexual marriages millenia ago (in the latter case it was made illegal in around 300 AD).

It’s also worth remembering that for a great deal of the history of human civilisation marriage has been little better than slavery of one person to another (or a group of people to a person). Fortunately times have changed and we have moved on from that “common view” now it’s time to move on from another one.

not the last few decades which have undertaken to dismantle that common view of marriage.

Just like over the last few decades we have dismantled the common view that treating women as inferior was ok. and treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour was ok. etc. Yes we are less discriminatory now.

The common heritage was based on the nature of man and woman, the necessity for the generation and raising of children, the need for the continuance of civilization. I don’t think that tossing it aside for something as impossible as ‘same sex marriage’ is wise, either for individuals, for society, or for civilization.

Again, is someone proposing making heterosexual marriage illegal? No? I thought not. These dubious implied claims that permitting homosexual marriage will lead nobody being able to have children are more than a little silly.

And there is nothing about “same sex marriage” which is impossible. If you really struggle to believe it maybe a trip to one of the many countries where it is already happens would help enlighten you (they include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Iceland, South Africa, Denmark and Argentina). Incidentally civilisation has not yet collapsed in any of those countries last i heard

But sometimes in the course of history, entire civilizations go astray. This is one of those times.

Righto, well I’ll wait for the collapse of civilisation then. As soon as that happens i’ll be right on here to tell you that you were right after all.

 

[tonyrey]

Single-parent families do not exist by choice. Their existence is due to the breakdown

Heterosexuals do not get married with the specific intention of depriving children of a father or mother deliberately.
.

… along with your comments on why the spouses had no free will.

The breakdown of marriages does not imply that couples do not have free will. If one or both of them cause the breakdown it doesn’t alter the fact that **they chose to get married. **

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.

You have failed to explain how I have rearranged the words to mean something different

Substituting again, the preservation of traditional slavery IS still discrimination.

You have also failed to explained why you equate marriage with “traditional slavery”.

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.

Once again you have evaded the following facts:

1. Your argument implies that everyone should have **equal rights in every respect regardless of the effect on society - and on children in particular. **
2. Your argument implies that **polyamorists, polygamists, bisexuals and perverts **should all be allowed to wreak havoc and accelerate the vortex of misery in permissive societies.
3. If you were a child faced with that prospect you might modify your views.
4. You are glossing over the** fundamental physical and psychological differences **between the two sexes.
5. You are ignoring the importance of the complementarity of the male and female personalities in raising a family.
6. You are 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.
7. The imitation of a heterosexual custom which is becoming increasingly rare is not going affect the status of homosexuals in society nor is it discrimination against homosexuals to preserve marriage for heterosexuals when they have exactly the same legal rights accorded by their civil relationship.
8. Sexual intercourse between two homosexuals is not a normal biological relationship.
9. The deliberate exclusion of a father or mother from the family is neither biologically or socially normal.
10. If the basis of morality changes with every passing generation there are no absolute moral values.
11. 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.
12. The majority do not decide what is morally right and wrong.
13. Moral values and principles are **not **determined by laws or the way people behave.
14. The law that homosexuals can adopt children does not imply that it is morally justified.

 

[JimG]

Yes, there were a few Roman Emperors who liked to cross dress and pretend to have a homosexual wedding. Nobody took them seriously. The Roman civil code did not grant marital status to same sex couples.

Will marriage fall into disuse because of same sex ‘marriage?’ It’s already falling into disuse, because of contraception, divorce, and cohabitation. Contraception breaks the connection between sex and procreation. Divorce breaks the vows of permanence and fidelity. Those who merely cohabit pretend at marriage, at some point perhaps deciding that they finally love each other enough to make it permanent. If they can pretend at marriage, homosexual couples can pretend too. But a same sex union will never be marital.

Marriage is already on the rocks. Homosexual marriage will simply break the final leg holding up the structure, removing any semblance of meaning from it. Yes, it will fall into disuse, and with the demise of marriage comes the demise of families. Family underpins civilization. Carle Zimmerman did a study of this way back in the 1940’s (See his book “Family and Civilization.”)

It does not take much thought to observe that men and women are different. That humans reproduce sexually, and that reproduction requires one of each sex. It doesn’t require a great deal of reflection to observe that children aren’t self sufficient, but need to be raised by mothers and fathers within a stable family.

But what do we care for the facts of anatomy, or biology, or reproduction? All those previous civilizations just got things wrong, didn’t they? What did they know about love? Only we know what’s best. Isn’t social engineering great?

I would at least recommend a reading of the essay “What Is Marriage?” from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Volume 34.

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf

 

[CandideWest]

Will marriage fall into disuse because of same sex ‘marriage?’ It’s already falling into disuse, because of contraception, divorce, and cohabitation.

In disuse? I don’t know about where you are but marriage is still popular where I live in England.

Contraception breaks the connection between sex and procreation. Divorce breaks the vows of permanence and fidelity. Those who merely cohabit pretend at marriage, at some point perhaps deciding that they finally love each other enough to make it permanent. If they can pretend at marriage, homosexual couples can pretend too. But a same sex union will never be marital.

… in your opinion based on your personal religious beliefs. I disagree.

Again you have yet to present a secular argument.

Marriage is already on the rocks. Homosexual marriage will simply break the final leg holding up the structure, removing any semblance of meaning from it. Yes, it will fall into disuse, and with the demise of marriage comes the demise of families. Family underpins civilization. Carle Zimmerman did a study of this way back in the 1940’s (See his book “Family and Civilization.”)

Righto, well I’ll await in inevitable collapse of civilisation then. The bright side is that we should have over a decade of notice of the approaching collapse of civilisation as some countries legalised it over 10 years ago, so we should have at least 10 years notice after they fall into anarchy before we join them.

Lucky us eh?

It does not take much thought to observe that men and women are different. That humans reproduce sexually, and that reproduction requires one of each sex. It doesn’t require a great deal of reflection to observe that children aren’t self sufficient,

you were doing well up to here.

but need to be raised by mothers and fathers within a stable family.

Failed at this point though. we already have extensive experience of children being raised in single parent families, in Britain in the 1920s and again in the 1940s it was pretty much the norm (so many young fathers had been killed during the world wars).

But what do we care for the facts of anatomy, or biology, or reproduction? All those previous civilizations just got things wrong, didn’t they?

Yep they were wrong about many things like slavery, racism, womens rights, medicine, torture etc etc etc. Fortunately we’ve moved forwards a bit since then, and of course with every step forwards we people have been predicting that this step was actually going to lead to some horrific disaster and the end of the human race. In every case it turned out they were wrong.

This is just another step forwards.

 

[JimG]

It always astonishes me that arguments against same sex marriage based on anatomy, biology, human reproductive systems, and the nature of man, woman, and familes, are labeled as religious.

Once again, I recommend the consideration of this essay:

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf

 

[CandideWest]

It always astonishes me that arguments against same sex marriage based on anatomy, biology, human reproductive systems, and the nature of man, woman, and familes, are labeled as religious.

Those are not arguments against homosexual marriage. All that you arguments amount to is “I don’t like the idea of homosexual sex due to my religious views and therefore I don’t want homosexual relationships formally recognised in law”.

Yes you can go around predicting that doomsday will result if we permit homosexuals to get married, just like opponents of banning slavery once did, and just like those opposing womens rights once did etc. But when people can look around those countries where homosexuals are already free to get married and see for themselves that civilisation hasn’t collapsed there yet (I believe it has been 12 years now for the Netherlands) your opinion won’t carry much weight.

 

[JimG]

Those are not arguments against homosexual marriage. All that you arguments amount to is “I don’t like the idea of homosexual sex due to my religious views and therefore I don’t want homosexual relationships formally recognised in law”.

Yes you can go around predicting that doomsday will result if we permit homosexuals to get married, just like opponents of banning slavery once did, and just like those opposing womens rights once did etc. But when people can look around those countries where homosexuals are already free to get married and see for themselves that civilisation hasn’t collapsed there yet (I believe it has been 12 years now for the Netherlands) your opinion won’t carry much weight.

Amazing. The article goes through 37 pages of discussion of marriage without making a religious argument, and you characterize it as: “I don’t like the idea of homosexual sex due to my religious views and therefore I don’t want homosexual relationships formally recognised in law”.

It seems that the only kind of secular argument acceptable to those favoring same sex marriage is one which accepts their view.

 

[CandideWest]

Amazing. The article goes through 37 pages of discussion of marriage without making a religious argument, and you characterize it as: “I don’t like the idea of homosexual sex due to my religious views and therefore I don’t want homosexual relationships formally recognised in law”.

??? I’m talking about your arguments, I specifically stated “All that you (typo, should have been “your”) arguments amount to is …”

I’m afraid I don’t follow every link to every article that someone on a forum directs me to. I tried to for a while but found that the process mostly futile as so many of the articles I was being directed to were so poorly argued.

If you have a specific secular argument that you’d like to discuss then why not write it out on here and we can discuss it if you like.

It seems that the only kind of secular argument acceptable to those favoring same sex marriage is one which accepts their view.

Well why not actually write out a secular argument against gay marriage then? Remember to do so you will need to avoid trying to argue from anything which is based religious beliefs.

 

[josh987654321]

It always astonishes me that arguments against same sex marriage based on anatomy, biology, human reproductive systems, and the nature of man, woman, and familes, are labeled as religious.

Once again, I recommend the consideration of this essay:

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdfThose are not arguments against homosexual marriage. All that you arguments amount to is “I don’t like the idea of homosexual sex due to my religious views and therefore I don’t want homosexual relationships formally recognised in law”.

Yes you can go around predicting that doomsday will result if we permit homosexuals to get married, just like opponents of banning slavery once did, and just like those opposing womens rights once did etc. But when people can look around those countries where homosexuals are already free to get married and see for themselves that civilisation hasn’t collapsed there yet (I believe it has been 12 years now for the Netherlands) your opinion won’t carry much weight.

If people are too foolish to see that men and women are designed for one another with such physical compatability, than I don’t know what else we can say, like JimG says, the only argument you will accept CandideWest is the one that supports your views. You reject the truth that is so clear spelt out in black and white for you. so I guess the question is why do you choose to reject this truth?

I mean the human anatomy of a man and a woman are fundamentally different, they are compatible sexually in a way that two men or two women are not. you are ignoring gender and calling that good in the name of equality.

haha, it’s amazing how many people call that “religious beliefs.”

I just don’t know how people can get through to those who completely dismiss the truth that a man and woman are the only ones with such sexual compatibility. Two men or two women simply do not have “the right parts.”

Maybe you should do a biology course or something CandideWest, did you not learn the differences between men and women in school?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well why not actually write out a secular argument against gay marriage then? Remember to do so you will need to avoid trying to argue from anything which is based religious beliefs.

Better still…

Why don’t you write out a definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples but excludes all other relationships (adult siblings, adult children and their parents, lifelong friends, polyamorous relationships, grandparent and grandchild) on non-arbitrary grounds? If your definition of marriage is not about sex, then why would these other long term committed relationships be excluded from marriage? Your argument is simply nonsensical.

A reasonable definition of marriage that does not include sex becomes so ineffectual as to be legally untenable. The point being that marriage must be defined to include sexual aspects of a relationship. A further point is that once sex is included in a definition what would be the point of including it if that simply means ineffectual mutual self-gratification? Sex without the potency to create has no reason to be regulated by the state so why should the state involve itself in relationships that are merely private and personal matters that can be terminated whenever the partners decide? The state has no reason to be involved.

A third point is that if ineffectual sexual relationships ought to be included in the definition of marriage why not any ineffectual sexual partnerships even those with multiple participants also be included? Perhaps the reason is precisely because they are impotent to begin with? Which takes us back to the defining feature of heterosexual marriage: potency to create new life. Ultimately, the reason why any state sought to regulate marriages in the first place was because of the power of heterosexual couples to create new life. Why would the state seek to regulate an impotent capacity?

I can run around blowing detergent bubbles out of a straw all day long and the state will take no interest until when and if this pleasurable activity becomes problematic to others. At that time the state intervenes to regulate potential harm. Heterosexual couples have a very distinct capacity - the creation of new human beings who can possibly be harmed. That is the interest that the state rightfully should have in regulating the capacity to create new life to ensure this power is not abused. Homosexual couples lack any power to create life so there is no fundamental reason for including them in regulatory processes. It is like requiring passengers in motor vehicles to have a license to drive when they are not actually carrying out any functional activity that might endanger others, as drivers do. It is only potent capacities that ought to be regulated by the state if and when the well-being of citizens is in jeopardy. Clearly, homosexual pairings are impotent in terms of relevant capacity so they ought not be regulated and not included in any definition of marriage on which laws are to be grounded.

The basis of law and reason is to treat like things alike and clearly impotent homosexual relationships are relevantly different than fecund heterosexual relationships and should be distinguished as such under the law by definition. Treating unlike things alike is the basis for irrational thought and behaviour. Making relevant distinctions is crucial for making sound reasoned judgements which is precisely what the law is, or at least should be, entirely concerned about.

It appears that blurring important distinctions is what you are advocating but haven’t provided a substantive reason for doing so in this case. The onus is on you to

1. provide a reasonable definition of marriage that doesn’t discriminate against other relationships
2. show that the sexual behaviour of homosexual couples is en par with the sexual behaviour of heterosexual couples in order to claim that homosexual behavior ought to be treated as identical to fecund heterosexual behaviour under the law.

 

[JimG]

??? I’m talking about your arguments, I specifically stated “All that you (typo, should have been “your”) arguments amount to is …”

I’m afraid I don’t follow every link to every article that someone on a forum directs me to. I tried to for a while but found that the process mostly futile as so many of the articles I was being directed to were so poorly argued.

If you have a specific secular argument that you’d like to discuss then why not write it out on here and we can discuss it if you like.

Well why not actually write out a secular argument against gay marriage then? Remember to do so you will need to avoid trying to argue from anything which is based religious beliefs.

Let’s see. Is human anatomy based on religious belief? Is the human reproductive system based on religious belief? Is the fact that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child based on religious belief? Is the fact that it takes human sexual reproduction by men and women to produce the next generation of citizens a matter of religious belief? Is the sexual complementarity of men and women a matter of religious belief?

No, it’s a matter of biology and anatomy. Is the fact that same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse a matter of religious belief? No, these are all these matters of common knowledge, upon which the institution of marriage has been based for thousands of years.

Suppose human beings reproduced in an asexual manner and children were born fully developed. Do you think that governments would ever have taken an interest in human “pair bonding” if that were the case? Of course not. There would be no need. The government takes an interest because marriage connects husbands and wives and connects parents to children, and ensures that society continues with the generation and raising of the next generation of citizens.

Marriage does that because that is the nature of union between men and women. Not every marriage results in children and not every act of marital intercourse results in conception. But every act of marital intercourse is ordered to the generation of children. Every marriage between man and woman is naturally ordered to procreation even if it is infertile.
It is the very nature of the act of human sexual intercourse that it is ordered to procreation.

Same sex couples are not ordered to the procreation of children, and cannot be. Same sex couples cannot be ordered to the continuance of the society and can never be. Same sex relations can never be marital.

Did I say anything religious? If so, I apologize. I only meant to speak to the nature of marriage. I don’t oppose same sex ‘marriage’ because it is against religion. I oppose it because it is impossible. Impossibilities ought not to be recognized in law. But marriage ought to be, since the government has an interest in the continued existence of its society.

Of course, the lengthy—non-religious—article by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan P. Anderson from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is much more in depth, but I understand that you do not wish to read it.

The real question is whether or not there are any non-religious arguments in favor of gay marriage. It seems the most basic of them are based on the currently popular religion of secularism.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s see. Is human anatomy based on religious belief? Is the human reproductive system based on religious belief? Is the fact that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child based on religious belief? Is the fact that it takes human sexual reproduction by men and women to produce the next generation of citizens a matter of religious belief? Is the sexual complementarity of men and women a matter of religious belief?

No, it’s a matter of biology and anatomy. Is the fact that same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse a matter of religious belief? No, these are all these matters of common knowledge, upon which the institution of marriage has been based for thousands of years.

Suppose human beings reproduced in an asexual manner and children were born fully developed. Do you think that governments would ever have taken an interest in human “pair bonding” if that were the case? Of course not. There would be no need. The government takes an interest because marriage connects husbands and wives and connects parents to children, and ensures that society continues with the generation and raising of the next generation of citizens.

Marriage does that because that is the nature of union between men and women. Not every marriage results in children and not every act of marital intercourse results in conception. But every act of marital intercourse is ordered to the generation of children. Every marriage between man and woman is naturally ordered to procreation even if it is infertile.
It is the very nature of the act of human sexual intercourse that it is ordered to procreation.

Same sex couples are not ordered to the procreation of children, and cannot be. Same sex couples cannot be ordered to the continuance of the society and can never be. Same sex relations can never be marital.

Did I say anything religious? If so, I apologize. I only meant to speak to the nature of marriage. I don’t oppose same sex ‘marriage’ because it is against religion. I oppose it because it is impossible. Impossibilities ought not to be recognized in law. But marriage ought to be, since the government has an interest in the continued existence of its society.

Of course, the lengthy—non-religious—article by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan P. Anderson from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is much more in depth, but I understand that you do not wish to read it.

The real question is whether or not there are any non-religious arguments in favor of gay marriage. It seems the most basic of them are based on the currently popular religion of secularism.

Irrefutable logic! :tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

Better still…

Why don’t you write out a definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples but excludes all other relationships (adult siblings, adult children and their parents, lifelong friends, polyamorous relationships, grandparent and grandchild) on non-arbitrary grounds? If your definition of marriage is not about sex, then why would these other long term committed relationships be excluded from marriage? Your argument is simply nonsensical.

A reasonable definition of marriage that does not include sex becomes so ineffectual as to be legally untenable. The point being that marriage must be defined to include sexual aspects of a relationship. A further point is that once sex is included in a definition what would be the point of including it if that simply means ineffectual mutual self-gratification? Sex without the potency to create has no reason to be regulated by the state so why should the state involve itself in relationships that are merely private and personal matters that can be terminated whenever the partners decide? The state has no reason to be involved.

A third point is that if ineffectual sexual relationships ought to be included in the definition of marriage why not any ineffectual sexual partnerships even those with multiple participants also be included? Perhaps the reason is precisely because they are impotent to begin with? Which takes us back to the defining feature of heterosexual marriage: potency to create new life. Ultimately, the reason why any state sought to regulate marriages in the first place was because of the power of heterosexual couples to create new life. Why would the state seek to regulate an impotent capacity?

I can run around blowing detergent bubbles out of a straw all day long and the state will take no interest until when and if this pleasurable activity becomes problematic to others. At that time the state intervenes to regulate potential harm. Heterosexual couples have a very distinct capacity - the creation of new human beings who can possibly be harmed. That is the interest that the state rightfully should have in regulating the capacity to create new life to ensure this power is not abused. Homosexual couples lack any power to create life so there is no fundamental reason for including them in regulatory processes. It is like requiring passengers in motor vehicles to have a license to drive when they are not actually carrying out any functional activity that might endanger others, as drivers do. It is only potent capacities that ought to be regulated by the state if and when the well-being of citizens is in jeopardy. Clearly, homosexual pairings are impotent in terms of relevant capacity so they ought not be regulated and not included in any definition of marriage on which laws are to be grounded.

The basis of law and reason is to treat like things alike and clearly impotent homosexual relationships are relevantly different than fecund heterosexual relationships and should be distinguished as such under the law by definition. Treating unlike things alike is the basis for irrational thought and behaviour. Making relevant distinctions is crucial for making sound reasoned judgements which is precisely what the law is, or at least should be, entirely concerned about.

It appears that blurring important distinctions is what you are advocating but haven’t provided a substantive reason for doing so in this case. The onus is on you to

1. provide a reasonable definition of marriage that doesn’t discriminate against other relationships
2. show that the sexual behaviour of homosexual couples is en par with the sexual behaviour of heterosexual couples in order to claim that homosexual behavior ought to be treated as identical to fecund heterosexual behaviour under the law.

Yet another powerful post! :tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

If people are too foolish to see that men and women are designed for one another with such physical compatability, than I don’t know what else we can say, like JimG says, the only argument you will accept CandideWest is the one that supports your views. You reject the truth that is so clear spelt out in black and white for you. so I guess the question is why do you choose to reject this truth?

I mean the human anatomy of a man and a woman are fundamentally different, they are compatible sexually in a way that two men or two women are not. you are ignoring gender and calling that good in the name of equality.

haha, it’s amazing how many people call that “religious beliefs.”

I just don’t know how people can get through to those who completely dismiss the truth that a man and woman are the only ones with such sexual compatibility. Two men or two women simply do not have “the right parts.”

Maybe you should do a biology course or something CandideWest, did you not learn the differences between men and women in school?

Thank you for reading
Josh

The unisex fashion now dominates every aspect of life with devastating consequences.