Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

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?

Are any of those arguments against gay marriage? No. In fact they are not arguments at all.

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?

… And suppose the world were ruled by a giant beaver, would we still eat Danish pastries?

“Supposing” things which are so wildly out of line with reality is pointless as we cannot hope to make accurate predictions. In this case you are (for some reason) supposing that without evolving as a pair bonding species we would still be a pair bonding species. This demonstrates well how wild supposition can lead to odd conclusions.

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.

So lets take the case of a married man and woman who are totally infertile (say the woman has had a double Oophorectomy and the man a Bi-Lateral Orchiectomy both due to cancer). So neither of them has the equipment to have children but they can still have sex. Can they still have “marital intercourse” which is ordered to the creation of children?

Or is it sinful if they have sex? For that matter is their marriage invalid?

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.

It would be interesting to know what you mean by the phrase “ordered to”. Without that phrase defined its not possible to understand what the above paragraphs actually mean.

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.

Ahh, but you see it IS possible. In fact there are loads of examples around the world right now. So if your objection is based on it being impossible then you have no objection

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.

Just the old one against discrimination I’m afraid. It’s an old argument and its been applied many times before

“white people can do X, black people should be allowed to as well”.

“men can do X, women should be allowed to as well”.

Now we’re working on

“heterosexuals can do X, homosexuals should be allowed to as well”.

As with each of the previous changes many people will try to resist some with secular arguments (like the argument that banning slavery would make cotton production more expensive) and some religious arguments (like the Great Chain of Being which sought to show that other races were inferior). But I suspect that eventually we’ll stop making excuses for discrimination and take another step forwards.

 

[inocente]

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.

I’ve only noticed the invite once, and said I don’t want to debate a video because last time I tried it got very confused without a transcript.

I’m happy to discuss the argument if you write it out, it should only need a few sentences if it’s straightforward as you say.

 

[inocente]

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.

The so-called natural law is just one of many systems of ethics. It uses a subjectively chosen catalog of goods. If “procreation” is subjectively included in the catalog, you reach your conclusion. Don’t include it, or use any other system of ethics, and you won’t reach your conclusion. That’s a bit of a problem for opponents of gay marriage.

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?

Why do you think marriage promotes and encourages sexual acts?

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.

If denying marriage to homosexuals will make them more sexually responsible, stopping heterosexuals getting married will make them more sexually responsible too. Err…

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?

I think the huge number of threads about this on CAF is an indication that the majority is increasingly in favor. It wouldn’t be an issue otherwise.

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.

Are you going to set up a sex police or something to authorize who can have sex? People decide for themselves whether they are sexually compatible, and people are not made of Lego bricks.

*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?*

We’ve been round this, and I think the remainder of your post, let’s try to avoid repetition.

 

[inocente]

Heterosexuals do not intend their marriage to break down when they get married.

But in the real world they do, quite a lot.

Heterosexuals do not intend their children to be brought up without a father or mother.

But in the real world it happens, quite a lot.

Homosexuals intend their children to be brought up without a father or mother.

And denying marriage won’t stop that.

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.
tonyrey;10707967:

The existence of a law does not imply that it is necessarily for the benefit of the children.

You didn’t answer my question.

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.

You already posted that and I already replied.

*It is absurd to equate marriage with “traditional slavery”. *

Err… yes, I was saying your argument was absurd.

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.

You already posted that and I already replied.

Sexual intercourse between two homosexuals is not a normal biological relationship.

You are reducing humanity to biological machines.

The deliberate exclusion of a father or mother from the family is neither biologically or socially normal.

Yes, all those single-parent families are a problem. Seems a bit off-topic though.

If the basis of morality changes with every passing generation there are no absolute moral values.

Correct.

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.

I love the paring of bisexuals with perverts, as if. But yes, in a democracy the majority rules. Get used to it.

Do you believe the majority decide what is morally right and wrong?

No.

Perhaps if you were a child faced with that prospect you might modify your views.

No, my upbringing was more enlightened.

To extend heterosexual marriage to a homosexual relationship is a radical change no matter what euphemism you care to use.

This and the remainder of your post seems to be a repetition of your previous post, to which I already replied

 

[markeverett49]

Maybe you’re right, I haven’t researched it. But nonetheless, even childless marriages are more stabilising than childless non-marriages. That in itself is sufficient reason for government to have a preference for it’s citizens to be married (as we can tell that most marital benefits granted by government are not subjet to the couple having children).

And of course this applies equally well to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Well, no, or at least, not that we know of. There’s too little data, spanning too short a time, on same-sex married couples to say that they are functionally the same as childless heterosexual couples.

Also, for most of human history it has been the case that most married couples have had children. Indeed, it is still more common for married couples to have children than to not have them (-though not as many of them as before the advent of the pill.) But we know that same-sex couples cannot reproduce—indeed, they cannot perform the marital act (-at least, not with each other). This is a significant difference.

 

[inocente]

Speaking of evolution, and you have, what would be the point of any behaviour “evolving” if it could not possibly be passed on to the next generation? Why have lead pair bonding unless it could possibly lead to a new generation being born to them? There would be absolutely no benefit or point for lead pair bonding if that bonding simply ended with the death of the pair. Evolution depends upon transmission to the next generation. You could not have any evolutionary benefit occurring unless the trait could be passed on. Lead pair bonding has no benefit to any species unless it is towards propagation and continuation of the trait. What would be the point otherwise? Your argument just died in its tracks.

One speculative theory is that in a tribe both heterosexuals and homosexuals provide resource (hunting, gathering, cooking, nursing, etc.), but heterosexuals increase the pressure to feed the tribe by producing off-spring, whereas homosexuals don’t increase the pressure. A proportion of homosexuals is thus an advantageous adaptation for the survival of the tribe.

 

[inocente]

I think when discussing same sex marriage we need to talk about love and the word love in english terms is far to vague.

The whole issue is to do with “love of eros” not any other kind of love. Homosexuals can love one another as long as it is not love of eros.

Love of eros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

This kind of love is absolutly a part of marriage, it is this kind of love that is disordered and immoral when it comes to homosexual unions because it has everything to do with the sexual acts of homosexuality.

It all comes down to how they consummate the marriage, heterosexuals can consummate their marriage in a moral and ordered way targeted towards procreation however homosexuals are physically incapable of consummating their union in a moral and ordered way, thus why it is not a marriage.

Do you really want to encourage homosexuals to act sexually Immoral and disorderly in trying to consummate their so called marriage?

You might feel as if we are denying homosexuals the unity of marriage, but the fact is that they cannot have the same unity that a male and female does, as the physical compatability just isn’t there, they simply do not share the same “love of eros” for a marriage.

Does love of eros no longer matter when it comes to marriage? and if so, than marriage should be for any kind of loving relationship. I mean can friends get married who do not have a love of eros, who are simply friends? if love of eros no longer matters when it comes to marriage than really any kind of loving union should be recognised as a marriage.

Definitions of Love -

**Love of Agape **- means “love,” which means “I love you.” In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of “true love” rather than the attraction suggested by “eros.” It can also be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God.

Love of Eros - is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Love of Philia - means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity.

Love of Storge - means “affection” in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

Now which one(s) of these “loves” would be required for marriage? I would most definatly include “Love of eros.” it would be naive to exclude such love from marriage.

Our primary concern is the love of eros between homosexuals that is a part of marriage and to support same sex marriage means to support and encourage love of eros between homosexuals, which has everything to do with the sexual acts of homosexuality and thus why same sex marriage is just so very wrong.

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.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Do you really think love is more complicated than quantum theory?

Two people love each other. End of story.

 

[inocente]

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

You have failed to explain how I have rearranged the words to mean something different
You have also failed to explained why you equate marriage with “traditional slavery”.

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.

You already replied to my post in a different form in post #417.

 

[markeverett49]

One speculative theory is that in a tribe both heterosexuals and homosexuals provide resource (hunting, gathering, cooking, nursing, etc.), but heterosexuals increase the pressure to feed the tribe by producing off-spring, whereas homosexuals don’t increase the pressure. A proportion of homosexuals is thus an advantageous adaptation for the survival of the tribe.

Speculative indeed but if you’re thinking about this you must also be thinking about the percentage of the heterosexual population that is infertile.

Which group is larger, infertile heterosexuals or homosexuals? (I don’t know but I would like to know and I’m glad you’re on the case.)

Also, what percentage of homosexuals become parents anyway? As we all know, a heterosexual man may still impregnate a woman and a homosexual woman may still be impregnated by a man.

In short, homosexuality need not cut down on the population—as homosexuals are not barren in themselves but only in certain chosen acts----whereas infertile heterosexuals CANNOT reproduce.

 

[Monkey1976]

One speculative theory is that in a tribe both heterosexuals and homosexuals provide resource (hunting, gathering, cooking, nursing, etc.), but heterosexuals increase the pressure to feed the tribe by producing off-spring, whereas homosexuals don’t increase the pressure. A proportion of homosexuals is thus an advantageous adaptation for the survival of the tribe.

If it’s such an advantage, why did no society for the past 20,000 or so years (up until AD2000) recognize same-sex “marriages”? This isn’t just a European or Judeo-Christian thing - there is NO evidence for ANY society EVER doing this, not even those where homosexual behavior was actually required by law.

 

[markeverett49]

Two people love each other. End of story.

Uh, no. That’s not even the end of a teenage story. By college, many young people have been in love a few times and no longer love their former flames. This is everyday stuff.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Your argument implies that everyone should have **equal rights in every respect regardless of the effect on society - and on children in particular. **

And you have to failed to refute any of the statements.

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

 

[inocente]

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

They are often based in religion though, or rather in a form of religion involving the idea of a designer, what today we’d call creationism, since only then do men and women have preordained roles. It may be no coincidence that gay marriage only becomes possible in the West post-Darwin.

But also they’re just not very well-grounded arguments, as shown by your pdf being so long and convoluted (I admit not reading all 40 or so pages). Perhaps they didn’t need to be in the past when the place of homosexuals wasn’t questioned. At any rate they don’t stand up well to scrutiny - we’re happy enough to marry heterosexuals without even asking if they’ll have sex, and we’re not biological machines, we’re human beings.

 

[markeverett49]

? 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.

This won’t do. In a secular context, appeals to divine revelation won’t fly, but to outlaw “anything which is based [on] religious beliefs” is asking too much and for two reasons.

First, opposition to murder is for most people a religious belief. Many non-religious people hold this belief too but for most of us, it is something we were taught and expect other people to have been taught as children. Lots of beliefs are like this, based on a belief in the dignity of all human beings. This isn’t a belief specific to a country or a time----if we all heard of a place tomorrow where the left-handed people were killed at the whim of right-handed people we would all think that is wrong without knowing anything about the laws of that country or its history. This sort of belief is what centuries of philosophers have considered to be part of ‘natural religion.’

Second, secularists who set things up this way never play by the same rules they expect religious people to play by. For example, the idea that men and women are equal (-which I accept; I’m using this as an example) is held by most. Secularists do not object to this because they regard it as a secular truth .But it isn’t secular, it’s just true.

When secularists say that heterosexual and homosexuals are equivalent, they are saying the BELIEVE this but not that any science has demonstrated it. (What science could? It’s not a scientific claim.) They think that because this is a secular claim it must be accepted by all OR rejected on secular grounds; however, it is not HELD on secular grounds. It is a belief, plain and simple, one might say a secularist’s article of faith. But it is nowhere substantiated.

This is a version of “heads I win, tails you lose.” You don’t have to prove anything. You just assert it. But you expect anyone who disagrees with your claim to offer proof. You are requiring a standard of others that you do not require of yourself.

 

[inocente]

And you have to failed to refute any of the statements.

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

No, as I already said, you already replied, and I already replied to your reply.

Already.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

More likely the latter than the former.

 

[inocente]

And you have to failed to refute any of the statements.

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

tonyrey

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

More likely the latter than the former.
** General Guidelines**

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

 

[inocente]

And you have to failed to refute any of the statements.

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

tonyrey

Silence implies assent - or intellectual impotence…

More likely the latter than the former.

General Guidelines

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

One more time and I report both of you, is that crystal clear?

You bring your Church into disrepute with this behavior. If you can’t argue your point then please leave the thread.

 

[stewstew03]

Do you really think love is more complicated than quantum theory?

Two people love each other. End of story.

And… Incest?

How about NAMBLA?

Surely there is more to the story…

 

[stewstew03]

One speculative theory is that in a tribe both heterosexuals and homosexuals provide resource (hunting, gathering, cooking, nursing, etc.), but heterosexuals increase the pressure to feed the tribe by producing off-spring, whereas homosexuals don’t increase the pressure. A proportion of homosexuals is thus an advantageous adaptation for the survival of the tribe.

Except… homosexual couples want to raise children, too, and claim to be just as adept at doing so.