Secular argument against gay marriage

[stewstew03]

Yes exactly. The theory is that heterosexuals increase pressure to feed the tribe by producing children, while a proportion of homosexuals reduces pressure, since they help look after the children without producing any of their own.

Huh? How does that slow population growth if the homosexual couple also wants to raise children? The pressure for offspring is also coming from the homosexual pair.

 

[markeverett49]

Huh? How does that slow population growth if the homosexual couple also wants to raise children? The pressure for offspring is also coming from the homosexual pair.

Let’s not take this unnecessary detour. In terms of evolution, the present is the result of past evolutionary pressures; recent changes in laws about same-sex marriage have nothing to do with humanity’s evolutionary origins. The assumption is that homosexuality Goes Way Back and its evolutionary advantage must have been real and significant Way Back When.

The problem with this is that homosexual persons are fertile (-it is homosexual acts that are barren) and many homsexual persons entered into conventional marriages and produced children. Thus there is no evidence that homosexuality WAS a brake on population growth. Since no one can show that it was, it makes no sense to assume that such a brake is the reason homosexuality evolved.

That said, it is a problem for evolutionary theory to argue this way. It is a dogma for Darwin that all organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible but this has never been true of people. Indeed, it has been remarked upon for over 2000 years that wealthy human beings have FEWER children than poor ones. Some heterosexual people have no children at all—they never marry—and still others are infertile. Given all this, it is odd to suggest that homosexuality arose to check population growth. For Darwin, population growth was NOT to be checked because that pressure (-growing population, dwindling food supply) was the engine of natural selection. If populations can check their own growth, evolutionary theory starts to fall apart.

 

[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.
inocente;10715900:

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.
josh987654321;10718750:

I can easily remove procreation from it, because it is still sexual activity targeted towards procreation. It’s more about “what parts fit where” and thus I come to the exact same conclusion every time. Why do you draw a different conclusion?

You’ll see that in your first post you were using a natural law argument, then after my reply you changed to a different argument about body parts.

So how does your new argument work? An assault weapon is fine since it fits the hands, a suicide bomb is fine since it fits snugly round the chest?

*You think it doesn’t?

Like I said before, it’s how they consummate the union, marriage is a very close union between a man and a woman that supports and encourages sexual activity between the two, how could it not do that?*

Maybe once, in Hollywood movies from the 1950’s, people waited to get married but even they didn’t see marriage as a license to have sex. Marriage has always been about love, commitment, for better, for worse, it’s never been about sexual activity.

It’s all about societies perception of such a union. Like I have said before, I certainly wont throw stones if out of weakness homosexuals give into disordered and immoral sexual behaviour, however I will be in opposition when people try to claim that such sexual behaviour is no longer disordered or immoral, which is what they are trying to do with same sex marriage.

You’re correct, it isn’t disordered, it isn’t immoral. How could it be when many heterosexuals get up to all kinds of depravities in their bedrooms, yet there’s never once been a protest about the damage they cause to the institution of marriage with their depraved goings-on?

I think alot of people are in favor of same sex marriage, all because it’s in a misguided attempt to help, they are condoning and encouraging disordered and immoral sexual behaviours, not everything we desire is good for us, just because we desire something doesn’t make it right.

You’d have a point if opponents of gay marriage were the slightest bit consistent. But they don’t ever protest about “disordered and immoral sexual behaviours” amongst heterosexuals, only at what they imagine might go on between homosexuals.

"people decide for themselves whether they are sexually compatible"

I am amazed at that comment, maybe you should rethink that comment. Would a human and an animal be sexually compatible? I am not relating beastiality to homosexuality, I am trying to point out to you that people cannot just “decide” whether they are sexually compatible, you either ‘are’ sexually capable or you are ‘not’.

Here you disproved your “what parts fit where” rule, since according to that rule you would be in favor of bestiality!!!

*Exactly, I don’t get why you don’t understand, my view is that you have to understand what we are saying, the question is why are you choosing to ignore it?

Why do you percieve the sexual activity of two men or two women as a societal norm and something to be embraced and encouraged by society?*

I’m not ignoring anything, it’s just that this thread will go on for ever if we keep repeating ourselves.

I don’t see anything immoral here, and barring marriage doesn’t bar any activity anyway.

Let me ask you, what’s the worst that could happen if gays are allowed to get married in your neck of the woods? You might have to invite the couple next door to dinner? Everyone will suddenly turn gay overnight? It will bring on Armageddon? Or what?

 

[inocente]

Huh? How does that slow population growth if the homosexual couple also wants to raise children? The pressure for offspring is also coming from the homosexual pair.

I don’t see why this is so difficult for you to understand. Stop and think about it for a while and let the penny drop.

Imagine you are back in a hunter-gatherer tribe. Both the heterosexual and homosexual women look after the children. But the heterosexual women produce more children, more mouths to be fed, while the homosexual women don’t.

Got it now?

 

[JimG]

You’d have a point if opponents of gay marriage were the slightest bit consistent. But they don’t ever protest about “disordered and immoral sexual behaviours” amongst heterosexuals, only at what they imagine might go on between homosexuals.

But of course they do. How many Catholics on this forum approve of adultery, fornication, premarital sex, cohabitation, masturbation? It seems that people have spent a good deal more time opposing those things, along with contraception and divorce, than they have in opposing homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is a recent hot topic at the moment only because same sex marriage is now being proposed.

Ronald Reagan nearly had his political career cut off at its start because he had been divorced. Divorce had a great social taboo attached to it for many decades. So did premarital sex. The divorce battle was lost; no-fault divorce became the norm. Society has been the worse for it. Premarital sex became the norm and society has become the worse for that.

A whole host of social ills followed upon the sexual revolution, which widespread acceptance of contraception enabled. For documentation of the results, I would recommend Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”

I have often said that the decline of the family did not begin with the push for same sex marriage, nor will same sex marriage be its final blow. Family disintegration began with contraception, divorce, fornication. It can’t be blamed on homosexuality. The push for same sex marriage is merely a beneficiary of the factors which have already worked to destroy the institution. Activist Masha Gessen has even said that while of course she approves of same sex marriage, the ultimate goal must be to destroy marriage entirely. We are well on our way to granting her wish.

No, the only thing remarkable about same sex marriage is that it seeks to take an institution which by its nature requires sexual complementarity and apply it to couples whose actions can by nature never be marital. Such a change would not even be thinkable, had not the institution of marriage already suffered a number of blows unrelated to homosexuality.

 

[markeverett49]

Maybe once, in Hollywood movies from the 1950’s, people waited to get married but even they didn’t see marriage as a license to have sex. Marriage has always been about love, commitment, for better, for worse, it’s never been about sexual activity.

Please provide links for your sources for this claim. (I ask because you’ve made it before and, as I recall, you didn’t offer any evidence for it then either.) I assume you know that for much of human history, in many places, marriages were arranged by parents (or other elders).

C. S. Lewis wrote that romantic love did not exist in the ancient world. I think he took that line too far but he was right that the sort of love stories moderns love were not told by the ancients. (The Greeks and Romans had no equivalent of our “Romeo and Juliet.”) I do not offer this as proof that romantic love did not exist then, but it should give you pause before assuming that the way YOU feel about marriage now—it’s all about love, not at all about sex— is the way the ancients and medievals felt about it. Nothing they wrote (that has survived) suggests that they did.

 

[CandideWest]

Well, that homosexual acts are repugnant is a belief that religious and non-religious people have shared through much of human history.

Just like the belief that torture is justified, or that raping the women of those with whom you are at war is justified, or that slavery is ok… Just because a view was commonly held doesn’t mean it was correct.

But back to what you said, “it is a belief that religious and non-religious people share”----what is your term for a belief held by the religious and the secular?

I don’t have a particular term for it… maybe “common” would be appropriate?

Several arguments made earlier in this thread were dismissed by a vocal member as “not secular” because some religious people held them.

Well that’s a bit silly, it’s possible to find a religious person who believes all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. that doesn’t make those things “not secular”. Why on earth did you let someone dismiss arguments on such a feeble basis.

The sensible grounds for dismissing an argument is showing that the argument is based on religious beliefs. For example “homosexual sex is sinful” is a religious belief and would have no place on this thread.

It is odd to me—as an older fellow—that so much of what is said about homsexual persons and relationships today is at odds with what I heard from homosexual friends decades ago. (And for that matter, many homosexual people dislike what they see as the “homogenization” of homosexual life; certainly, gay writers of previous centuries were not claiming to want to live like heterosexual couples only society wouldn’t let them; it was more often the other way around: domesticity is death and being as UN-like those people as possible was the goal of many. Those colorful voices are often muted now in favor of a more, um, “corporate” view of what homosexual persons are and how they wish to live.) Actually, many heterosexual people condemned marriage in the '70s and '80s as unworkable, outmoded, oppressive, unfit for an intelligent women, and now many of these same people are in favor of same-sex marriage because marriage will be “good for” homosexual persons.

Can’t help you there i’m afraid, different people want different things and people’s views change over time. That goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

 

[markeverett49]

Just like the belief that torture is justified, or that raping the women of those with whom you are at war is justified, or that slavery is ok… Just because a view was commonly held doesn’t mean it was correct. .

I agree, though the main argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that many people who think their moral sense is highly evolved think that it is a good thing. That said, many commonly held views ARE correct, such as that rape is wrong and so is murder and stealing another person’s property.

 

[CandideWest]

I agree, though the main argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that many people who think their moral sense is highly evolved think that it is a good thing.

??? Really? That isn’t an argument at all, it’s just an observation. The question needed there is WHY do so many people think it is a good thing? That should lead you to to the arguments themselves. Some who hold this belief will have good arguments, some will have bad arguments and some will have no arguments.

That said, many commonly held views ARE correct, such as that rape is wrong and so is murder and stealing another person’s property.

Sure. And again if asked for arguments for these beliefs some people will have good arguments, some will have bad arguments and some will have no arguments.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t see why this is so difficult for you to understand. Stop and think about it for a while and let the penny drop.

Imagine you are back in a hunter-gatherer tribe. Both the heterosexual and homosexual women look after the children. But the heterosexual women produce more children, more mouths to be fed, while the homosexual women don’t.

Got it now?

So… from an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is like a disease?

 

[tonyrey]

The examples you quoted were remarks about the arguments, not about the individuals, I try hard to stick to the subject and not make personal remarks.

“try” is the key word:

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

It’s very pleasing that you have no arguments left and have been reduced to trying to poison the well.

When all else fails, start a conspiracy theory.

I didn’t think it was humorous…

Why did you respond with a big grin at 3.27 and wait until 5.09 to issue a threat? Why did it take you two hours to complain if you were so offended?

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

You have not justified your assertion that traditional marriage is 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.

You haven’t admitted that your view of marriage is a human institution geared to adult interests regardless of the harm it does to children.

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

You haven’t explained how there is discrimination when homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexual couples.

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

Should all law-abiding citizens be treated equally in every respect? Should they all be accorded the same titles and descriptions?

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

The failure of heterosexual marriages is not a good reason to establish a homosexual relationship as a marriage.

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

And denying marriage won’t stop that.

It won’t stop it but it will help to make people realise it is wrong because children are deliberately and cold-bloodedly being deprived of a father or mother through no fault or choice of their own.

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

You are reducing humanity to biological machines.

You have ignored the fact that it is an abnormal biological relationship which is far more likely to harm the body and spread disease to each other** and** the children…

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.

You have ignored the fact that the deliberate exclusion of a father or mother from the family is neither biologically, psychologically or socially normal.

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

Correct.

That view is incompatible with Christianity.

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.

Then you agree that polyamorists, polygamists, bisexuals and perverts should be allowed to marry whoever they like provided the majority agrees? That the basis of morality is determined by every passing generation?

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

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

You have ignored the fact that homosexuals set out with the intention to exclude a father or mother from the family.

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

No, my upbringing was more enlightened.

So you would prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple and you would vote for such a practice if necessary?

These are the points you have missed:

1. You are ignoring the importance of the complementarity of the male and female personalities in raising a family.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Moral values and principles are not determined by laws or the way people behave.
5. The law that homosexuals can adopt children does not imply that it is morally justified.
6. The breakdown of marriages does not imply that couples do not have free will.

 

[markeverett49]

??? Really? That isn’t an argument at all, it’s just an observation. The question needed there is WHY do so many people think it is a good thing? That should lead you to to the arguments themselves. Some who hold this belief will have good arguments, some will have bad arguments and some will have no arguments…

No, there are no good arguments. The main argument FOR same-sex marriage is that those who oppose it are bigots and haters. (I don’t buy this argument but it is the main one.) The second most common argument is that NOTHING that opponents of same-sex marriage speak of when describing what marriage is is essential to it; rather, all that is essential is that there are civil benefits and that denying those to same-sex couples is discriminatory.

Neither of those arguments is any good. Well, the first one isn’t even an argument. The second one can be made into an argument, though not a strong one. It is odd that those who are so quick to dismiss, say, the having and raising of children from the concept of marriage are adamant that civil benefits are the sine qua non of marriage.

 

[josh987654321]

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.
inocente;10715900:

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.
josh987654321;10718750:

I can easily remove procreation from it, because it is still sexual activity targeted towards procreation

. It’s more about “what parts fit where” and thus I come to the exact same conclusion every time. Why do you draw a different conclusion?

You’ll see that in your first post you were using a natural law argument, then after my reply you changed to a different argument about body parts.

So how does your new argument work? An assault weapon is fine since it fits the hands, a suicide bomb is fine since it fits snugly round the chest?

Whats a word I can use to say “the sexual act that is only capable between a man and woman given their “parts” that is open to new life, so that even if they are infertile, it is still the same sexual act.”

I am saying that homosexuals are physically incapable of having sex that is the same as between a man and a woman because they “don’t have the right parts.” Therefore the sexual activity that is advocated with marriage is completely disordered and immoral.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from post above -

Maybe once, in Hollywood movies from the 1950’s, people waited to get married but even they didn’t see marriage as a license to have sex. Marriage has always been about love, commitment, for better, for worse, it’s never been about sexual activity.

So I suppose the idea of procreation and family has nothing to do with it. If it has nothing to do with sexual activity than really any loving relationship should be recognised as a marriage.

Peter Plato answers this very well, please read what he has said.

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.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

You’re correct, it isn’t disordered, it isn’t immoral. How could it be when many heterosexuals get up to all kinds of depravities in their bedrooms, yet there’s never once been a protest about the damage they cause to the institution of marriage with their depraved goings-on?

You’d have a point if opponents of gay marriage were the slightest bit consistent. But they don’t ever protest about “disordered and immoral sexual behaviours” amongst heterosexuals, only at what they imagine might go on between homosexuals.

JimG answers this very well, please read what he has said.

But of course they do. How many Catholics on this forum approve of adultery, fornication, premarital sex, cohabitation, masturbation? It seems that people have spent a good deal more time opposing those things, along with contraception and divorce, than they have in opposing homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is a recent hot topic at the moment only because same sex marriage is now being proposed.

Ronald Reagan nearly had his political career cut off at its start because he had been divorced. Divorce had a great social taboo attached to it for many decades. So did premarital sex. The divorce battle was lost; no-fault divorce became the norm. Society has been the worse for it. Premarital sex became the norm and society has become the worse for that.

A whole host of social ills followed upon the sexual revolution, which widespread acceptance of contraception enabled. For documentation of the results, I would recommend Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”

I have often said that the decline of the family did not begin with the push for same sex marriage, nor will same sex marriage be its final blow. Family disintegration began with contraception, divorce, fornication. It can’t be blamed on homosexuality. The push for same sex marriage is merely a beneficiary of the factors which have already worked to destroy the institution. Activist Masha Gessen has even said that while of course she approves of same sex marriage, the ultimate goal must be to destroy marriage entirely. We are well on our way to granting her wish.

No, the only thing remarkable about same sex marriage is that it seeks to take an institution which by its nature requires sexual complementarity and apply it to couples whose actions can by nature never be marital. Such a change would not even be thinkable, had not the institution of marriage already suffered a number of blows unrelated to homosexuality.

Here you disproved your “what parts fit where” rule, since according to that rule you would be in favor of bestiality!!!

My point is that such human “parts” don’t fit with such animal “parts” just like such male “parts” don’t fit with other male “parts” and such female “parts” don’t fit with other female “parts.”

So according to that rule, Im trying to point out to you that only men and women are designed with such sexual compatibility.

I’m not ignoring anything, it’s just that this thread will go on for ever if we keep repeating ourselves.

Okay.

I don’t see anything immoral here, and barring marriage doesn’t bar any activity anyway.

I do see something disordered and immoral when it comes to the sexual acts of homosexuality, I am surprised that people could see that as a societal norm.

How will they consummate their union? how could marriage not condone and encourage sexual activity between the two?

Let me ask you, what’s the worst that could happen if gays are allowed to get married in your neck of the woods? You might have to invite the couple next door to dinner? Everyone will suddenly turn gay overnight? It will bring on Armageddon? Or what?

This is what Pope Francis had to say.

*“At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother, and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

The cardinal also noted that “today the country, in this particular situation, needs the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to bring the light of truth on to the darkness of error, it need this advocate to defend us from being enchanted by many fallacies that are tried at all costs to justify this bill and to confuse and deceive the people of good will.”*

I would also like to add that if the sexual acts of homosexuality “grave depravities” are seen as a societal norm, than how will others develop a sense of sexual morality? as I think you have a very poor sense of sexual morality incocente to see the sexual acts of homosexuality as anything other than disordered and immoral.

Id also like to add something from the book of revelations.

*17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.*

Revelation talks alot about sexual immorality and this is exactly where we are headed with same sex marriage. I am not saying that it is the end of the world, but the more sexually immoral society becomes the closer it will be and you are advocating it.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Lion_IRC]

The same-sex marriage lobby (a global minority) is in a head-on collision course with religious culture (a global majority).

And the fact that human society embraces religion on a cultural basis is a secular fact.

So anti-religious folk who naively ask for an entirely secular/humanist debate of the matter, need to remember that merely taking God out of the discussion doesnt mean that religious cultural opposition to SSM suddenly evaporates. Homo sapiens has, for 50,000 years (+/-) had an innate human **culture of religiosity **and that has become entrenched to the point that God’s
actual existence is no longer necessary to justify a “right” to religious self expression. The United Nations doesnt recognize a right to practice religion because God exists. It does so because humans demand that right.

Take the actual living God out of the picture and what you have left are exactly the same people whose (religious) culture is built around an ontological idea. And they can still oppose same sex marriage based on their right to CULTURAL expression. Their cultural objection to gay “marriage” is ontologically valid whether or not they can prove that God exists.

Hence, a secular argument against gay 'marriage" exists in, and by virtue of the FACT that there will be jurisdictions, consisting of entire countries, which simply wont recognise the legitimacy of same sex marriage and whose (religious) population, in the majority, would find “homosexual marriage” an oxymoron. They would regard the claim to Marriage Equality as a “right,”
a complete anathema in religious terms, biological terms and legally. And they can hold that position EVEN IF THEY CANT PROVE GOD EXISTS.

So their humanist case for cultural self-expression in the form of religion IS secular because they’re not saying…God is opposed to SSM.
They are saying… WE ARE OPPOSED TO SSM! And as humans we dont need to prove God exists to get what we want."

People with a preference for homosexual or bisexual “marriage” can claim the “right” to sexual self-expression and they may even identify themselves as part of a distinct, sexual sub-culture.

But overwhelmingly, in opposition are people claiming the right to religion - including that percentage of the world’s population which adheres to Abrahamic monotheism (50% to 60% +) And they will claim the “right” to discriminate against homosexual marriages.

And they won’t recognise SSM as valid just because some Judge in California says it “ought” to be permitted (experimentally permitted to be more precise.) Nor will they accept so-called “marriage equality” as sufficient grounds for them to violate their own (religious) cultural intuition in matters like adoption, surrogacy, commercial law, etc.

 

[CandideWest]

No, there are no good arguments. The main argument FOR same-sex marriage is that those who oppose it are bigots and haters. (I don’t buy this argument but it is the main one.)

??? That isn’t an argument.

An argument would be for example that continuing to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality differently in the law provides provides bigots with an excuse to claim that must be something “wrong” with homosexuality. Because they argue that if the laws don’t recognise such relationships then it can’t be “natural” or “normal”. Therefore they argue discrimination against such people at a personal level is ok.

And before you say that nobody would make such an argument, I have personally been given that argument by someone who was using the legal position as support to his discriminatory views.

The second most common argument is that NOTHING that opponents of same-sex marriage speak of when describing what marriage is is essential to it; rather, all that is essential is that there are civil benefits and that denying those to same-sex couples is discriminatory.

An argument is to point out that giving the right to do something to one group of people while denying it to another, only on the basis of which group of people they fall into is discriminatory in itself. Doing this while offering a significant financial benefit to one group while not to the other only serves to highlight this position. Imagine for a moment that the government wanted to introduce a tax on being homosexual (or for that matter being black, or Christian). I think we can all agree this would be ludicrously discriminatory. But just because a set of financial advantages has HISTORICALLY only been given to heterosexuals (or those pretending to be heterosexuals) the situation is permitted to continue.

The financial benefits of being married should either be open to all couples or none. Just like the proposed tax above should be paid by all, or none.

Of course this still leaves open the previous argument, about encouraging individual discriminatory behaviour. But at least it deals with the financial implications.

Neither of those arguments is any good. Well, the first one isn’t even an argument. The second one can be made into an argument, though not a strong one. It is odd that those who are so quick to dismiss, say, the having and raising of children from the concept of marriage are adamant that civil benefits are the sine qua non of marriage.

I think you are mistaken there. I don’t think there there would be an argument of discrimination involved if the government wanted to remove the financial benefits equally from everyone who gets married. However, I imagine a lot of married people would be displeased and I suspect the government knows that.

 

[inocente]

I apologize if this has been covered. I have not read the whole thread. Do you have a peer-reviewed study for this theory? An example of a culture in which homosexuals were integrated and normalized in such a way? This, also, does not explain how the homosexuality trait would be passed on or why homosexuals need marriage.

The example I gave is a mash of a number of theories in the group known as reproductive altruism, which are discussed by Kirkpatrick here (pdf).

I’m no expert but other well known theories I’ve seen include Exotic Becomes Erotic (Bern pdf) and a statistically neat relationship between male homosexuality and female fecundity (Camperio-Ciani pdf).

As I understand it, current mainline opinion is that there are multiple causes of homosexuality. Personally I wouldn’t rely on any of these theories yet in this relatively new field, but mention them because they challenge the pre-scientific idea in our culture that homosexuality is an illness or disorder, by pointing out that it is more likely an adaptation.

 

[inocente]

Wait… Why are “viable offspring” important?

And I’m going to interpret “often abusive” as “I have no evidence so this is purely conjecture on my part.”

You don’t seem to know much about incest. Inbreeding causes congenital defects in offspring and many incestuous relationships start or continue as abuse. This information is on the web for all to see, just google incest and read up on it.

*Not always. In some cultures the mother of a crying infant will soothe him by performing fellatio. Consent isn’t an issue because it’s not considered “sex.”

In any event, the NAMBLA group meets your definition of love - “just two people who love each other.”*

That wasn’t a definition, that was a statement that no one needs a Ph.D. to be able to feel love and affection.

In law minors cannot give consent, and the vast majority of us would see that as a very strong moral principle.

So, there is more to the story than just “two people who love each other.” They must be law-abiding as well. Of course, laws change over time…
You take a statement that love isn’t complicated and first you make out it’s a definition of love, now you make out it’s a definition of marriage. Whatever next?

 

[inocente]

Huh? How does that slow population growth if the homosexual couple also wants to raise children? The pressure for offspring is also coming from the homosexual pair.

In a hunter-gatherer tribe, how do you think women in homosexual relationships can possibly get pregnant? By magic or something?

This is only basic biology here, not rocket science.