Secular argument against gay marriage

[tonyrey]

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.

I agree with you but to reject SSMs is not discrimination but affirmation and consolidation of the institution of marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

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 recognize such relationships then it can’t be “natural” or “normal”. Therefore they argue discrimination against such people at a personal level is ok. .

This is a terrible argument. First, homosexual persons themselves see a vast difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. (If they were the same, why don’t homosexual persons call themselves heterosexual, or instead lobby that everyone be called “sexual, period” or somesuch? But no, they insist that homosexuality is not only different but at the core of one’s identity.)

But from the state’s point of view, the issue is behavior, not sexual orientation. (Obviously, many homosexuals have entered into natural marriages, and where same-sex “marriage” is legal, two heterosexual men may marry for the civil benefits----there is NO sexual-orientation test at the marriage license bureau.) The coupling of man and woman may yield offspring; the coupling of male and male, or female and female, cannot do that.

This is biology, not religion. And the state’s interest is in behavior—married couples raising their children.

It is ironic—to say the least—for those who hold a) that their desire to sleep with people of the same sex is the fundamental fact about them also now want to hold b) that sleeping with someone of the same sex is the same thing as sleeping with someone of the opposite sex, and c) acts that cannot result in pregnancy are the same as those that can.

 

[inocente]

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.

I’m not saying that opponents of gay marriage don’t disapprove of any of those things, rather that they have not been nearly as strident as on gay marriage. There have been comparatively few protests and public debates about things such as cohabitation or masturbation compared with gay marriage.

This can quickly turn into a political problem for opponents of gay marriage, for instance the following is from the Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage in Spain:

Gay rights supporters argued that while the Catholic Church also formally opposed opposite-sex, non-religious marriage, its opposition was not as vocal; for example, the Church did not object to the marriage of Crown Prince Felipe to Letizia Ortiz, who had divorced from a previous civil marriage. The church was unable to gather enough support to derail the bill, even though 80% of Spaniards identify as members of the Catholic Faith.

*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.*

Personally I think this is the best argument yet on this thread.

The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s wrought many changes. It brought much greater liberty to women in particular, and I can’t say whether the world was a better place before than now, I don’t know whether the benefits are outweighed by the problems, whether the old idea of family was better than the current. But where I would definitely agree is that there’s been a lack of debate about what kind of society we want, we could be drifting into open waters or we could be drifting onto the rocks, with no debate there’s no one at the helm, we’re a bit of a rudderless ship.

With that said, stopping gay marriage isn’t going to make the sexual revolution go away, all those other things will still be there, it would be wrong to make homosexuals scapegoats for whatever ills exist in society at large.

 

[inocente]

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.

It’s easy enough to find. For instance, from the Wikipedia article:

*Britain - Prior to the Marriage Act 1753, British couples could live together and have sex after their betrothal or “the spousals”. Until the mid-1700s, it was normal and acceptable for the bride to be pregnant at the nuptials, the later church public ceremony for the marriage.

United States - During the colonial period, premarital sex was publicly frowned upon but privately condoned to an extent. Unmarried teenagers were often allowed to spend the night in bed together, though some measures such as bundling were sometimes attempted to prevent sexual intercourse.*

 

[inocente]

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

No of course not.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Yes, by magic. I think it is by magic. Brilliant retort.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

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.

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?

My apologies - when responding on an iPhone, it is not always easy to be as clear and succinct as one would like. When I said your “definition of love” I meant your characterization of it.

In any event, incest can occur between two consenting adults. And, as you are a proponent of gay marriage, I don’t see why you would argue that incest should be outlawed because of the potentially harmful effects on offspring. Certainly an incestuous relationship does not have to include offspring.

 

[JimG]

I’m not saying that opponents of gay marriage don’t disapprove of any of those things, rather that they have not been nearly as strident as on gay marriage. There have been comparatively few protests and public debates about things such as cohabitation or masturbation compared with gay marriage.

This can quickly turn into a political problem for opponents of gay marriage, for instance the following is from the Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage in Spain:

Gay rights supporters argued that while the Catholic Church also formally opposed opposite-sex, non-religious marriage, its opposition was not as vocal; for example, the Church did not object to the marriage of Crown Prince Felipe to Letizia Ortiz, who had divorced from a previous civil marriage. The church was unable to gather enough support to derail the bill, even though 80% of Spaniards identify as members of the Catholic Faith.

I don’t know about the situation in Spain, but I can’t imagine that in the U.S., at least, Catholics would oppose civil marriage, since the Church actually recognizes civil marriage as valid, unless determined by a marriage tribunal to be invalid. Essentially it recognizes any marriage as valid until proven otherwise.

I’ve seen some pretty heated discussions on CAF about cohabitation, but it’s true they don’t get as heated. The argument is most often that cohabiting couples should just get married. Whereas with same sex couples the argument is that they should not get married and that such marriage is a fiction.

The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s wrought many changes. It brought much greater liberty to women in particular, and I can’t say whether the world was a better place before than now, I don’t know whether the benefits are outweighed by the problems, whether the old idea of family was better than the current. But where I would definitely agree is that there’s been a lack of debate about what kind of society we want, we could be drifting into open waters or we could be drifting onto the rocks, with no debate there’s no one at the helm, we’re a bit of a rudderless ship.

With that said, stopping gay marriage isn’t going to make the sexual revolution go away, all those other things will still be there, it would be wrong to make homosexuals scapegoats for whatever ills exist in society at large.

I’m not sure if the sexual revolution brought more liberty to women, or simply gave men more liberty to act irresponsibly with respect to women. In any case, it created a lot of single mom households for which Uncle Sam often becomes the default dad. That turns it into a problem of social policy affecting a lot of things.

Most people didn’t give it much thought. Contraception, the pill, out of wedlock sex, people thought it sounded like a good thing. Do what feels good. But there are always unintended consequences. The sexual revolution—which began with contraception—led to a lot of things that nobody counted on. Abortion as back up birth control, turning women and even children into sex objects, more divorce, fatherless kids, declining numbers of intact families, even generalized demographic decline with its adverse effect on social security and medicare.

It seems to me that once people accepted the separation of sex from procreation, marriage was in trouble, and gay marriage was on the horizon. It may be too late for people who oppose the trend to turn back the clock, no matter the public debate. It may just have to play itself out in history. And if the stats in Mary Eberstadt’s book are any indication, the results won’t be good.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t know about the situation in Spain, but I can’t imagine that in the U.S., at least, Catholics would oppose civil marriage, since the Church actually recognizes civil marriage as valid, unless determined by a marriage tribunal to be invalid. Essentially it recognizes any marriage as valid until proven otherwise.

I’ve seen some pretty heated discussions on CAF about cohabitation, but it’s true they don’t get as heated. The argument is most often that cohabiting couples should just get married. Whereas with same sex couples the argument is that they should not get married and that such marriage is a fiction.

I’m not sure if the sexual revolution brought more liberty to women, or simply gave men more liberty to act irresponsibly with respect to women. In any case, it created a lot of single mom households for which Uncle Sam often becomes the default dad. That turns it into a problem of social policy affecting a lot of things.

Most people didn’t give it much thought. Contraception, the pill, out of wedlock sex, people thought it sounded like a good thing. Do what feels good. But there are always unintended consequences. The sexual revolution—which began with contraception—led to a lot of things that nobody counted on. Abortion as back up birth control, turning women and even children into sex objects, more divorce, fatherless kids, declining numbers of intact families, even generalized demographic decline with its adverse effect on social security and medicare.

It seems to me that once people accepted the separation of sex from procreation, marriage was in trouble, and gay marriage was on the horizon. It may be too late for people who oppose the trend to turn back the clock, no matter the public debate. It may just have to play itself out in history. And if the stats in Mary Eberstadt’s book are any indication, the results won’t be good.

Great points, JimG…

It is indeed a slippery slope, and polygamy is next on the horizon…

.

 

[markeverett49]

It’s easy enough to find. For instance, from the Wikipedia article:

*Britain - Prior to the Marriage Act 1753, British couples could live together and have sex after their betrothal or “the spousals”. Until the mid-1700s, it was normal and acceptable for the bride to be pregnant at the nuptials, the later church public ceremony for the marriage.

United States - During the colonial period, premarital sex was publicly frowned upon but privately condoned to an extent. Unmarried teenagers were often allowed to spend the night in bed together, though some measures such as bundling were sometimes attempted to prevent sexual intercourse.*

This is your idea of evidence for your claim that marriage has nothing to do with sex or children? From an evoultionary standpoint, this is irrelevant because it is too recent, but even in THESE cases it is clear that all the thinking about sex is about heterosexual sex that can result in pregnancy and thereafter childbirth and thereafter, years of tending to the child.

 

[inocente]

“try” is the key word:

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?

Please PM me if you want, we’ll strain the moderator’s patience if we go off-topic and discuss each other rather than the topic.

You have not justified your assertion that traditional marriage is slavery.

Errr… I never made that assertion. You didn’t include any way for me to find that quote but by doing an advanced search I found it was from post #408 on 5th May. We already had that discussion - from memory you made an argument which appealed to “normal” human relationships, and I disagreed by pointing out that discrimination against those with different color skin and slavery were once normal.

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.

Sorry but I’ve no idea what you’re on about there, I can’t work out how it might relate to what you quoted (which again seems to be from some days back). You’ll need to explain how you came to that view.

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

Errr… not when they are denied the right to get married.

See how that works?

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

Can’t think of any reason why society shouldn’t treat law-abiding citizens equally. I remember a poster who was particularly taken with Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Wonder who that might have been. Égalité indeed. Means equal, non? :compcoff:

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

Agreed.

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.

As I said, if single people are allowed to adopt in the UK and if separated parents are allowed to keep their children then this has been going on for years and you should be protesting about that rather than gay marriage, which won’t change it one iota.

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…

Again you are appealing to what you think is normal. But I agree that if aunties didn’t kiss babies, and adults stopped kissing each other, cold sores would not longer spread. I keenly await your campaign to ban kissing.

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

No, I said that “all those single-parent families are a problem”.

That view is incompatible with Christianity.

I’ll let you know when Christ confirms that He has appointed you to be His judge and jury.

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?

Those arguing for the myth of traditional marriage conveniently forget that marriage has included polyamorist/polygamist relationships in some cultures. Bisexuals are part of the same sexual orientation continuum as heterosexuals and homosexuals. A pervert is someone “whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable”, which has always included many, many, many married heterosexuals.

We don’t agree with a lot of the morality of previous generations (putting children down mines, not educating women, etc.), so yes, morality varies by culture.

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

When you talk of mother and father, do you mean role models or are you referring to different kinds of dangly bits?

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

Oh that was clever sticking those questions together, in a kind of when did you stop beating your wife way.

Whoever brought you up is your parent or are your parents. I wasn’t bothered about my parents’ dangly bits any more than the color of their skin.

*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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Moral values and principles are not determined by laws or the way people behave.

1. The law that homosexuals can adopt children does not imply that it is morally justified.

1. The breakdown of marriages does not imply that couples do not have free will.

OK, I’ve run out of time today and will try to get to them tomorrow.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

What you’ve written above is a good explanation of why a lot of people WILL resist gay marriage not in itself an argument against gay marriage.

And of course you are right that ultimately the power to set laws in most western countries is democratically derived, not derived from the strength of arguments on either side of the debate (the purpose of the arguments are to swing more people to a given side). So ultimately most of the time, what the most people want to happen is what will happen.

The open question of course is whether or not most people believe more strongly in their religious convictions or in equality. The answer to that one is going to determine country by country whether the law is changed to permit gay marriage or not.

Determining whether or not people see something wrong in homosexuality by their religion is of course not possible. I recall seeing a survey some time ago that showed that of Catholics in America surveyed more disagreed with the churches position on homosexuality than agreed with it. So your figures on total numbers of religious people worldwide may not tell you as much as you think about opposition to gay marriage, and nothing on a country by country basis).

There are now a significant number of countries around the world where the change has already been made. Predicting which countries will make the change and when is of course difficult on short timescales.

 

[CandideWest]

This is a terrible argument. First, homosexual persons themselves see a vast difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. (If they were the same, why don’t homosexual persons call themselves heterosexual, or instead lobby that everyone be called “sexual, period” or somesuch? But no, they insist that homosexuality is not only different but at the core of one’s identity.)

Ok, firstly you seem to have completely misunderstood the argument I presented above. I did not make any attempt to say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same. Rather I argued that removing discrimination between them in law will remove an excuse that bigots use for personal discrimination against homosexuals an excuse I have personally heard used.

Secondly what you have written above is true, and the view you write about seems eminently appropriate. Are you trying to argue that sexuality isn’t an important part of a persons identity? Or that somehow homosexuals shouldn’t expect this part of their identity to be respected?

But from the state’s point of view, the issue is behavior, not sexual orientation. (Obviously, many homosexuals have entered into natural marriages, and where same-sex “marriage” is legal, two heterosexual men may marry for the civil benefits----there is NO sexual-orientation test at the marriage license bureau.)

Sure, just like right now a homosexual man and woman could marry for the civil benefits. Again this seems to be changing nothing.

The coupling of man and woman may yield offspring; the coupling of male and male, or female and female, cannot do that.

This is biology, not religion. And the state’s interest is in behavior—married couples raising their children.

And the same goes for coupling of infertile people of course. Yet nobody seems to be proposing banning the marriage of infertile people or women after their menopause, or men who have (say due to cancer) had their testes removed or…

It is ironic—to say the least—for those who hold a) that their desire to sleep with people of the same sex is the fundamental fact about them

True enough, as presumably you believe that who you desire to sleep with us a fundamental fact about you?

also now want to hold b) that sleeping with someone of the same sex is the same thing as sleeping with someone of the opposite sex,

Not the same but the equivalent for different people.

and c) acts that cannot result in pregnancy are the same as those that can.

Surely this is the same as “b”?

 

[markeverett49]

Secondly what you have written above is true, and the view you write about seems eminently appropriate. Are you trying to argue that sexuality isn’t an important part of a persons identity? Or that somehow homosexuals shouldn’t expect this part of their identity to be respected?

I’ve never met a heterosexual person who claimed that being heterosexual was the most important thing about him. I think for most of human history most people—including those who engaged in same-sex acts—would have found this claim (that how one likes to have sex is the key to Who One Is) laughable.

Beyond that, no, I don’t think those who prefer to have sex with other members of the same sex deserve to have that practice respected by those who find such acts wrong. This notion of “respect” really means “approval.” One cannot obligate others to approve of them. (Ask a politician—and what group of people are more open what is at the core of their being, political success?)

 

[tonyrey]

  ... I disagreed by pointing out that discrimination against those with  different color skin and slavery were once normal.

Slavery is generally accepted as discrimination but the preservation of traditional marriage is not.

Sorry but I’ve no idea what you’re on about there.

You are putting the homosexuals’ illogical claim before children’s welfare…

You haven’t explained how there is discrimination when homosexuals have all

the civil rights of heterosexual couples*.*
… not when they are denied the right to get married.

There is no discrimination when homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexual couples. It is illogical to demand the same name for a fundamentally different relationship.
:

Can’t think of any reason why society shouldn’t treat law-abiding citizens equally.

Then you do believe all law-abiding citizens should be treated equally in every respect?

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

Agreed.

Then why refer to it?

As I said, if single people are allowed to adopt in the UK and if separated parents are allowed to keep their children then this has been going on for years and you should be protesting about that rather than gay marriage, which won’t change it one iota.

The issue is not adoption - a subject you brought up - but marriage.

Again you are appealing to what you think is normal. But I agree that if aunties didn’t kiss babies, and adults stopped kissing each other, cold sores would not longer spread.

There is a vast difference between kissing and homosexual intercourse.

No, I said that “all those single-parent families are a problem”.

Single-parent families are not based on the explicit intention of excluding a father or mother.

That view is incompatible with Christianity.

I’ll let you know when Christ confirms that He has appointed you to be His judge and jury.

Did Jesus state or imply that the basis of morality changes with every passing generation?

Those arguing for the myth of traditional marriage conveniently forget that marriage has included polyamorist/polygamist relationships in some cultures. Bisexuals are part of the same sexual orientation continuum as heterosexuals and homosexuals. A pervert is someone “whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable”, which has always included many, many, many married heterosexuals.

How many is “many, many, many”? Are there statistics to support that assertion?

We don’t agree with a lot of the morality of previous generations (putting children down mines, not educating women, etc.), so yes, morality varies by culture.

Is your fundamental morality determined by your culture?

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

When you talk of mother and father, do you mean role models or are you referring to different kinds of dangly bits?

Your crudeness weakens your argument because it reveals ignorance of the fundamental roles of both a father and a mother in bringing up children.

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

Whoever brought you up is your parent or are your parents. I wasn’t bothered about my parents’ dangly bits any more than the color of their skin.

Would you prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple?

5. You are ignoring the importance of the complementarity of the male and female personalities in raising a family.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Moral values and principles are not determined by laws or the way people behave.

1. The law that homosexuals can adopt children does not imply that it is morally justified.

1. The breakdown of marriages does not imply that couples do not have free will.

OK, I’ve run out of time today and will try to get to them tomorrow.

Fair enough. In this thread you have a lot on your plate.

 

[CandideWest]

I’ve never met a heterosexual person who claimed that being heterosexual was the most important thing about him.

Neither have I, nor indeed a homosexual person who claimed likewise…

I think for most of human history most people—including those who engaged in same-sex acts—would have found this claim (that how one likes to have sex is the key to Who One Is) laughable.

Maybe so, but as far as I know you’re the only one who’s mentioned such a claim… So… were you trying to make a joke?

Beyond that, no, I don’t think those who prefer to have sex with other members of the same sex deserve to have that practice respected by those who find such acts wrong. This notion of “respect” really means “approval.” One cannot obligate others to approve of them.

In which case presumably you do not expect people to “respect” your opinions then? Personally I don’t think those who use their religious beliefs as an excuse for discrimination deserve to have their opinions respected by those who believe in equality.

 

[brandonjennings]

Please stop sinning against the lord by claiming persons with ssa are mortal sinners

 

[polytropos]

Personally I don’t think those who use their religious beliefs as an excuse for discrimination deserve to have their opinions respected by those who believe in equality.

It is not really a matter of discrimination and equality. I will not claim, “Homosexuals are equal because they have the same right to heterosexual marriage that heterosexuals do.” What I will argue is that marriage exists for the purpose of raising children. Homosexuals cannot reproduce nor provide models of both genders (as would be necessary for normal psychological development). There is not a compelling interest to extend marriage to people who will not raise children; consenting adults are legally allowed to pursue relationships already, and extending the institution of marriage to homosexual relationships is only nominal.

The inevitable objection is that the Catholic Church will marry heterosexual couples who are infertile etc. But it is not the definite possibility of reproducing that is important; it is the openness to having children. It is not unheard of that couples declared infertile by a medical professional manage to conceive anyway. What is required is that the couple would still be receptive to having children in such a circumstance.

You may argue, further, that a heterosexual couple could be certainly infertile (ie. if the man had his testicles removed). The issue then would be drawing an arbitrary line as to where it becomes “certain.” From a legal standpoint, you can probably imagine that this would be impossible.

Your calling opposition to same-sex marriage “discrimination” belies an inability to see from the other perspective. It is not a matter of suppressing rights but of acknowledging that the rights of children supersede the desire of homosexual adults to have their relationship labeled “marriage.”

 

[CandideWest]

It is not really a matter of discrimination and equality. I will not claim, “Homosexuals are equal because they have the same right to heterosexual marriage that heterosexuals do.” What I will argue is that marriage exists for the purpose of raising children. Homosexuals cannot reproduce nor provide models of both genders (as would be necessary for normal psychological development).

And of course as has already been covered, some heterosexuals cannot reproduce and single parent families and some married couples fail to provide role models for both genders as well. So again homosexual couples are not alone in any of the above. Yet those other groups are permitted to marry while homosexuals are not.

There is not a compelling interest to extend marriage to people who will not raise children; consenting adults are legally allowed to pursue relationships already, and extending the institution of marriage to homosexual relationships is only nominal.

In some places in the world you are right. The same legal rights of marriage are recognised in “civil partnerships”. In some places this is not the case and there are significant legal differences between the two. In some places there is no formal legal recognition of homosexual relationships at all.

Even in those places where the legal rights are equal however, there is still more of a difference than just the name. It’s about people’s perceptions. Go back for a moment to the times of having separate public toilets for white and black people. Even if the toilets are side by side and identical there is still a distinction being drawn, us and them which is divisive on both sides and creates excuses that people DO use for prejudice and discrimination.

The inevitable objection is that the Catholic Church will marry heterosexual couples who are infertile etc. But it is not the definite possibility of reproducing that is important; it is the openness to having children. It is not unheard of that couples declared infertile by a medical professional manage to conceive anyway. What is required is that the couple would still be receptive to having children in such a circumstance.

Sure, so you are saying that all you would require from a homosexual couple to support their marriage is that if one of them did get pregnant then the couple would be receptive to having and raising the child? And that you would make the same requirement on a heterosexual couple in the case of say the husband having had both testes removed?

If so in both cases I think your requirement is a little superfluous, but I will grant you that it is even handed.

You may argue, further, that a heterosexual couple could be certainly infertile (ie. if the man had his testicles removed). The issue then would be drawing an arbitrary line as to where it becomes “certain.” From a legal standpoint, you can probably imagine that this would be impossible.

Most probably. But of course before you could even get to that point you would need to get a LOT of people to sign onto the idea that the purpose of marriage is strictly for the raising children. I suspect a lot of people would object to this.

Your calling opposition to same-sex marriage “discrimination” belies an inability to see from the other perspective.

It is not discrimination if it is applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. However, to ban homosexuals from marriage on the basis that they cannot have children, but permit heterosexual couples who cannot have children to marry is discrimination. This is because it is showing a unfair distinction between different categories of people.

It is not a matter of suppressing rights but of acknowledging that the rights of children supersede the desire of homosexual adults to have their relationship labeled “marriage.”

You would have a point here if there was a genuine set of rights of children which would be lost by extending the set of relationships called “marriage”. But thus far the only one which keeps coming around is the right to have a mother and father. However, children already grow up in single parent families for a wide range of reasons and we as a society permit that.

Indeed we happily permit and even praise single people who take on the burden of adopting orphaned or abandoned children because we acknowledge that being raised by one **parent **is better than being raised by a group of professionals in an orphanage / adoption agency. Those that might be raised under homosexual marriages would come from adoption and as we seem to have already agreed that one parent (obviously representing only one gender) is better than none I don’t see any reason to see that two parents (both representing one gender) would be worse than none.

Indeed extending the legal protections of marriage would add an extra layer of protection to those children who are adopted by an individual who is in a civil partnership or similar.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I agree with you but to reject SSMs is not discrimination but affirmation and consolidation of the institution of marriage.

When supporters of gay ‘‘marriage’’ malign the word discriminate and use it as if it were a pejorative, one wonders if they forget its primary definition.

dis•crim•i•nate v.

1. a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
2. b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

dis•crim•i•nate v.tr.

1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong.