Secular argument against gay marriage

[Lion_IRC]

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.

Thats exactly what I was intending to show. The secular reason WHY a lot people object to SSM. Because they find it culturally objectionable and by culture I mean religion in the ontological sense. That reason constitutes an argument against SSM.

Yes, it’s an argumentum ad populam, but this is a moral landscape, “ought” question and logical fallacies are being used on the other side too.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (poor homosexuals.)
Presumption Fallacy (it’s inevitable…why bother opposing it?)
Special Pleading (Marriage is a right.)
Argumentum ad Baculum (Many gay people are going to commit self-harm unless they get what they want.)

…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…

The SSM experiment has perhaps 9 years of evidence in jurisdictions which represent <1% of the worlds population.

 

[polytropos]

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.

I agree, homosexual marriage would not be the first blow to traditional marriage. No need to kick it while it’s down, however. The fact that there are other corruptions of traditional marriage does not imply that further corruption is appropriate.

I honestly doubt that homosexual marriage would damage traditional marriage more than modern divorce habits. That does not imply that homosexual marriage will not further the detriment of families and children.

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.

Indeed, it is about perception. I am keeping my argument secular so I won’t go into why it would be a bad thing for homosexual marriage to be normalized in the public perception.

As far as the toilets go, I don’t think the analogy holds because white and black people both need toilets. Homosexuals do not produce children and so do not need their relationships to be sanctioned by the state.

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.

To be fair, you know that this is not my whole argument and pregnancy is not “all I would require” of a homosexual couple. Children of both genders learn how to interact with both sexes because both sexes are modeled by heterosexual parents. Humans evolved in an environment in which they obtained gender cues from a mother and a father. It is presumptuous to assume that normal psychological development can proceed without such cues.

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.

I expect people would. But the fact is that a different set of legal protections are necessary for relationships that result in children. This is what “traditional marriage” is - which of course not everyone buys into. But the alternative that we are moving towards is that “marriage” becomes a synonym for “relationship.” You start it and end it when you want. It is about the legal benefit of two adults rather than protecting the family, the basic unit of society. Marriage becomes a pointless designation.

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.

That would be discrimination (by definition). As I mentioned previously, though, a declaration of infertility for a heterosexual couple is not always definite. A heterosexual couple is also forms a better adoptive family.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…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…

Just wanted to make sure I am clear about your position.

People only come in two colors? Black OR white?

Having the words Females Only outside a public toilet or bathroom or swimming pool change room creates prejudice and discrimination?

Yes, I suppose that would be a problem having to dress up and put on all that make-up just so you can go into the ladies change room and perve.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Portofino]

A heterosexual couple is also forms a better adoptive family.

By the fact that you are referring to an adoptive family, you are already stepping outside of the ideal. By this I mean:

–is the ideal not to be raised by one’s biological parents? Perhaps, yes. It is not easy to be adopted, and there is more psychological baggage to grapple with, over the fact of having been adopted – a child has two mothers (the birth mother and the adoptive mother) and two fathers (the birth father, and the adoptive father). That can cause enormous stress, especially for an adolescent. Should they try to find their birth mother? Is their birth mother still living? Is their adoptive mother, or father, their “real” mother and father? What is the meaning of a “real” mother and father? There can be much confusion – a necessarily evil? – yet adoption can be a beautiful thing. Most kids work their way through it, though – admittedly – some don’t.

–is the ideal not to be raised by two parents, instead of one? Yet some mothers or fathers commit the unpardonable “offense” of dying young, whereby a child is raised in a single-parent household. And if his mother, say, remarries, there is more psychological baggage to deal with – two dads, the “birth dad” and the “stepdad.”

–is the ideal to be raised with parents of one’s same race? If an Asian child is raised by a white adoptive family, will that child grow up “confused”? Many have made that argument, but it would be racist – discriminatory – to refuse to allow, say, a white family to raise a black child, in the name of “the ideal family set up is to be raised by parents who look like the child they are raising because, if mother and father are white and the child is black, the child may become confused.”

Everyone can agree that loving, caring adoptive parents are better than abusive *biological *parents; that growing up with one loving and committed parent is better than growing up with two abusive ones; that growing up with loving parents of a different race – whatever that race may be – is preferable to growing up with abusive of negligent parents or the same race.

Many are saying it would “mess with a child’s head” to be raised by two mothers, or raised by two fathers. I am not sure of that, but I do know that it can “mess with a child’s head” to learn that he is adopted, or to be raised by parents who look nothing like him (love and understanding, and a supportive environment, can trump all of those obstacles). There are few things in life that are completely ideal, and it’s not clear to me how one can argue what constitutes not ideal enough.

We all agree that beating one’s child, or locking him in a closet for days at a time, constitutes wanton and egregious abuse. It is not clear that these other set-ups – including raising a child in a same-sex parent household, if the parents are caring and nurturing – do constitute abuse.

Two more examples – that it is immoral for a man to have children at the age of 50, or the age of 60, because the child will have a senior citizen for a father, and is rolling the dice in terms of being able to attend that child’s High School graduation; that child’s wedding; or to ever be a grandfather to his children’s children.

Or that it is immoral for a Catholic to allow a child to be adopted by a Seventh Day Adventist couple, or – for that matter – by an Orthodox Jewish couple. For would it not be ideal – seriously speaking, from a Catholic perspective – for every child to be raised in a Catholic household?

I imagine that most same-sex parents are bright enough to know that – if their son is being raised by two women – that this son needs a strong male presence in his life – perhaps an uncle, or a grandfather, or a close family friend. A single mother, whose husband has died, can conclude the same as to what her son probably will need, that she cannot give him. Likewise, a white family raising a black child will likely understand that this child needs to have contact with individuals of his own race, and that there is – indeed – something that is probably important to that child’s emotional development – during adolescence, especially – that they cannot, themselves, give that child (for example, they would not want the child to feel that it is a “failure” that he does not look like mom and dad, or give this child the strong emotional desire to be like mom and dad, and to lament looking so different).

 

[josh987654321]

By the fact that you are referring to an adoptive family, you are already stepping outside of the ideal. By this I mean:

–is the ideal not to be raised by one’s biological parents? Perhaps, yes. It is not easy to be adopted, and there is more psychological baggage to grapple with, over the fact of having been adopted – a child has two mothers (the birth mother and the adoptive mother) and two fathers (the birth father, and the adoptive father). That can cause enormous stress, especially for an adolescent. Should they try to find their birth mother? Is their birth mother still living? Is their adoptive mother, or father, their “real” mother and father? What is the meaning of a “real” mother and father? There can be much confusion – a necessarily evil? – yet adoption can be a beautiful thing. Most kids work their way through it, though – admittedly – some don’t.

–is the ideal not to be raised by two parents, instead of one? Yet some mothers or fathers commit the unpardonable “offense” of dying young, whereby a child is raised in a single-parent household. And if his mother, say, remarries, there is more psychological baggage to deal with – two dads, the “birth dad” and the “stepdad.”

–is the ideal to be raised with parents of one’s same race? If an Asian child is raised by a white adoptive family, will that child grow up “confused”? Many have made that argument, but it would be racist – discriminatory – to refuse to allow, say, a white family to raise a black child, in the name of “the ideal family set up is to be raised by parents who look like the child they are raising because, if mother and father are white and the child is black, the child may become confused.”

Everyone can agree that loving, caring adoptive parents are better than abusive *biological *parents; that growing up with one loving and committed parent is better than growing up with two abusive ones; that growing up with loving parents of a different race – whatever that race may be – is preferable to growing up with abusive of negligent parents or the same race.

Many are saying it would “mess with a child’s head” to be raised by two mothers, or raised by two fathers. I am not sure of that, but I do know that it can “mess with a child’s head” to learn that he is adopted, or to be raised by parents who look nothing like him (love and understanding, and a supportive environment, can trump all of those obstacles). There are few things in life that are completely ideal, and it’s not clear to me how one can argue what constitutes not ideal enough.

We all agree that beating one’s child, or locking him in a closet for days at a time, constitutes wanton and egregious abuse. It is not clear that these other set-ups – including raising a child in a same-sex parent household, if the parents are caring and nurturing – do constitute abuse.

Two more examples – that it is immoral for a man to have children at the age of 50, or the age of 60, because the child will have a senior citizen for a father, and is rolling the dice in terms of being able to attend that child’s High School graduation; that child’s wedding; or to ever be a grandfather to his children’s children.

Or that it is immoral for a Catholic to allow a child to be adopted by a Seventh Day Adventist couple, or – for that matter – by an Orthodox Jewish couple. For would it not be ideal – seriously speaking, from a Catholic perspective – for every child to be raised in a Catholic household?

I imagine that most same-sex parents are bright enough to know that – if their son is being raised by two women – that this son needs a strong male presence in his life – perhaps an uncle, or a grandfather, or a close family friend. A single mother, whose husband has died, can conclude the same as to what her son probably will need, that she cannot give him. Likewise, a white family raising a black child will likely understand that this child needs to have contact with individuals of his own race, and that there is – indeed – something that is probably important to that child’s emotional development – during adolescence, especially – that they cannot, themselves, give that child (for example, they would not want the child to feel that it is a “failure” that he does not look like mom and dad, or give this child the strong emotional desire to be like mom and dad, and to lament looking so different).

Good post Portofino, I agree with you on alot of it. Accept for the parts I am refuting.

I think when it comes to adoption there isn’t a one size fits all solution, however I also think that the lack of a father figure or mother figure should definatly be taken into account without it being labelled as discrimination or unlawful.

Therefore when it comes to homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Heterosexual unions should certainly have the utmost priority when adopting out children.

Now I am unfamiliar with how the current adoption system is run, therefore I am unable to comment on what I think should be happening with other circumstances, however I can comment on why I think it’s wrong when adopting out to homosexual unions compared to others.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

.

Continued from above post -

This is what I do know -

A) The nature of homosexuality means using your organs in a manner they are not designed to be used for (this is why we say that homosexual desires are disordered and immoral desires to act on)

B) The greatest role models or influences in a Child’s life are their parents, not what they say, but what they do. (Example when a parent say’s to their Child “Don’t Smoke” the chances of that Child smoking are greatly increased simply because the parents smoke)

This is what I have concluded -

Now if you put A) and B) together, you can see how it can be quite harmful to a childs sexual development and in saying that, I don’t mean that they will grow up homosexual as same sex attraction isn’t something that is learnt.

I mean it in the sense that it will create confusion with a childs sexual development because a child needs role models, which are the parents to mimic, whether people want them to or not, they will mimic them and their lifestyle if they are homosexual or heterosexual, because it’s all they know, there is no magical choice that they can make, because their choice is bias, with heterosexual parents their choice will be bias towards heterosexuality regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual **(I think they will try heterosexuality before they realise whether they are heterosexual or homosexual), same with homosexual parents, their choice will be bias towards homosexuality regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual (I think they will try homosexuality before they realise whether they are heterosexual or homosexual), **they mimic their parents in how to live their life by what they do, kids are very observant.

This is why we are against homosexual couples adopting, because I think it will confuse them along their sexual development, I think ultimatly they will be heterosexual or homosexual, however I think that during that discorvery or development, they will contemplate or act on the sexual acts of homosexuality, in which case would be encouraged and supported by their homosexual parents who are already doing it and I think that would be very wrong and harmful to the child.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Lion_IRC]

…I imagine that most same-sex parents are bright enough to know that – if their son is being raised by two women – that this son needs a strong male presence in his life – perhaps an uncle, or a grandfather, or a close family friend.

See that everyone? This plainly concedes that a gender-balanced upbringing IS a matter of need!

Not…“gay adoptive parents are just as good” Rather,…“we know there is an anthopological deficiency when two men who cant breast feed try to raise a child..”

This is an admission that nature regards gay “marriage” as an abomination.

…a white family raising a black child will likely understand that this child needs to have contact with individuals of his own race

Enough with the Nazi racism!

Racism is unbiblical. All human beings are descended from Noahs children and skin colors change. A woman of any skin color or nationality can produce fertile offspring with a man of any skin color or nationality.

People dont come in only “black” or “white”.

Sperm and eggs dont have a “race”

Anyone who wants to read an outstanding gotcha article about Bill Clintons change on DOMA check out this Bradley Abramson story at Townhall.com ;

All members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. All U.S. presidents swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Therefore, Congress never consciously enacts and presidents never in good faith sign legislation they believe is unconstitutional.

Therefore, we can confidently state that, when enacted, both Congress and the president believed DOMA was constitutional. And yet Clinton is currently declaring that he now believes DOMA is unconstitutional and is encouraging the Supreme Court to strike it down…

…Since neither the language of DOMA nor the language of the Constitution has changed, one must ask what has changed…

 

[CandideWest]

Just wanted to make sure I am clear about your position.

People only come in two colors? Black OR white?

Nope, people come from a whole array of different ethnic backgrounds.

Having the words Females Only outside a public toilet or bathroom or swimming pool change room creates prejudice and discrimination?

Are you really trying to say that you don’t see any difference between providing separate public toilet facilities for men and women as opposed to segregation of toilets by racial group? If so then I doubt I can help you with that one.

Yes, I suppose that would be a problem having to dress up and put on all that make-up just so you can go into the ladies change room and perve.

??? What on earth are you talking about??? Have you completely lost track of the subject of conversation here or do you find some relevance to the subject in making strange suggestions to your interlocutors and posting up random photos?

Just to be clear, the subject here is “Secular argument against gay marriage”.

Ok?

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Just to be clear, the subject here is “Secular argument against gay marriage”.

YES!
So why on earth did YOU raise the issue of public toilets?

… Go back for a moment to the times of having separate public toilets for white and black people…

Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with the stupid notion that people are either “black” or “white”

So why did YOU use those stupid labels in THIS thread?

 

[Biblepoe]

This is an admission that nature regards gay “marriage” as an abomination.

Nature doesn’t have any regards for anything, because nature is not a conscious entity, which is required in order to have regard for something.

A person can have regard for something, and can use the information found in nature to inform these regards given his/her values. For example, one who disvalues sex without the possibility of procreation can use the observation that two men or two women can’t procreate to determine that he/she disvalues homosexual sex. However, some people value sex just as much without the possibility of procreation, so that observation from nature is irrelevant to them.

 

[CandideWest]

YES!
So why on earth did YOU raise the issue of public toilets?

I apologise I obviously did not make the point clearly enough for you. Just to be clear the relevance was explained just here:

“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 the equivalent to the subject matter at hand is that even in those circumstances where civil partnership is available to homosexuals and is legally identical to marriage, there is still a distinction being drawn and some people will see that as an excuse for prejudice and discrimination.

Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with the stupid notion that people are either “black” or “white”

So why did YOU use those stupid labels in THIS thread?

Unfortunately I’m afraid I didn’t make this up, historically people did indeed label public toilets in this manner? It wasn’t even that long ago in some parts of the world (eg apartheid South Africa). Obviously this was wrong and divisive. That’s the point really.

Fingers crossed you now understand the relevance to the subject at hand.

 

[CandideWest]

Continued from above post -

This is what I do know -

A) The nature of homosexuality means using your organs in a manner they are not designed to be used for (this is why we say that homosexual desires are disordered and immoral desires to act on)

Just like the action of running was “designed” (very inappropriate term for what happens in evolution) to allow us to catch prey and escape from predators. So by the measure above - using it for a different purpose, say running for “fun” is disordered and presumably immoral.

By the same measure of course the action of chewing, along with the muscles and glands involved in the process evolved in order to break down food and begin the digestion process to extract nutrients. So chewing gum is using that action for something other than what it was intended for and thus presumably equally disordered and immoral…

The point of course is that the cause of different things about us having evolved is often not the only purpose to which we now put those things. Most of these are not considered immoral, therefore it makes little sense to say that in this particular case it is “disordered” and immoral while in all those other similar cases it is not.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It is becoming clear that the term “marriage” will eventually be applied to any form of human relationship - even with an animal - regardless of number, age, sex, mental state and criminal disposition. It will become obsolete and meaningless because it no longer has any personal or social significance - like the word “link” or “arrangement”.

Words can mean whatever people want them to mean no matter how arbitrary they are!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I apologise I obviously did not make the point clearly enough for you. Just to be clear the relevance was explained just here:

“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 the equivalent to the subject matter at hand is that even in those circumstances where civil partnership is available to homosexuals and is legally identical to marriage, there is still a distinction being drawn and some people will see that as an excuse for prejudice and discrimination.

Are you arguing that public toilet policy should not discriminate between males and females because the use of public toilets creates an excuse for prejudice and discrimination?

Unfortunately I’m afraid I didn’t make this up, historically people did indeed label public toilets in this manner? It wasn’t even that long ago in some parts of the world (eg apartheid South Africa). Obviously this was wrong and divisive. That’s the point really.

Fingers crossed you now understand the relevance to the subject at hand.

It is you who missed the relevance of this point about discrimination.

Discrimination is quite warranted when the distinctions to be made are important and relevant.

Amusement parks discriminate between users of certain heights and ages because height and age are important and relevant to the issue of safety on certain rides. Voting laws discriminate against individuals of certain ages because these are relevant to the capacity required to make reasoned decisions concerning the election of a new government.

The capacity to create new life is a relevant trait regarding one’s suitability to enter marriage, as are age and mental capacity. The reason these features are important and relevant is because married couples have the very important capacity to create new life, new human beings. Potency to do so is a relevant consideration, so having a pair of individuals of opposite gender is a relevant feature of marriage and a valid reason for discriminating against same sex participants.

To reduce marriage, by definition, to a “committed, loving relationship” is to completely ignore the only relevant capacity that makes marriage susceptible to legal interference.

If marriage were only about relationship, then why hasn’t the state interfered with and legislated regarding “friendships” in the past. Why are friends not required to obtain a “friendship license” in order to carry on their relationship? Precisely because the state is not concerned with relationships that are completely volitional and of mere personal concern between two individuals, as are same sex “partnerships.” These have no effect on others, that can be of judicial concern, because these relationships are sterile by nature and cannot result in new individuals arising as a result of the relationship. The fecundity of heterosexual couples is precisely the feature that ought to be the central focus for government involvement.

If sexual encounters were as harmless as, say, shaking someone’s hand or patting them on the back, the government would not be involved to determine who or under what conditions one individual can shake another’s hand or pat their back. Why would the government be involved if that were the case? There would be no reason for it to do so.

The only reason this has become an issue is because contraceptives have masked the real concerns concerning fertility behind a facade of “choice.” If sexual relationships are sterile by the choices of the partners then there is the appearance that same sex partnerships are fundamentally the same as heterosexual coupling. The danger here is that we completely underestimate or ignore what the real issues are about. What is at issue is the nature of reproduction among human beings, which is a critical concern in this matter of the nature of marriage.

 

[CandideWest]

Thats exactly what I was intending to show. The secular reason WHY a lot people object to SSM. Because they find it culturally objectionable and by culture I mean religion in the ontological sense. That reason constitutes an argument against SSM.

Ok, so your secular argument against gay marriage is that some people object to it on religious grounds.

Fair enough, I think that is a very weak argument because we happily allow people to do many things which people object to on religious grounds. For example eating beef, women leaving the house with their face visible, etc.

Yes, it’s an argumentum ad populam, but this is a moral landscape, “ought” question and logical fallacies are being used on the other side too.

Entirely agree of course, it being a weak argument in itself doesn’t mean that ultimately it won’t turn out to be sufficient to stop a change in law. If it turns out that you are right about the number of people who object to it then the law won’t move forwards in your particular country.

The SSM experiment has perhaps 9 years of evidence in jurisdictions which represent <1% of the worlds population.

From memory I believe the first modern era country to permit gay marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. So 12 years and thus far other countries that have legalised it since include Argentina, Canada, Belgium, France, Spain, South Africa, Portugal, Norway and Iceland.

And laws are in process in a number of others including UK, Finland Germany and Nepal.

You are right that this is a relatively small amount of experience globally as yet, but no signs of impending apocalypse as yet I’m glad to say.

 

[Biblepoe]

Discrimination is quite warranted when the distinctions to be made are important and relevant.

Discrimination is warranted when their is a good reason for it. Let’s see what the reasoning is for discriminating against homosexuals is:

The capacity to create new life is a relevant trait regarding one’s suitability to enter marriage, as are age and mental capacity.

The capacity to create new life is only good if the couple wants to raise children that are biologically their own. For the couples that don’t, this can even be a bad thing, which is why some people undergo expensive surgery to insure they can’t have children of their own.

If marriage were only about relationship, then why hasn’t the state interfered with and legislated regarding “friendships” in the past. Why are friends not required to obtain a “friendship license” in order to carry on their relationship?

Many people who marry at an old age marry more or less for this reason, and don’t intend to have sex.

What is at issue is the nature of reproduction among human beings, which is a critical concern in this matter of the nature of marriage.

Apparently not, as long as those who are known to be infertile (such as those who had a vasectomy) are permitted to marry.

 

[stewstew03]

Discrimination is warranted when their is a good reason for it. Let’s see what the reasoning is for discriminating against homosexuals is:

The capacity to create new life is only good if the couple wants to raise children that are biologically their own. For the couples that don’t, this can even be a bad thing, which is why some people undergo expensive surgery to insure they can’t have children of their own.

Many people who marry at an old age marry more or less for this reason, and don’t intend to have sex.

Apparently not, as long as those who are known to be infertile (such as those who had a vasectomy) are permitted to marry.

Then you would not object to incestuous marriages, as long as the couple was infertile or at least had no plans to raise children?

.

 

[polytropos]

By the fact that you are referring to an adoptive family, you are already stepping outside of the ideal.

…etc…

I think we all understand that adoption is not ideal. The context of what you quoted was a rather extenuating issue: I was stating that I find it appropriate to allow a marriage between infertile heterosexuals who have articulated that they would be open to children (ie. a Catholic marriage) rather than homosexuals for two reasons:

• It is not unheard of that couples pronounced infertile do manage to become pregnant, so I find it imprudent for the civil authority to draw the line for which heterosexual couples are permitted to marry.
• Outside of a miracle in which an infertile heterosexual couple manages to become pregnant, the only other way that either an infertile heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple can raise children is through adoption (barring extramarital relations). In this case, it is preferential for a child to be raised in a heterosexual household.

This last statement is evidently what you take issue with. Is it true in every case (from a legal/civil standpoint) that a child will fare better if it is raised by heterosexual parents? No, one can of course conceive of a heterosexual marriage that is problematic for a child and a homosexual marriage in which it is not (if, as you suggest, there is a strong male/female though nonparental presence). That is not really what is being debated. We can obviously pick out extreme cases, but we still have to come up with a solution that promotes the common good.

You can say that a homosexual female couple, say, will understand that a strong male presence is needed for their children, but this is the same as the assumption that in all heterosexual couples, both of the parents will understand that they need to stay in the house and support their children. You can say that it does not necessarily have to be parents who provide necessary gender cues but can be people outside of the household. But that neglects the fact that children in proper heterosexual couples receive these cues at home as well as outside of the home, and children are in contact with their parental figures more than anyone else during their formative years. By arguing these points, our discussion isn’t really going anywhere.

 

[polytropos]

Are you really trying to say that you don’t see any difference between providing separate public toilet facilities for men and women as opposed to segregation of toilets by racial group? If so then I doubt I can help you with that one.

The point is that opposition to homosexual marriage is not analogical to segregation of public bathrooms by race; it is analogical to separation of public bathrooms by gender.

There is no good reason for segregation of public bathrooms by race. No one is harmed when black people and white people use the same bathrooms. There are safety and propriety issues when men and women use the same bathrooms.

The argument is that, likewise, there is a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage because homosexual marriage, unlike the integration of water fountains and bathrooms, is consequential. (I’m sure you would like to dispute this assertion. But the point of this post is just to clarify the analogy. This assertion, is of course, what we are arguing in this thread.)

 

[CandideWest]

I agree, homosexual marriage would not be the first blow to traditional marriage. No need to kick it while it’s down, however. The fact that there are other corruptions of traditional marriage does not imply that further corruption is appropriate.

? So your idea of a traditional marriage banned all infertile people and those who practiced abstinence, women who had passed their menopause etc etc? Out of interest where and when was your “traditional marriage” the law?

Indeed, it is about perception. I am keeping my argument secular so I won’t go into why it would be a bad thing for homosexual marriage to be normalized in the public perception.

I think this is in truth where a major part of the problem with this debate lies - the “secular” arguments put forwards against gay marriage rely on an underlying (religious) belief that there is something “wrong” or "disordered " or “sinful” about homosexuality. However, obviously those who do not share this religious belief find the arguments which depend upon this belief very weak. The arguments simply have no foundations without the religious belief.

As far as the toilets go, I don’t think the analogy holds because white and black people both need toilets. Homosexuals do not produce children and so do not need their relationships to be sanctioned by the state.

And again we’re back to children, but if children is what marriage is all about then we should still be banning marriage to infertile people. Thus far however, none of the anti gay marriage proponents seem to be ready to campaign against infertile marriage.

To be fair, you know that this is not my whole argument and pregnancy is not “all I would require” of a homosexual couple. Children of both genders learn how to interact with both sexes because both sexes are modeled by heterosexual parents. Humans evolved in an environment in which they obtained gender cues from a mother and a father. It is presumptuous to assume that normal psychological development can proceed without such cues.

Not really presumptuous, there are plenty of people you can go out and find who we’re raised by a single parent (and hence were obviously lacking at least one set of the cues you refer to) yet grew up just fine. I have some good friends who fall into this group.

I expect people would. But the fact is that a different set of legal protections are necessary for relationships that result in children. This is what “traditional marriage” is - which of course not everyone buys into. But the alternative that we are moving towards is that “marriage” becomes a synonym for “relationship.” You start it and end it when you want. It is about the legal benefit of two adults rather than protecting the family, the basic unit of society. Marriage becomes a pointless designation.

I’m not sure what you mean by “traditional marriage” but you seem to be seeking to use one of the ever dubious “slippery slope” arguments that suggest if you allow X (gay marriage) then Y (marriage becomes pointless) will occur. Even though there is no obvious relationship between X and Y.

Indeed in this case a more appropriate thing for you to be concerned about would be the Las Vegas style high speed weddings which has done far more towards cheapening of marriage than anything before or since. Why are you not campaigning for banning those?

That would be discrimination (by definition). As I mentioned previously, though, a declaration of infertility for a heterosexual couple is not always definite.

And in some cases it is definite and they are STILL permitted to marry.

A heterosexual couple is also forms a better adoptive family.

On what basis do you say that? From what data do you draw that conclusion? Do you really think this is true in all cases? That any heterosexual couple makes a better adoptive family than any homosexual adoptive family?

If so then I will have to completely disagree with you and suggest you might like to think about this a little more deeply.