Secular argument against gay marriage

[stewstew03]

Are you in need of me to tell you why it is immoral to have sex with children and animals besides fertility!?

You should familiarize yourself with this key concept: Consent!

Incest does not necessarily involve children.

And, as I mentioned, animals do not offer their consent to all sorts of things. How many cattle have offered their consent to be taken to the slaughterhouses?

 

[josh987654321]

I didn’t want to go into detail, but I guess I have to when absurdity is no longer absurd.

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.

So you think **** intercourse is like running for fun? … I don’t think so.

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…

So you think homosexual intercourse is like chewing without swallowing? … I don’t think so.

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.

So therefore by your conclusion, there is absolutly nothing wrong with anal intercourse or any other grave depravities homosexuals must resort to because they don’t have the ‘right parts’ for the appropriate sexual act?

If homosexuality is an evolutionary trait, which it is not, it would hardly be a beneficial trait for the human species would it?

Are you really that morally corrupt that you think the sexual acts of homosexuality are anything other than disordered or immoral? do you have any sense of sexual morality?

How could you be in favor of such abominable sexual acts? I find even mentioning **** intercourse is repulsive, I find such sexual miss use and immorality repugnant. I am surprised that you or anyone else advocating same sex marriage doesn’t.

I am surprised that you would relate sexual acts to such things.

I have refrained from some words as young people may read this and I don’t wish to go into repulsive and repugnant details.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I have gay friends. To equate them with child molesters is absurd.

I agree.

I find the idea of me eating liver disgusting. However, I do not judge those that love eating liver as inferior to me morally. Similarly, the idea of me kissing a guy I find disgusting. However, if another guy likes kissing a guy,I really don’t care.

I agree, I find the sexual acts of homosexuality repulsive and repugnant, however if homosexuals give into such desires out of weakness Im hardly going to throw stones or anything, but it’s whole new level to claim that such sexual relations are the same as heterosexual sexual relations, that both unions should be called a marriage.

I remember a female friend of myself and my wife telling me that she truly admired me because I never gossip. I told her,“nothing noble about it! I am an egotistical s.o.b, why would I want to talk about anyone other then me?”

I have nothing against homosexuals, Im simply against of the sexual acts of homosexuality being “encouraged” and “normalised” with same sex marriage.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals = Equal
The sexual acts of homosexuality and heterosexuality = Unequal

Why would people pretend that the union of a man and a woman is equal to the union of two men or two women with marriage? it’s not like we are trying to have such a union made illegal, same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, which it obviously isn’t.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Are you in need of me to tell you why it is immoral to have sex with children and animals besides fertility!?

Heck I feel the same way, are you in need of me to tell you why homosexual intercourse is seen as immoral besides fertility and consent?

Given that there is consent, this is why such a union is not illegal and we are not arguing to have sodomy made illegal.

Same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, which it obviously isn’t.

You say you want to expand the definition of marriage to include both. Like Peter Plato said -

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.

You should familiarize yourself with this key concept: Consent!

So if animals could show consent, than you would normalise and encourage beastiality for all those who desired such things?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[wittgenstein]

I agree with everything you said except the last part. If animals can give consent,they have free will and therefore a soul. Do you believe that animals have souls? Actually,. I agree! Just asking.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

PWarning: I like to make people think.
I like to secretly play devil’s advocate as a means to this end.

Not cool Biblepoe

“Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

-Matthew 18:6

 

[Acrossthedesert]

A secular argument against gay marriage:

Matrimony comes from the word maternal.
Marriage has everything to do with childbearing and raising children
Therefore, marriage has nothing to do with being gay.

THE BIG QUESTION is…
DO SECULAR ARGUMENTS TO ANY ETHICAL DILEMMA EXIST?
(other than in terms of etymology which point to historical understanding… as shown above)

A man cannot know how to live without knowing what a man is. You do not truly know what anything is until you know what it is for. If you say that a man has no purpose then you are saying he is an accident, and then why would a person converse about meaning in any fashion. That’s illogical.

Man is spirit and matter. Spirit is being that has the power of knowing and willing. Matter is being that has not these powers. A more obvious but less important point: matter can be perceived by the senses, spirit cannot.

If spirit is essential in knowing man, then a secular argument, which only touches on matter, is not sufficient in the discernment of sound ethical judgement.

 

[polytropos]

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that because most children have mothers and fathers, those who are raised by two mothers or two fathers instead are psychologically abnormal.

That is a fallacious non-sequitur.

What you quoted is the heart of my argument. In your interpretion, you removed the logical step and then called what you had reconstructed a non-sequitur. That is a fallacious straw man.

I am saying that in the social milieu in which humans evolved, children generally had a mother and a father. Darwinian natural selection informs us that organisms adapt to their environment; when the environment changes, the adaptations are less suitable (indeed, this is why natural history demonstrates punctuated equilibrium). My argument is that, from the standpoint of developmental psychology, interaction with parents is absolutely integral to normal psychological development.

It’s like reasoning that since most children are primarily raised by stay-at-home moms (with a father being the bread winner), that being raised by a stay-at-home father (with the wife being the bread winner) is psychologically damaging. Just because the parenting arrangement is unusual does not necessarily mean that the child is any better or worse off.

I would not argue that. There is a qualitative difference between the father and mother both being present at different frequencies and one or the other just not being there.

I expect people in general to be more likely to use fallacious logic to fit the irrational into the rational if their deeply held beliefs do not match reality.

And I might say the same to you.

To be honest, this is not even a deeply held belief for me. I have become a Catholic within the last couple months. As an atheist I was nominally pro-choice because I didn’t care whether or not there were psychological implications for children in same-sex partnerships. I have no visceral reaction against homosexuals. I don’t find them icky. I am really arguing here to see if I can.

I believe that all children deserve loving and caring parents. Their ability to love and care for the child is just the same if they are both male or both female as if they are mixed-sex.

I believe that children deserve love and an appropriate social environment.

 

[Biblepoe]

Incest does not necessarily involve children.

But sex with children that was one of the things I listed for which you wanted reasoning behind its immorality.

One of the problems with incest that has nothing to do with infertility is that it tends to cause psychological harm. Also, incest taboo arguably helps prevent child abuse.

And, as I mentioned, animals do not offer their consent to all sorts of things. How many cattle have offered their consent to be taken to the slaughterhouses?

Arguably, many, most, or even all of those things that our industries do to animals without their consent are immoral; There are many ethical vegetarians for a reason. Even if you aren’t persuaded into ethical vegetarianism, just because doing action A to an animal without its consent is moral doesn’t mean that doing action B to an animal is moral. There are different reasons why humanely killing an animal is moral, but submitting it to physical or potential psychological harm (such as rape) is not.

Even if you don’t accept the argument about consent, there is the health problem.

 

[Biblepoe]

Heck I feel the same way, are you in need of me to tell you why homosexual intercourse is seen as immoral besides fertility and consent?

The difference is that I do not think homosexuality is immoral, while stewstew03 (presumably) considers consider pedophilia, incest, and bestiality immoral, but apparently didn’t understand why they’re immoral.

Same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, which it obviously isn’t.

It treats such people as equal under the law. In order to ban a civil marriage, the state needs a good secular reason to do so; I have not seen such a reason presented in this thread or elsewhere.

Why don’t you write out a definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples but excludes all other relationships

Many governments have already done that without problems. Besides, when someone gives their definition of marriage, things like incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. typically are implicitly excluded. My definition for marriage is what you’d probably write out except it would exclude the “can’t be both same-sex” part.

So if animals could show consent, than you would normalise and encourage beastiality for all those who desired such things?

I’m saying that lack of consent is one of the reasons by bestiality is immoral.

 

[Biblepoe]

Not cool Biblepoe

“Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

-Matthew 18:6

Just an aside; I don’t want to derail the thread.

I value truth. I think it’s a good thing to get people thinking about what is true.

Thinking is not immoral!

 

[Biblepoe]

A secular argument against gay marriage:

Matrimony comes from the word maternal.

Who cares where a word comes from? Words change meaning all the time. Besides, we don’t let dictionaries inform our public policies.

Marriage has everything to do with childbearing and raising children

…except when it doesn’t. I’m sure it’s been talked about ad nauseum on this thread, but many people get married without any intent to have children. Plus, same-sex couples raise children all the time.

THE BIG QUESTION is…
DO SECULAR ARGUMENTS TO ANY ETHICAL DILEMMA EXIST?

Go ask any ethicist, especially one who isn’t religious.

If you say that a man has no purpose then you are saying he is an accident, and then why would a person converse about meaning in any fashion. That’s illogical.

I’ve never heard a non-religious person say that “man has no purpose” or that “[man] is an accident.”

 

[JimG]

Do you have any sense of sexual morality?

Your posts always give one much to think about. They are heartfelt and thoughtful. But this one phrase struck me. Amidst all the verbiage, it is the one thing we must each ask ourself.

And in thinking of the reply, do we assign to our own feelings, our own limited experiences, our own feeble philosophies, the right to disregard millenia of human reflection on the matters at hand? Two thousand years of Christian moral thought, several thousand years of Jewish moral thought? Can our pride be that great?

 

[Biblepoe]

Darwinian natural selection informs us that organisms adapt to their environment; when the environment changes, the adaptations are less suitable (indeed, this is why natural history demonstrates punctuated equilibrium). My argument is that, from the standpoint of developmental psychology, interaction with parents is absolutely integral to normal psychological development.

You’re premise that natural selection entails that changes in general are bad for the individuals. That’s not true. Some changes are good, and some changes are bad for individuals.

Additionally, many individuals have been raised by gay or bisexual parents throughout the evolution of many species, so it’s not really a change (on the evolutionary timescale of hundreds of thousands of years) for children to be raised by gay people.

 

[polytropos]

You’re premise that natural selection entails that changes in general are bad for the individuals. That’s not true. Some changes are good, and some changes are bad for individuals.

The human brain is structured in such a way that it functions best in certain environmental conditions. Our understanding of evolution strongly implies that this ideal environment is that which a species evolved in.

It may be true that general changes in conflict with our evolutionary psychology are not bad for every single individual. But you have no way of evaluating whether a given child would be an exception. You will have to do better than saying that changes can be good or bad; we have to construct generally applicable policy.

Additionally, many individuals have been raised by gay or bisexual parents throughout the evolution of many species, so it’s not really a change (on the evolutionary timescale of hundreds of thousands of years) for children to be raised by gay people.

Humans are humans. Find a culture where it was normal for children to be raised by homosexual couples, or provide an argument for why the the habits of the other species that (rarely) display homosexual behavior would be passed on to humans through the process of natural selection.

 

[josh987654321]

The difference is that I do not think homosexuality is immoral, while stewstew03 (presumably) considers pedophilia, incest, and bestiality immoral, but apparently didn’t understand why they’re immoral.

So is consent the only reason why pedophilia, incest and beastiality are immoral?

It treats such people as equal under the law. In order to ban a civil marriage, the state needs a good secular reason to do so; I have not seen such a reason presented in this thread or elsewhere.

Have you read all of the thread?

If you have and still think that there is not a good enough secular argumant against same sex marriage, than could you please provide me with a strong secular argument for same sex marriage?

Many governments have already done that without problems. Besides, when someone gives their definition of marriage, things like incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. typically are implicitly excluded. My definition for marriage is what you’d probably write out except it would exclude the “can’t be both same-sex” part.

What is your reason for expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions? what value will this give to marriage?

I’m saying that **lack of consent **is **one of the reasons **why bestiality is immoral.

My point rests on, if lack of consent is one of the reasons why beastiality is immoral, than what is the other? if there was consent, why would it still be immoral?

Wouldn’t you think it would have something to do with the anatomy of both and thus why it would still be considered as immoral?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Your posts always give one much to think about. They are heartfelt and thoughtful. But this one phrase struck me. Amidst all the verbiage, it is the one thing we must each ask ourself.

And in thinking of the reply, do we assign to our own feelings, our own limited experiences, our own feeble philosophies, the right to disregard millenia of human reflection on the matters at hand? Two thousand years of Christian moral thought, several thousand years of Jewish moral thought? Can our pride be that great?

Thank you JimG, I find your posts to be great.

I especially liked you relating this back to the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, because I think this is exactly the same, I think you are spot on with that. You will probably find me using alot of your ideas in many of my posts, if my posts were compiled into an essay, you along with Tonyrey, Peter Plato and a few others would be in my bibliography.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

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.

You may not realize how complicated your argument is.

To believe in it, we first need to believe that body parts were designed by a designer, because only then would there be a mind to know the supposed purposes of body parts.

We then need to believe that the designer will get upset if body parts are used for other than the purpose the designer had in mind, because otherwise who cares.

But we also need to believe that the designer won’t get upset that our foot was not designed to press a brake pedal and our lips not intended to play a trombone - the designer will only get upset in cases where we deem that the designer should get upset.

I mean if you also argued that assault weapons are an abomination because fingers were not intended to pull triggers, and that guitars are disordered since fingers are not meant to pluck strings, then at least you would be consistent, but as it stands where’s the underlying logic to separate it from just being your subjective opinion?

 

[inocente]

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.

I’ve said all along that marriage is defined by the standard vows. You and Peter are desperately trying to redefine marriage to make it something which isn’t in the vows, isn’t in the ceremony and isn’t in the relationship.

The vows are extraordinarily profound, they define one of the deepest relationships humans can have, and you would destroy the very heart of the institution by making marriage a relationship defined by sex and body parts.

You would but you won’t, because those of us who value marriage won’t let you.

 

[inocente]

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 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?

(My emphasis.) As I said a couple of posts back, this argument doesn’t work unless, like you, we believe we’re designed and the designer follows our rules. However, I’d insist that being in God’s image doesn’t mean God has a belly button, and that we are made in His image, we don’t get to make Him in our image. (And the thread is still about secular arguments).

*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.”**

The thread is still about secular arguments.

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.

Whenever society debates something and moves in a new direction, those with the old morality die out. It’s always been that way - when the slaves were freed, those who believed it was moral to own slaves died out and now none of us think it’s moral to keep slaves.

*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.

I knew sooner or later someone would say it’s Armageddon, the end of civilization as we know it. Panic, panic, run for the hills!!!