Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

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’ll let you in on what seems to be a secret. Before the debate in Spain, the Church produced a briefing paper containing its arguments against gay marriage. Many of the arguments used by lay Catholics on CAF are not in that document - presumably they were discarded as being too weak or too contentious.

The document is still there on vatican.va, here it is if you’ve never seen it:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

*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.*

I’m not sure about any of this, by which I mean I just don’t know if the institution of marriage was in a stronger position in (say) 1933 or 1953 than now, or if families were better then than now. Certainly there has been a huge amount of change, and it’s that vast difference across just a few generations that confuses me.

Maybe it’s too early to know, maybe the historians will have to wait another twenty years after the sexual revolution before it starts to become clear.

But to me gay marriage isn’t part of any of that, really it’s just a small side-show compared to that, since it doesn’t change whether the heterosexual majority will or won’t get married.

If anything it may strengthen marriage by reaffirming that marriage isn’t about something as superficial as sex.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

With thousands of years of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist moral thought - which obviously count for nothing in the secular scheme of things.

 

[inocente]

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.

You asked for evidence and I provided it.

Let me ask, does your own Church refuse to marry couples who don’t promise to have children? Or does it rescind marriages that have been childless after a certain number of years? No of course not. So if even your own Church doesn’t define marriage as being about having children, let alone the State, what grounds do you have for expecting me to prove anything to you? Methinks you’re the one trying to redefine marriage so the onus is on you.

 

[tonyrey]

The thread is still about secular arguments.

"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" is indeed a secular argument - which you have failed to refute…

 

[inocente]

These are the points you have missed:

1. You are ignoring the importance of the complementarity of the male and female personalities in raising a family.
2. You are seeking to destroy the basis of normal family life in a misguided attempt to compensate homosexuals for the injustice they have endured in the past and demonstrate that they have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in every respect.

I already said this isn’t changed by gay marriage.

For instance in the UK it’s normal for single people and unmarried couples (same-sex and opposite-sex) to adopt children (see here). In the US “in 2007 there were 270,000 children …] who lived with same-sex couples” (see here).

And of course some rich parents employ a full-time nanny to raise their children, and/or send them away to boarding schools, although apparently that’s fine for reasons unstated.

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.

In the words of the Spanish prime minister at the time of the change here:

*There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.

Aware that some people and institutions profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs.*

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

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

As I’ve had to repeat many times to others, tough, we live in democracies, the majority rules, write to your MP.

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

Correct, you were the one implying that marriage breakdown is a flip of the coin ordained by the Fates, I was the one saying no, it’s everything to do with the choices of the spouses.

 

[josh987654321]

You may not realize how complicated your argument is.

Okay.

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.

So what do you gather from biology, the human sexual anatomy of men and women?

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.

True.

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.

(Mark 1) What do you think about sexual morality? What sexual acts are “wrong” according to you and why? is consent the only reason?

And if lack of consent is the reason why beastiality is immoral, than if there was consent or a way for animals to show consent, would bestiality still be immoral?

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?

I think the logic is in the human anatomy of a man and a woman.

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.

Peter and I are not trying to re-define marriage, we just think it is absurd that you would claim that marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

If marriage was defined by the standard “vows” and had nothing to do with sexual acts, than of course we would have no problem with homosexuals marrying one another.

If marriage has nothing to do with sexual acts, than really any loving relationship should be recognised as a marriage, why could siblings or family members not be allowed to commit to such “vows” and be married, why would people be against that? if it is just about the “vows” than what is wrong with any other loving relationship (non sexual/physical) being recognised as a marriage?

(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).

So you think that there is no design for human sexuality? that really anything we sexually desire is fine? Please refer to (Mark1)

The thread is still about secular arguments.

Okay. It doesn’t make it any less true though.

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.

In any other circumstance I would agree with you, but unlike the immorality of slavery, this sexual immorality is all through the bible, the old testament and new testament.

So unless you expect the Bible to “die out” you are gravely mistaken to think that people will just accept such sexual immorality as moral over time. Christ’s teachings are not democratic.

The use of the bible to promote slavery was all out of ignorance, in this case it is the opposite, to be pro same sex marriage with the use of the bible is ignorance as the old testament and new testament are very clear about sexual immorality.

I also think that relating slavery to same sex marriage is completely abusrd, but I think you already know that and are just pointing out how you think societies morality changes.

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!!!

haha, I said, I don’t think it is the end of the world or anything, but all throughout the new testament they talk about sexual morality and Im saying that the sexual immorality you are advocating is all through revelations.

And remember, no one knows the day/time, so you should always be on your guard.

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

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/similar as heterosexual sexual relations, that both unions should be called a 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, it encourages and normalises the sexual acts of homosexuality.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

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

I think slavery is somewhat worse than discrimination.

Before it was made illegal a number of people didn’t see slavery as immoral. We now see it as immoral partly because it is enshrined in law. In the same way, some people didn’t think discrimination against those with a different color skin was immoral until society made it illegal. In the same way, legalizing gay marriage removes any excuse to think discrimination against gays isn’t immoral.

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

No, as in my earlier post today to you, gay marriage doesn’t change anything. Even then for the life of me I can’t see how variation in parents’ dangly bits influences children’s welfare.

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.

Marriage is defined by the vows, not by the attempts to redefine it on this thread. And as proof, the legalization of gay marriage in Spain only needed one paragraph to be added to the civil code, “saying that Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex”.

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

Yes, as I said, I can’t think of any reason why not. If memory serves, on an old thread you espoused the values of liberté, égalité and fraternité as coming from Christ. Perhaps it wasn’t you, but equality under the law is very important to most people, there must be a really good reason not to treat citizens equally or we think it highly unjust.

Then why refer to it?

You were the one who raised the breakdown of marriage, not me.

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

So now you don’t care about the children anymore?

There is a vast difference between kissing and homosexual intercourse.

Circular. You are the one who was appealing to what you subjectively believe is normal, now you’re subjectively drawing lines as well.

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

So now you do care about the children again? If you want to continue on this line, you’ll need to lay out why you think gay marriage will affect the number of children living with gay couples (it won’t), and while you’re at it please cite evidence that the large numbers of such children over the years are in any way worse off than anyone else.

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

Jesus didn’t need to state the obvious.

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

My statement was that “A pervert is someone “whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable”, which has always included many, many, many married heterosexuals.”

So take, for instance, Fifty Shades of Grey. An outright best seller. Lots of married people bought it while lots of other married people think it’s about abnormal and unacceptable behavior. There are various other practices which I won’t describe in the interests of decorum, which are very popular but which again many others regard as abnormal and unacceptable.

Everyone has their own opinion of what is normal and abnormal. It’s subjective.

Is your fundamental morality determined by your culture?

Yes, I think Christianity has an effect on all of our morality. Do you disagree then?

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

You’ve provided no rationale as to why there are fundamental roles, as far as I can see you’re assuming that different dangly bits, or one high-pitched and one low-pitched voice are vitally important in raising children, but without any rhyme or reason.

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

My father’s brother lived with his male partner. They were just guys like other guys, both ex-army. If anything happened to my parents I guess they would have adopted me. If I’d lost my parents, I’d have wanted that, they loved me and I loved them.

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

Thanks, you got that right!

 

[inocente]

I’m not talking about biological or evolutionary adaptations, but societal. The span of 20,000 years isn’t arbitrary - it’s meant to reflect a rough span which we can refer to as history. As for your point about same-sex “unions”, various societies may have accepted or tolerated homosexual relationships, but this is not the same as what is being sought by those supporting same-sex “marriage” - namely, being considered as no different from heterosexual marriages. Claiming that because homosexual relationships were “blessed” Assyrians, they must have seen homosexual relationships as identical to heterosexual ones is at best ignorant. This article mentions homosexual “union” being “known in … ancient Mesopotamia”, yet the code of Hammurabi (the earliest recorded laws we have for Mesopotamia) only ever refers to marriage as something that happens between male and female. Even Sparta, where homosexual behavior by male citizens was legally required, never saw these “unions” as something equal to and identical with marriage.

As I just said to tonyrey, very little needs to happen to make gay marriage legal. In Spain it was just adding one paragraph to the civil code saying that matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex:

Art. 44 El matrimonio tendrá los mismos requisitos y efectos cuando ambos contrayentes sean del mismo o de diferente sexo.

The change is very simple because of how marriage is defined.

*This isn’t about discrimination, so you can toss that red herring onto the pile with the rest. What I’m pointing out is that even in cultures where homosexual behavior was not just accepted, but celebrated and even required, marriage was only ever seen as something between male and female. *

You keep saying that but why would we care? In the Hammurabi code which you refer to above the wife was the property of the husband, it was nothing like our idea of marriage. In many cultures marriages were arranged. In our culture we have things like this:

In the 12th century the jurist Gratian, an influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities with a claim that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds . - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Europe

It’s a myth that marriage has never changed, when actually it’s changed out of all recognition across the years.

Can you give any argument that is in favor of gay “marriage” that doesn’t boil down to either accusations of bigotry by opponents or selfishness on the part of proponents?

From my first post I’ve been saying that (a) marriage is defined by the vows and that (b) a just society must not treat law-abiding citizens unequally without good reason.

Do you think either of those arguments are accusatory? That either of them are about selfishness? That either are irrational?

 

[CandideWest]

No, I think I’ve said a lot about infertility so far (and menopause falls into this distinction as well). The Catholic Church has always advocated traditional marriage. That does not mean the state has ever perfectly implemented it (or that it could be perfectly implemented).

So just to be clear then you are saying that ideally (in “traditional” marriage) infertile people are banned from marriage and this is the position taken by the Catholic church correct? And though no state has ever actually put this in place this is how things **should **be?

If so then you position is at least consistent, but I’m still not clear on why you are not campaigning for making it illegal for infertile people to marry. Surely an existing real gap to the ideal is a more important problem than a potential future gap to the ideal?

There is a difference between a religiously motivated argument and a religious argument. Indeed in this part you quoted here I said that I would not make this argument.

Indeed, but you did raise your view that homosexual marriage becoming normal would be a bad thing. That is an argument that you cannot support without bringing in your religious beliefs. That was my point really.

If I actually believe that my beliefs are correct (ie. if I actually believe in my beliefs), then I should expect that their implications are reflected in the real world… I really do not believe that normal psychological development occurs without a mother and a father…

But these problems already exist, and as we have noted already, not only do we permit single people from taking on the burden of adopting or fostering children, but (generally) praise them for being willing to do so. If you really believe in the position you have adopted before then you should again be arguing for banning individuals fostering or adopting children. Because clearly from this point of view a single parent raising a child as being at least as bad if not worse and a homosexual couple doing so.

This is not a religious argument. You view it as a religious argument because you view all arguments against homosexual marriage as religious arguments and because it is in accord with my religious beliefs.

No, you have misunderstood. I do not believe it is a religious argument. It is a bad argument because by this measure we as a society already permit and **encourage ** people to do things that are worse. Your position is also inconsistent because you do not seem to be arguing against those things (ie single people adopting children).

Is this really your argument? Obviously we are talking about trends and trends have exceptions. Is your argument that children from single-parent homes on average are just as well off as children from two-parent homes because you know a few people from single-parent homes who are living good lives?

You said, “It is presumptuous to assume that normal psychological development can proceed without such cues.” Now given that there are plenty of people out there who HAVE developed normally means that it is in fact NOT presumptuous.

There is a separate question if children from single parent homes are on average as well off as those from two parent homes. I suspect they are probable on average worse off because the parent will have less support in the process of raising the child. Separating out the effect of having single gender parenting from other factors seems likely to be virtually impossible.

…The problem is the confusion in the public perception about what marriage is for. It’s generally understood that you only (plan to) have children within marriage

The problem here is that there doesn’t seem to be any actual agreement about what marriage is “for”. You seem to be arguing that it is “for” raising children but you seem happy for infertile people to marry which is obviously contrary to this.

But when children are involved, the institution of marriage should be perceived as permanent; unless the marriage is dangerous, from a civil standpoint, it is better that the marriage stay together. But we have a legal structure that facilitates the opposite. Marriage should be a legal distinction based on an intentionally permanent relationship and the protection of children. Other relationships do not need these assurances.

Ok, but in that case given say the example of a homosexual woman who has adopted a child. She and her partner should marry in order to put those assurances in place for the child.

Laws have to be generally applicable. We could come up with a litany of circumstances in which marriage is an is not permitted, but that would be dysfunctional.

Then perhaps you will provide a justification that writing the law such that “infertile people cannot marry because they cannot have children” would be dysfunctional which is consistent with your justification that “homosexual people cannot marry because they cannot have children”.

Of course I do not think it is true in all cases. From a legal standpoint we can only speak generally about what is most often better.

Good, so when you said "A heterosexual couple is also forms a better adoptive family. " you presumably actually meant “i believe that homosexual couples provide a better adoptive family on average” but of course when looking for adoptive families the standard applied by adoption agencies is not the average capability of that social group but the capability of this particular individual or couple.

Laws have to be generally applicable, and we have to legislate in favor of the common good.

Laws being generally applicable doesn’t mean that they have to be imprecise. Indeed laws that are too vague are not useful.

 

[CandideWest]

You have not read Humanae Vitae, but have drawn conclusions about its relevance.

That is textbook example of closed mindedness, and clearly an invalid response.

??? Seriously, because I know that Humanae Vitae is a religious document based on religious beliefs I am closed minded?

If knowing facts is your measure of closed mindedness then I’m afraid you use the term in a very odd way. How about I start identifying text books you haven’t read and if you correctly identify that they are not providing secular arguments about homosexual marriage I then call you closed minded…

I’m being facetious of course. This would be absurd.

You are funny. Kant is one of your guys… you know the secular enlightenment philosophers. Have you ever heard of Kant’s wedge? You seem to be seeking an argument not only void of theology, but also void of philosophy.

??? One of “your guys”??? No, Kant is not one of “my guys”.

To be clear you started raising completely unrelated points about only permitting marriage to people who are infertile and asking if it would undermine the purpose of marriage. I agreed that it would undermine part of it, but since nobody seems to be suggesting we do this it hardly seems relevant.

OK. CandideWest, I always here atheists claiming to have “understood” or have been “raised” Catholic or Christian. I always challenge them with one simple question. If you were ever a Christian, you must know the key to the spiritual life.

Sure, because if someone ceased to follow your religion they must not have understood it right? They cannot possibly have been a “real” Christian and moved on. Right?

Can you tell me the key to the spiritual life?

Great, a question with half a dozen good answers that spring to mind immediately. And of course this leaves you entirely open to arguing that whichever answer I provide is wrong. ie I could say that the answer is “prayer” and your could reply that the correct answer is “love” and having justified that my answer was “wrong” claim that I never really understood what Christianity was about.

If you can answer this basic question, then I will believe your contention that you experienced Christianity. However, If you can’t, let’s just agree that you know some information about Christianity, but never really understood what it was all about. Isn’t that why you are here on this forum? Be honest with yourself.

I do not agree and I think it is supremely arrogant of you to set yourself up as judge of other people’s religious beliefs. Who are you to claim to be able to judge whether or not an individual is or was a true Christian based on your interpretation of the correct answer to a particular question?

As a final point I will remind you that the topic of this thread is “Secular argument against gay marriage”. Nothing you have written above is relevant to this thread. If you want to discuss the subject matter, please write relevant material. I am here to discuss the subject at hand and won’t reply further to unrelated material.

 

[CandideWest]

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

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

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

Er, did you not read all of my post? The point was provided in my post. To make this clear for you, you gave the argument that

“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)”.

In other words your argument would break down like this

1. Using body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used is “disordered and immoral”
2. Homosexuality means using your body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used.
3. Thus homosexuality is “disordered and immoral”

I demonstrated the absurdity of this position by replacing number 2 with the equally valid “chewing gum” and “running for fun” as follows.

1. Using body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used is “disordered and immoral”
2. Chewing gum means using your body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used.
3. Thus chewing gum is “disordered and immoral”

To be clear this is YOUR argument, not mine. All that the word substitution has done is demonstrated the absurdity of the argument.

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

Why not? If there are no evolutionary advantages to the trait then it is odd that homosexuality is observed in such a large number of species. Well documented now in hundreds of species.

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

Nope, as far as I know there is nothing wrong with it and your argument for your view has clearly failed already.

do you have any sense of sexual morality?

Yep.

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.

Sure, if that’s the case then I would suggest that you don’t do those things. But to suggest that **other people **cannot do it because **you **find it repulsive is… well a little silly

Thank you for reading
Josh

No worries

 

[josh987654321]

Er, did you not read all of my post? The point was provided in my post. To make this clear for you, you gave the argument that

“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)”.

In other words your argument would break down like this

1. Using body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used is “disordered and immoral”
2. Homosexuality means using your body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used.
3. Thus homosexuality is “disordered and immoral”

I demonstrated the absurdity of this position by replacing number 2 with the equally valid “chewing gum” and “running for fun” as follows.

1. Using body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used is “disordered and immoral”
2. Chewing gum means using your body parts in a different way to how they evolved to be used.
3. Thus chewing gum is “disordered and immoral”

To be clear this is YOUR argument, not mine. All that the word substitution has done is demonstrated the absurdity of the argument.

Okay, I don’t have a good rebuttal argument for that yet. I don’t think it is appropriate to relate sexual acts to using other parts of the body for different things though.

However can I ask you something? following the same principal above, if animals could show consent, would beastiality be still considered immoral?

I guess Im just wondering, why/how people could view the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral? as something good to be encouraged? I don’t understand it.

Why not? If there are no evolutionary advantages to the trait then it is odd that homosexuality is observed in such a large number of species. Well documented now in hundreds of species.

How could it be an evolutionary trait? if we all evolved to homosexuality it would be the death of the human species.

Nope, as far as I know there is nothing wrong with it and your argument for your view has clearly failed already.

Why is there nothing wrong with it? Would you also say that there is nothing wrong with fornication?

Yep.

It certainly doesn’t look like it when you advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality and in such case your sexual morality must be vastly different to mine.

Sure, if that’s the case then I would suggest that you don’t do those things. But to suggest that **other people **cannot do it because **you **find it repulsive is… well a little silly

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

If homosexuals give into such desires out of weakness Im hardly going to throw stones or anything, but I think it’s a whole new level to claim that such sexual relations are the same/similar as heterosexual sexual relations, that both unions should be called a marriage.

It’s not like we are trying to have such a union or sodomy made illegal, same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, it encourages and normalises the sexual acts of homosexuality, in which case I think it is wrong.

Thank you for reading
Josh

No worries

In your reply, could you please help me understand your point of view, because I really don’t get how the anatomy of men and women no longer matters in a sexual relationship according to you.

Again Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[markeverett49]

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.

Good question. First, I’ve been around over half a century now and my expectation is that some people will agree with me and some people won’t. I don’t think anyone is obligated to agree with me, and what’s more, I think it wrong to suggest that respecting a PERSON requires one to agree with that person’s views.

I think “equality” and “fairness” are two of the most dangerous words in moral discourse because both are inherently subjective and to the extent they are valued, justice is dis-valued. Let us take an example that doesn’t touch upon sex or religious belief.

Consider the claim that “the rich don’t pay their fair share (in income tax).” This sounds like a real complaint but really, it’s a rhetorical box. Who can be for the rich paying an “unfair share”? The question, though, is what IS the fair share? A dozen people who say the rich should pay their fair share—a dozen people who seem to agree with one another about this----could be taken aside and asked to write down on a slip of paper what they think that fair share is. (42%? 50%? 75%? 67%?) It is possible twelve people chosen at random could generate twelve different numbers. More pointedly, maybe three would pick the same number (-say, 75%); would that make that The Fair Share? It would make it the most common number chosen by this group but that is all it would be.

All you are doing is saying that treating same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples as a requirement of equality but this is no more forceful than saying it is unfair for a rich person to pay only, say 43% income tax. This use of “equality” as a rhetorical bludgeon (-the way some people use “fairness” as a bludgeon) works on some people. yet nothing in the plea compels the reason to assent to it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

There is no need to redefine marriage because, while procreation is not explicitly in all marriage vows, the reason marriage vows are made in the first place is to assure the state that the commitment of the two individuals to each other has the capacity to be a support to future offspring. There is no mention of future offspring because there can be no legal agreement concerning what does not exist. If the agreement were not ultimately about the possibility of procreation, why would the state be concerned about the relationship between two individuals? The state does not legislate concerning friendships. Why not? Could it be because friendships, other than between opposite sex individuals are impotent to produce new life? Absolutely, and that is the only reason the state began to legislate concerning marriage - because there was an implicit understanding that marriage creates new citizens that must be protected as non-participants in the original contract. The state is supposed to act on their behalf to secure their interests as they arrive on the scene without having been original parties in the agreement.

The state would have no other concern since the original parties are quite capable, as demonstrated by no fault divorce laws, of deciding that they are no longer willing to complete their responsibilities to each other as signed in the original marriage document.
If marriage were only about the partnership, the state would have no reason to be involved since a private agreement - one that can be terminated by either party at will - has no grounds to be contractually binding as a partnership, except in this case where children have resulted. In that case the state takes the original agreement and biological evidence as proof of responsibility towards offspring.

Those of you who, apparently, “value” marriage have not provided a sound definition of what a marriage actually is, so how can you claim to value it when you cannot even define it?

Provide a definition of marriage that includes heterosexual and homosexual couples that does not discriminate arbitrarily against other committed relationships and I will be more inclined to take your supposed “valuing” seriously. As yet you have skirted that question, which has been raised a number of times. I wonder why.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good question. First, I’ve been around over half a century now and my expectation is that some people will agree with me and some people won’t. I don’t think anyone is obligated to agree with me, and what’s more, I think it wrong to suggest that respecting a PERSON requires one to agree with that person’s views.

I think “equality” and “fairness” are two of the most dangerous words in moral discourse because both are inherently subjective and to the extent they are valued, justice is dis-valued. Let us take an example that doesn’t touch upon sex or religious belief.

Consider the claim that “the rich don’t pay their fair share (in income tax).” This sounds like a real complaint but really, it’s a rhetorical box. Who can be for the rich paying an “unfair share”? The question, though, is what IS the fair share? A dozen people who say the rich should pay their fair share—a dozen people who seem to agree with one another about this----could be taken aside and asked to write down on a slip of paper what they think that fair share is. (42%? 50%? 75%? 67%?) It is possible twelve people chosen at random could generate twelve different numbers. More pointedly, maybe three would pick the same number (-say, 75%); would that make that The Fair Share? It would make it the most common number chosen by this group but that is all it would be.

All you are doing is saying that treating same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples as a requirement of equality but this is no more forceful than saying it is unfair for a rich person to pay only, say 43% income tax. This use of “equality” as a rhetorical bludgeon (-the way some people use “fairness” as a bludgeon) works on some people. yet nothing in the plea compels the reason to assent to it.

This is an important point. Equality, in and of itself, is misleading without specifying why and how equality ought to apply. The general rule is to treat like things alike unless there are valid reasons for doing otherwise. Many factors can create the need for treating some things that appear similar, in dissimilar fashion and justifiably so.

What SSM advocates want is not equality because they already can get married to another person of the opposite sex. They have equality in this regard. No, what they want is to be treated differently, which is not equality at all, but in a sense, special pleading. They don’t want to play the game by the rules that have been valid to date, but want the rules to change to allow for their peculiar situation. It isn’t a case of equality, but instead one of special treatment. Not just to be included, but to change the very definition of the reality to allow for inclusion.

Even more baffling, as CandideWest’s skirting of the question of gendered bathrooms shows, SSM advocates allow that gender differences are important in all matters but just not so in this case of marriage, but for no valid non-arbitrary reasons, as their failure to provide a definition of marriage (committed, loving relationship) that includes same sex unions but excludes other long term “platonic” relationships.

 

[polytropos]

So just to be clear then you are saying that ideally (in “traditional” marriage) infertile people are banned from marriage and this is the position taken by the Catholic church correct? And though no state has ever actually put this in place this is how things **should **be?

If so then you position is at least consistent, but I’m still not clear on why you are not campaigning for making it illegal for infertile people to marry. Surely an existing real gap to the ideal is a more important problem than a potential future gap to the ideal?

That is not what I am saying. You are rebutting a single paragraph without taking into account the other points about infertile couples that I have made. Children sometimes result from “infertile” couples, and I do not believe that a civil authority issuing marriage licenses is qualified to appraise who is completely infertile and who has just been incorrectly pronounced infertile.

This is not the position of the Catholic Church. My theological position would be that the children that result from couples pronounced infertile are intended miracles. But that’s really quite irrelevant to the secular discussion, because whether they are the result of a miracle or an accident or the failure of a medical screening, the fact is that they occur and are deserving of legal protection.

The civil marriage I am proposing extends to those couples that might conceive children.

Indeed, but you did raise your view that homosexual marriage becoming normal would be a bad thing. That is an argument that you cannot support without bringing in your religious beliefs. That was my point really.

That homosexual marriage becoming normal would be a bad thing is an immediate corollary of any argument against homosexual marriage, secular or religious.

But these problems already exist, and as we have noted already, not only do we permit single people from taking on the burden of adopting or fostering children, but (generally) praise them for being willing to do so. If you really believe in the position you have adopted before then you should again be arguing for banning individuals fostering or adopting children. Because clearly from this point of view a single parent raising a child as being at least as bad if not worse and a homosexual couple doing so.

…

No, you have misunderstood. I do not believe it is a religious argument. It is a bad argument because by this measure we as a society already permit and **encourage ** people to do things that are worse. Your position is also inconsistent because you do not seem to be arguing against those things (ie single people adopting children).

I believe the best environment for children to grow in consists of a mother and a father. We praise those who are single and adopt because it is difficult - not because it is the best option for a child. A single-parent household is still compromising.

The current sanction of something worse does not imply that anything that is not quite as bad should also be permitted. Why am I arguing against gay marriage? Because that’s what this thread is about, and because it is a more recent issue. Even if I believe that no-fault divorce laws have damaged the institution of marriage and imperiled children more than gay marriage will, they are much more deeply imbedded in our legal structure, whereas most states have not passed legislation permitting gay marriage.

You said, “It is presumptuous to assume that normal psychological development can proceed without such cues.” Now given that there are plenty of people out there who HAVE developed normally means that it is in fact NOT presumptuous.

I was referring to trends in psychological health (as is all we can do in terms of application). My objection is that you are using specific cases, which are outliers of the larger trend, as the counterpoint to the trend. You can look at a person and say, “He turned out pretty well.” But you statistically cannot conclude that he turned out as well as he would have in other circumstances. This is why we examine trends and not individual cases.

There is a separate question if children from single parent homes are on average as well off as those from two parent homes. I suspect they are probable on average worse off because the parent will have less support in the process of raising the child. Separating out the effect of having single gender parenting from other factors seems likely to be virtually impossible.

I don’t think anyone would doubt that support is a factor. I would argue that it is not the only factor, and that the absence of either a father or mother figure impacts psychological development in addition to whatever the effects of having only one parent are.

The problem here is that there doesn’t seem to be any actual agreement about what marriage is “for”. You seem to be arguing that it is “for” raising children but you seem happy for infertile people to marry which is obviously contrary to this.

Marriage can be for two adults who would like to have children or it can be fore two adults who would not necessarily like to have children. The former is a meaningful legal distinction, since a union producing children requires legal protections that unions not producing children do not. The latter is what we call a relationship.

 

[polytropos]

Ok, but in that case given say the example of a homosexual woman who has adopted a child. She and her partner should marry in order to put those assurances in place for the child.

My argument would be that in both cases, before and after the marriage, the child would be lacking a father figure and would not be in an ideal environment (although practical and financial support, of course, might become less of an issue).

Then perhaps you will provide a justification that writing the law such that “infertile people cannot marry because they cannot have children” would be dysfunctional which is consistent with your justification that “homosexual people cannot marry because they cannot have children”.

This is not my position on infertile couples. Civil authorities cannot reliably judge which medically pronounced infertile couples are capable of conceiving. By dysfunctional, I mean that no one is going to draft a law saying that a man and a woman cannot get married if the man has no testicles because the case is so extenuating and that information would not be available to anyone issuing a marriage license. This is not really an ideological stance, just a practical one.

Good, so when you said "A heterosexual couple is also forms a better adoptive family. " you presumably actually meant “i believe that homosexual couples provide a better adoptive family on average” but of course when looking for adoptive families the standard applied by adoption agencies is not the average capability of that social group but the capability of this particular individual or couple.

Yes, but this does not really change the fact that a functional heterosexual adoptive family can offer an environment for a child that is absolutely irreplicable by a homosexual couple (or a single parent).

 

[inocente]

There is no need to redefine marriage because, while procreation is not explicitly in all marriage vows, the reason marriage vows are made in the first place is to assure the state that the commitment of the two individuals to each other has the capacity to be a support to future offspring. There is no mention of future offspring because there can be no legal agreement concerning what does not exist. If the agreement were not ultimately about the possibility of procreation, why would the state be concerned about the relationship between two individuals? The state does not legislate concerning friendships. Why not? Could it be because friendships, other than between opposite sex individuals are impotent to produce new life? Absolutely, and that is the only reason the state began to legislate concerning marriage - because there was an implicit understanding that marriage creates new citizens that must be protected as non-participants in the original contract. The state is supposed to act on their behalf to secure their interests as they arrive on the scene without having been original parties in the agreement.

The state would have no other concern since the original parties are quite capable, as demonstrated by no fault divorce laws, of deciding that they are no longer willing to complete their responsibilities to each other as signed in the original marriage document.
If marriage were only about the partnership, the state would have no reason to be involved since a private agreement - one that can be terminated by either party at will - has no grounds to be contractually binding as a partnership, except in this case where children have resulted. In that case the state takes the original agreement and biological evidence as proof of responsibility towards offspring.

Those of you who, apparently, “value” marriage have not provided a sound definition of what a marriage actually is, so how can you claim to value it when you cannot even define it?

Provide a definition of marriage that includes heterosexual and homosexual couples that does not discriminate arbitrarily against other committed relationships and I will be more inclined to take your supposed “valuing” seriously. As yet you have skirted that question, which has been raised a number of times. I wonder why.

What?

WHAT?

Where do these unfounded accusations come from, Planet Sushi or some place?

I’ve repeatedly said marriage is defined by the vows. YOU EVEN QUOTED ME SAYING THAT IN YOUR POST!!!

*Cambridge online - Marriage: a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this.

dictionary.com - Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

Merriam.Webster - Marriage: 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage *

See how that works? No theorizing, no inventing your own definitions on the fly, YOU LOOK UP THE WORD IN A DICTIONARY!!!

A “legally accepted relationship between two people”, not “a contract to make babies” nor “an agreement to procreate” nor anything else you might wish it to be.

If there was a really big , I’d use a really big at this point.

And by way of confirmation, just in case of any lingering desire to continue with your own private definition, here is the entire civil code of Spain (pdf), published in English by the Ministry of Justice. Go to page 14, article 44. It contains two sentences. The addition of the second was the only change needed for gay marriage. I expect the change in your country will be much the same.

Read it and weep, all your attempts to complicate everything, all your attempts to redefine marriage, all blown away.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

This is a valid concern given that if same sex orientation is the result of environmental factors (epigenetics?) and not genetics per se, then encouraging and normalizing same sex behaviour could well be an important factor leading to a rise in same sex orientation. The question to be asked is whether same sex orientation is, in and of itself, a good thing?

We don’t claim diseases and dysfunctions to be good simply because they occur in nature or have become prevalent, neither should the question of whether same sex orientation is a desirable trait be dismissed simply because some individuals feel they should be allowed to satisfy their proclivities. It is a completely separate question apart from some individuals’ rights to satisfy ostensibly “harmless” urges, whether those proclivities should be promoted and allowed to flourish.

It is one issue whether persecution and discrimination should be stopped by legal sanction, but another entirely different one whether a behaviour ought to be promoted by the law.
It is possible to agree with the first, but vehemently disagree with the second, and for quite consistent reasons.

 

[JimG]

I’ll let you in on what seems to be a secret. Before the debate in Spain, the Church produced a briefing paper containing its arguments against gay marriage. Many of the arguments used by lay Catholics on CAF are not in that document - presumably they were discarded as being too weak or too contentious.

The document is still there on vatican.va, here it is if you’ve never seen it:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I’m not sure about any of this, by which I mean I just don’t know if the institution of marriage was in a stronger position in (say) 1933 or 1953 than now, or if families were better then than now. Certainly there has been a huge amount of change, and it’s that vast difference across just a few generations that confuses me.

Maybe it’s too early to know, maybe the historians will have to wait another twenty years after the sexual revolution before it starts to become clear.

But to me gay marriage isn’t part of any of that, really it’s just a small side-show compared to that, since it doesn’t change whether the heterosexual majority will or won’t get married.

If anything it may strengthen marriage by reaffirming that marriage isn’t about something as superficial as sex.

Thanks for the link to the Vatican document. The document is very good. I do think that many of its arguments have been repeated at length on this forum, especially the need for sexual complementarity, the family as the basis of society, and the prospects of devaluing the institution of marriage. To quote one sentence, it says:
"Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.”
Homosexual marriage may indeed be something of a sideshow, or it may be that the general public, which has so far been so apathetic to previous attacks on marriage beginning with contraception and no fault divorce, and the explosion of out of wedlock births, now seems somewhat alarmed that the very anthropological and biological basis of the institution is about to be tossed aside.

Even at that, many don’t seem particularly worried. Large social changes can occur very rapidly, resulting in large changes to whole societies. Twenty or forty years is a short time in history, but to an individual living through such changes, it’s a fairly long time, taken one day at a time. But one day, one wakes up, looks around, and realize that everything has changed.

In this respect, I have to refer once again to Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.” Everyone takes the sexual revolution for granted. Those who have lived through it one day at a time, never take the time for a serious look at what it has wrought. Eberstadt brings us the statistics.