Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

No you haven’t. I explicitly asked for your understanding of what the marriage relationship should consist that makes it unique from other committed relationships. You haven’t given your understanding of the relationship, even though you claim to be a defender of marriage. How can you defend something that you cannot adequately explain other than with reference to a “generally accepted” understanding of the relationship, which explains nothing of what that relationship actually consists.

That is like saying your definition of “spiders” is the same as what people or scientists generally accept spiders to be. That provides precisely nothing in terms of an actual debatable point. My understanding is that this forum is intended to be about philosophical debate.

However, you are skirting the issue again. Just give YOUR definition of what the marriage relationship should consist to make it an actual “marriage” without dodging the question. Let’s see if that withstands logical analysis. So far your points are weak.

If, as you claim, “marriage cannot possibly be about anything other than what is agreed in public,” does that mean any VOWS agreed to in public should count as a “marriage,” even a committed, loving relationship between a father and adult son or daughter that does not involve sex? If they merely exchange vows in public, that should count as a marriage?

I am calling you out on your “game” of refusing to come clean because you haven’t got an idea of what the marriage relationship should consist without appeal to an argumentum ad populum, that you know very well does not actually define what the relationship actually should be, merely that it is publicly accepted as a “relationship.”

Other relationships are not based on the same vows. Isn’t that obvious?

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

There’s no point in you posting to me again, I can’t think of any way to get through to you and have had enough of this repetition. Sorry, see you on another thread.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Happy mothers day.
We pray thanks to God for mothers.
Please God help us defend the 5th Commandment against the unbiblical same-sex “marriage” advocates.

 

[inocente]

You have not justified your comparison with marriage.

¿Que? What comparison?

Changing a name for a different relationship is not going to prevent people making excuses for discrimination.

¿Que? What different relationship?

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.

If marriage isn’t a civil right, what is it?

It sounds like you’re only bothered about the name, so would you go to war with Germany if they used a word you were particularly fond of, or would that be illogical?

Adding just one sentence - let alone a paragraph - constitutes a redefinition of marriage.

“We’ll extend this room by one meter.”
“Oh no! That will completely redefine the meaning of house”.

*One of the earliest records of marriage vows is in the Sarum manual:

“I N. take the N. to my weddyd wyf to have and to holde fro thys day forwarde, for beter for wers, for richere for porere; in sykenesse and in hele [health]; tyl dethe us departe; if holy chyrche it wol ordeyne; and thereto I plycht the my trouthe.”

There is no mention of two “wyfs” or more than one “huseband”…*

Yes, it couldn’t be more simple to change wyf/huseband to partner could it? And then of course both can give exactly the same vows and there’s none of that worry about whether the wyf should include “to obey”.

*Then you believe:

1. Men and women should be treated exactly the same with regard to their right to bear a child and suckle a baby?

1. If the father and mother are compelled to live apart through no fault of their own they have an equal right to possess a baby that is being suckled?

1. If the mother’s life is in danger from proceeding with the pregnancy they have an equal right to decide whether she should have the baby? *

Yikes this thread is getting bizarre, are you pretending not to understand égalité for comic effect or something?

I’ll quote the first seven articles of the UDHR for you to get the rough idea of equality in civil rights:

*Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.*

When homosexuals have equal civil rights they are not being treated unequally or unjustly simply because their different relationship has a different name. Inequality is not based on illogicality.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

You used it to justify SSM.

Don’t remember.

In this context the issue is not normality but the increased risk of infection for the children.

You think homosexuality is infectious now?

 

[josh987654321]

No, harm refers to more than just physical harm.

I agree.

What harm do you mean? I assume mental harm, if so what is the mental harm it causes?

The reason why I don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality is because I have never encountered any good argument why homosexuality is immoral.

What good arguments for “incest” with protection have you come across that makes you think of it as immoral?

It seems in your previous post you’re arguing that because heterosexual sex is “targeted towards procreation” (but homosexuality is not), that heterosexual sex can be moral but not homosexual sex, therefore a same-sex couple can’t practice eros.

The flaw with this argument is that people often don’t value procreation, so the ability to procreate is not desirable for them.

Your right, people don’t value procreation anymore, sex is seen as harmless fun and procreation is seen as some kind of unwanted side affect.

I think you missed the point, the point Peter Plato was making was that if there is no possibility of procreation, than why does the state have anything to do with marriage?

So you’re saying that non-vaginal sex is immoral because vaginal sex can lead to pregnancy. That’s quite a non-sequitur!

Not just because it can’t lead to pregnancy, but more “what parts fit where.”

Some of the rights denied to same-sex couples include:
Spousal privilege regarding testifying against each other/conversations being privileged
Spouse inherits estate without taxes (lack of this right has lead to same-sex couples loosing their home (partners house) when their partner dies)
Spouse becomes legal parent of the other’s child without having to adopt
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
access to family only services
and many more here and here.

Can’t this stuff be achieved without redefining marriage?

Under the law (which is what this thread is about), if some couple’s relationship is considered a marriage by the government it is treated much differently (see above). Theoretically, the same legal rights could be granted under a different name, but every time governments have attempted to do so, most of the 1,000+ rights the government gives for marriage are not given to those in a domestic partnership or civil union, and such attempts by and large marginalizes those couples.

Why are they not given to a domestic partnership or civil union?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Please refer to post 253.

]The mere fact that children are needlessly deprived of a mother or father by a homosexual “marriage” speaks for itself. Would you prefer to have been brought up without a father or mother?

I’m surprised you would sign up to things which so easily and thoroughly bring your entire case into question.

The first of the linked studies is clearly biased and fatally flawed, see for instance Wikipedia:

*The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey. Founded on religious principles, the group is opposed to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion.

In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded a controversial study—called the “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS)—concerning LGBT parenting, conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was later declared to be flawed in an audit conducted by the publisher of the study, Social Science Research, and was criticized by major professional scientific institutions and associations as well as other sociologists at the University of Texas. The American Sociological Association formally condemned the NFSS for being invalid in a brief to the United States Supreme Court. - *

The second paper doesn’t seem to have had much academic attention. It is a statistical reworking by which three economists (one of whom is at Brigham Young, the private university of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), managed to get exactly the opposite results of an original paper on parenting.

It speaks volumes that some will cling to anything that looks scientific as long as it confirms what they already believe, no matter how flawed. Morality dictated by bad science and pseudoscience. How ironic that this is happening on a Christian forum.

Precisely. He took it for granted that everyone understands that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then your statement is defective because the activity of married heterosexuals is a private matter.

In exactly the way that, according to you, the activity of homosexuals isn’t.

One rule for the rich and another for the poor.

The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage.

One rule for the rich and another for the poor again - close your eyes to what straight people do, for they are white as the driven snow.

Is morality entirely a matter of opinion of what is normal and abnormal?

Wow, now you’re arguing against yourself. You were the one appealing to what you subjectively think is normal and abnormal, not me.

“Influenced” does not imply “determined” - which is evident in your concept of marriage.

Subjective opinion again.

*Your obsession with the physical aspect of sex is consistent with your devaluation of the maternal and paternal roles in bringing up children. Do you believe they are not complementary? *

That’s ridiculous, I’ve been arguing all along that marriage is not about sex, it’s you guys that have obsessively droned on and on and on about sex.

The issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple from the moment you were born.

Which gay couple?

Can you really not see that your question is like saying the issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a black couple from the moment you were born. Or whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a Jewish couple.

Go ask your priest what he thinks of you asking a question which stereotypes a whole section of humanity (more than 200 million people) then come back and tell me what he said.

 

[josh987654321]

That creationism is false.

I thought that was an Athiest’s view? you are Christian right? how does a Christian think that creationsim is false? I mean the big bang theory is very logical and explains the earth, but how do you explain life?

The golden rule says treat others as we would like to be treated. Please explain why you think that’s a good rule for all morality except the bedroom. For instance does Jesus or anyone else say the golden rule is great for absolutely everything except sex? Where’s your rationale for changing the rule in that one case?

So does that mean fornication is moral? according to that rule you have applied to sexuality, fornication should also be moral shouldn’t it?

That’s not just hypothetical, it’s fantasy hypothetical. Would talking animals consent to being factory farmed for burger bars? Probably not.

I think you just proved eating meat is immoral.

haha, okay, I wont use that example, but I have another.

Would protected incestual sex be considered immoral according to you? and if so why?

So you’re basing the entire way you act towards people without actually knowing? I think you should find out the logic for yourself and see if you agree with it, unexamined beliefs are dangerous.

What do you mean? If you are pointing out my belief that only men and women are sexually compatible in a way that two men or two women are not, I would say that, that is not an unexamined belief.

Does your Church or your State refuse to marry couples who will not be sexual intimate? If they never ask then it is absurd of you to continue down this line. Rather than trying to redefine marriage to make your argument work, it might be a lot better to realize it’s not a good argument and find a better one.

Okay. Does that mean that marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy? that sex is completely irrelevant to marriage?

Err… as has been said many times, offspring of incest are at high risk of congenital disorders and incestuous relationships usually involve some form of abuse.

What about protected incestual sex? and how did you conclude that incestuous relationships usually involve some form of abuse?

I’m not a creationist.

Please refer to my first reply.

Perhaps you don’t know the bible very well. As the Wikipedia article states, “The **Bible does not condemn slavery **and actually regulates its practice, especially in the Old Testament”.

For verses mentioning slavery (in any context) see here.

You are right, the Bible does not “condemn” slavery, but it does not promote it.

I said it is ignorance to promote or advocate slavery with the use of the bible.

In relation to the sexual acts of homosexuality, the Bible clearly “condemns” it. Therefore it’s ignorance to promote or advocate such acts with same sex marriage with the use of the bible.

Sounds like net-curtain morality, i.e. you don’t mind if you don’t see it, don’t ask don’t tell.

Paul doesn’t share your view. He thought everyone who gives into sexual desire is weak (“Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. - 1 Cor 7”).

Paul taught that marriage was about having sex as often as possible to avoid temptation. I’m surprised you haven’t referred to him, but I guess “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” is a bit of a downer on your view of marriage. Paul’s unnatural idea that we should all be celibate life-long would have killed off the human race a long time ago.

It’s a good job that few took him seriously.

What do you mean by “net-curtain morality”?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

Other relationships are not based on the same vows. Isn’t that obvious?

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part.

.

No so obvious…

Those vows certainly do make sense if the couple could potentially create a new human being and, therefore, individually were providing to their potential partner the assurance that they would not leave the other “in the lurch.”

However, those vows do not make sense for a couple who have no inclination or potential to create offspring and mutually agree that either one of them are free to break it off if they are so inclined. Why hold each other to such a high standard when both are quite inclined not to live up to it? Why make an unnecessary promise that will almost certainly be broken?

If your argument is that these vows are to be taken seriously not for the sake of future offspring, but for the sake of the psychological well-being of the pair and sex is merely an accidental feature of the union (which some, for example CandideWest, have contended), and that it is the loving commitment that is the prime feature, then why place limitations on who could enter into such an agreement?

Why could not two same-sex siblings enter into such a relationship? Surely, the Spanish civil code has no reason to refuse two brothers or two sisters from entering this kind of relationship since they are incapable of procreating, just as biologically unrelated same sex couples are. It would seem quite discriminatory of the Spanish authorities to exclude a pair of brothers or sisters from benefitting from the protection of Spanish civil law for no reason, since the only reason for excluding those of the same bloodline have to do with procreation. Where is the justice in excluding those who cannot procreate from being married, a pair of brothers, for example?

Clearly, you would have to support two brothers or two sisters being married, since, equally clearly, for you marriage is not about procreation or having sex and, for you, the law ought not exclude a loving, committed couple of brothers or sisters from being married, since their love is equally as valid as any other.

I sincerely hope there are a few Spanish siblings around, with time on their hands, who will challenge the Spanish government based upon its own inadequate rendering of the law. This could open up a plethora of equally valid challenges from an open range of pairings: for example, same sex grandparent-grandchild or parent-child. Why should these be excluded from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage simply because they are biologically related but have no inclination to engage in the marital act? Even if they did, what business of the state’s would that be? They did not choose their kinship ties so why should their genealogy be the cause of the state’s discrimination against their loving, committed relationship and their desire to benefit from state sanctioned matrimony? After all, if gender orientation ought not be a barrier, why should kinship?

 

[tonyrey]

You have not justified your comparison with marriage.

Slavery.

Changing a name for a different relationship is not going to prevent people making excuses for discrimination.

¿Que? What different relationship?

Homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

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.

If marriage isn’t a civil right, what is it?

The right to “gay marriage” is not a fact but a claim.

It sounds like you’re only bothered about the name, so would you go to war with Germany if they used a word you were particularly fond of, or would that be illogical?

It is the supporters of gay “marriages” who illogically insist on the same name for an essentially different relationship and undermine the foundation of family life.

Adding just one sentence - let alone a paragraph - constitutes a redefinition of marriage.

“We’ll extend this room by one meter.”
“Oh no! That will completely redefine the meaning of house”.

Your analogy is hopelessly defective.

One of the earliest records of marriage vows is in the Sarum manual:

“I N. take the N. to my weddyd wyf to have and to holde fro thys day forwarde, for beter for wers, for richere for porere; in sykenesse and in hele [health]; tyl dethe us departe; if holy chyrche it wol ordeyne; and thereto I plycht the my trouthe.”

There is no mention of two “wyfs” or more than one “huseband”…

Yes, it couldn’t be more simple to change wyf/huseband to partner could it? And then of course both can give exactly the same vows and there’s none of that worry about whether the wyf should include “to obey”.

Such a simplistic view of change is consistent with the view that morality is a passing fashion.

Then:

1. Men and women should be treated exactly the same with regard to their right to bear a child and suckle a baby?

1. If the father and mother are compelled to live apart through no fault of their own they have an equal right to possess a baby that is being suckled?

1. If the mother’s life is in danger from proceeding with the pregnancy they have an equal right to decide whether she should have the baby?

Yikes this thread is getting bizarre, are you pretending not to understand égalité for comic effect or something?

Yet another evasion! Failure to answer questions implies assent, inability to answer them or unwillingness to commit oneself.

I’ll quote the first seven articles of the UDHR for you to get the rough idea of equality in civil rights:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Not one of those articles supports the introduction of homosexual “marriage”.

When homosexuals have equal civil rights they are not being treated unequally or unjustly simply because their different relationship has a different name. Inequality is not based on illogicality.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

When homosexuals have equal civil rights they are not being treated unequally or unjustly simply because their different relationship has a different name.

You used it to justify SSM.

Don’t remember.

That statement weakens your argument.

In this context the issue is not normality but the increased risk of infection for the children.

You think homosexuality is infectious now?

There is a higher incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases among gays to which it is morally wrong to expose children.

 

[tonyrey]

The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey. Founded on religious principles, the group is opposed to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion.

In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded a controversial study—called the “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS)—concerning LGBT parenting, conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was later declared to be flawed in an audit conducted by the publisher of the study, Social Science Research, and was criticized by major professional scientific institutions and associations as well as other sociologists at the University of Texas. The American Sociological Association formally condemned the NFSS for being invalid in a brief to the United States Supreme Court. -

The second paper doesn’t seem to have had much academic attention. It is a statistical reworking by which three economists (one of whom is at Brigham Young, the private university of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), managed to get exactly the opposite results of an original paper on parenting.

It speaks volumes that some will cling to anything that looks scientific as long as it confirms what they already believe, no matter how flawed. Morality dictated by bad science and pseudoscience. How ironic that this is happening on a Christian forum.

A classic argumentum ad hominem. It would be more relevant to produce statistics to the contrary, which - predictably - are not forthcoming.

Precisely. He took it for granted that everyone understands that marriage is between a man and a woman.

No logical response.

Then your statement is defective because the activity of married heterosexuals is a private matter.

In exactly the way that, according to you, the activity of homosexuals isn’t.

Non sequitur.

The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage.

One rule for the rich and another for the poor again - close your eyes to what straight people do, for they are white as the driven snow.

Another non sequitur.

Is morality entirely a matter of opinion of what is normal and abnormal?

Wow, now you’re arguing against yourself. You were the one appealing to what you subjectively think is normal and abnormal, not me.

An appeal to passing fashions as the basis of morality is a sign of subjectivism determined by expediency!

“Influenced” does not imply “determined” - which is evident in your concept of marriage.

Subjective opinion again.

The failure to distinguish “influenced” and “determined” is illogical and also determined by expediency.

Your obsession with the physical aspect of sex is consistent with your devaluation of the maternal and paternal roles in bringing up children.

That’s ridiculous, I’ve been arguing all along that marriage is not about sex, it’s you guys that have obsessively droned on and on and on about sex.

The repeated reference to sexual organs is clear evidence of obsession with the physical aspect of sex at the expense of the maternal and paternal roles in bringing up children - to which there has been no rational response (as if the complementarity of the father and mother has no significance whatsoever).

The issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple from the moment you were born.

Which gay couple?

Another unreasonable evasion which reveals unwillingness to commit oneself…

Can you really not see that your question is like saying the issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a black couple from the moment you were born. Or whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a Jewish couple.

Differences of race, colour, class and religion are irrelevant to the issue of marriage which is the foundation of family life.

Go ask your priest what he thinks of you asking a question which stereotypes a whole section of humanity (more than 200 million people) then come back and tell me what he said.

The notion of “stereotypes” is irrelevant where the foundation of family life is concerned because the issue is not homosexuality but the nature of marriage.

 

[tonyrey]

*What happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, when did it become “hate the gay whether or not they sin”?

		 		 	 	 How on earth is that statement related to any point in my posts?

No response.

You have failed to explain why you think gay marriage will change the large numbers of children already living with gay parents.

The misery caused by the deliberate and needless deprivation of a father or mother is not diminished by its frequency. Having been brought up without a father I have had **personal experience **of its effects throughout my life - whereas you are talking through your hat… No response.

 

[StrangeSoul]

Marriage, just as any institution, has a logical structure that can not be changed. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron, and there is no such thing as a right to something that doesn’t exist.

Marriage has three main pillars behind its logical structure: species, gender and number. Two human beings, male and female. Why is the number of people in a marriage limited to two? Because the human species has two genders, male and female, which are necessary for procreation.

If gender is meaningless in a marriage, then there’s no reason why number should mean a thing. If two males can “marry”, then 5 people can also “marry” between themselves.

And we’re not even talking about the “classical” notion of polygamy, such as the islamic one, where a man can have up to four spouses in different, separate marriages – sure, that’s also wrong, but for different reasons. We’re talking about a “marriage” between 10 people or more.

A “marriage” with an undefined number of people involved. So, in theory, the whole world could be part of a single “marriage”. Needless to say, that is simply the complete destruction of the whole concept of marriage. And how can a union between 25 people even be considered as a “stable relationship”?

Also, if gender is irrelevant, then so is the species pillar. So a man should be able to “marry” a dog? Would that count as a “marriage”? Are we supposed to compare that to a marriage between a man and a woman?

Marriage – and we’re not just talking semantics here, but metaphysics and concepts – has a very logical and defined meaning that can not be changed by any culture, just as the concept of a “circle” can not be used to represent a “square”. If anything can be a “marriage”, then marriage can be nothing at all.

 

[stewstew03]

Psychological harm means harm to one’s phyche.

Well, if you’re going to be terse… then the answer is “false.”

In fact, would not harm to one’s psyche result from society’s continued treatment of incest as “taboo”? Are you familiar with Lawrence v Texas?

 

[stewstew03]

…
Err… as has been said many times, offspring of incest are at high risk of congenital disorders and incestuous relationships usually involve some form of abuse
…

And the point has been made that not all incestuous relationships result in offspring. It appears you would be in favor, then, of a 65-year old man marrying his 60 year old sister, correct?

 

[CandideWest]

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.

No, but you stated that you do not believe a group of people who live a lifestyle of which you disapprove deserve your respect. You didn’t simply say that you reserve the right to disagree with them or the choices they make. If you had I would of course not have objected.

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.

Really? what is it about the concept of equality or fairness that worries you so much? I’ve never found the idea’s problematic at all. It’s rarely difficult to work out what equality looks like either, mostly it just means treating people equally.

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.

Really? Would you support a law which said that people of a different race cannot marry? Or those of a different religion cannot marry? No? Then why homosexuals?

The reality is that the situation here is nothing like choosing an exact percentage of income tax to be paid by people from different levels of income, and in truth I think you know that full well, which makes what you have written above nothing more or less than obfuscation.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

No worries, it speaks well of your integrity to just come out and say so. A lot of people I know would just respond with an argument they knew didn’t work to avoid responding honestly as you have above.

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

The problem there is that you are supposing a situation so wildly different to reality it’s hard to imagine. First of all animals would need to have conscious self awareness in order to be able to make decisions of this nature, and be able to speak in some manner.

In many respects what you have done by the above is made animals into different types of people. Can we really make any kind of reliable guess as to what our world would be like under such circumstances? Would cows shop in supermarkets or would they prefer to use the high street? Which way would fish tend to vote?

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.

Yes, moral, as in morally permissible. Nothing wrong with it. I’m not sure what you mean by “encouraged” as far as I know humans have never yet developed a reliable way of changing a person from heterosexual to homosexual or homosexual to heterosexual (despite a lot of effort for centuries having been put into the latter).

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

Yes, but our species hasn’t evolved to all be homosexual, the same goes for all those hundreds of other species that show homosexual behaviour. Not all of any given generation have the characteristic. But it appears that there must be some evolutionary advantage for many species in having a percentage of the population homosexual. If there was not then each of them (including humans) would probably have been out bred/competed by variants of the species which lacked that trait.

Why is there nothing wrong with it?

I say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality because I cannot identify anything which is wrong with it.

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

Fornication means different things to different people, please clarify what you mean by the term.

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.

Yes, it sounds as if our sexual morals probably are quite different. Incidentally the basis I use for morality in general is what I call “practicably objective” morality.

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

It’s strange, I’ve noticed that when a lot of people talk about sex and marriage, general view seems to be that when two heterosexuals get married they tend to have less sex. But when a lot of Christians talk about homosexual marriage the assumption seems to be that they’ll suddenly start having a lot more sex.

As for “normalised” well homosexual behaviour occurs in a significant proportion of the population across our entire species all over the world. So it seems clear that it is “normal” for our species. Certainly more “normal” than other less common traits globally (ie having ginger hair) which are widely considered as “normal”.

If homosexuals give into such desires out of weakness Im hardly going to throw stones or anything,

Why do you think it is “giving into such desires out of weakness” would you similarly say that a heterosexual couple who have sex are doing likewise?

I suspect that it’s because you consider it to be some kind of sin, but most homosexuals do not share this view so presumably they do not see any more need to resist their desire to have sex with their partner than heterosexuals see to resist the desire to have sex with their partner.

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.

Lets be clear on this, we don’t just “call” a relationship marriage. Neither with homosexual or heterosexual relationships. People get married, and THEN we call their relationship marriage, because they have been married.

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.

I’m not sure why you raise the idea of anatomy no longer mattering. I’m sure in any sexual relationship anatomy matters a great deal to those involved. I just don’t see why it should matter to those who aren’t involved. Do you take an interest in the anatomy of your neighbours?

Anyway, hopefully this post has clarified some things for you. All the best.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

“Skirting”? No, I dealt with that very weak objection head on and you did not reply so I assumed you had realised the weakness of the objection. Remember this?

"Because BOTH groups between which a separation is being made recognise and desire that separation. "

“gender differences are important in all matters” Nope, I completely disagree, that’s the kind of argument that has had women being paid less than men for doing the same job in the same building at the same time for years. Gender differences are important where those differences make RELEVANT differences to the requirements of two groups.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Really? what is it about the concept of equality or fairness that worries you so much? I’ve never found the idea’s problematic at all. It’s rarely difficult to work out what equality looks like either, mostly it just means treating people equally…

The fact is that there are manifold legitimate reasons for treating people unequally. You even brought up the example of public washrooms, which is a case in point where gender does, indeed, make a difference and you agreed that it does warrant unequal treatment. It would seem that the ability to procreate is a legitimate distinguishing feature that does provide a very good reason to treat individuals unequally.

By the way, the traditional ideal of marriage, does not treat people unfairly. All Individuals who meet the necessary requirements can marry. Same sex marriage advocates do not wish to be treated equally, they want special considerations. I.e, to be treated unequally - to marry someone of the same sex.

Really? Would you support a law which said that people of a different race cannot marry? Or those of a different religion cannot marry? No? Then why homosexuals?.

People of different races can marry. People of different religions can marry. Again homosexuals in favour of same sex marriage do not want to engage in marriage, which is currently an open possibility for them, they want some other arrangement to be considered marriage.

The reality is that the situation here is nothing like choosing an exact percentage of income tax to be paid by people from different levels of income, and in truth I think you know that full well, which makes what you have written above nothing more or less than obfuscation.

It is you who are advocating the like treatment of capacities despite the fact that there are legitimate differences between them that warrant unequal treatment, I.e., the capacity to create new human beings. We are not talking about like things being treated equally, which is the logical basis for equality, but you are blindly advocating treating unlike realities as if they were essentially the same, when they clearly are not. The capacity to procreate is an important distinguishing feature that you are simply overlooking in a blind attempt to treat unlike individuals as if they are alike when, in fact, they are not, despite the fact that you conceded that gender differences are sufficient to warrant unequal treatment in the case of public washrooms. It is you who are obfuscating the issue by advocating blindness instead of right judgement.

Again, I have not seen from you a proper definition of who should be treated as “equally” qualified to participate in legal marriage and under what conditions that does not discriminate legitimately against others such as male or female adult siblings. Why should these not be treated equally and also justly enter into marriage if we wish to completely discount potency to create life as an aspect of what marriage is?

I still am waiting for an adequate definition of who should rightly be allowed to marry under your terms that does not treat someone (adult same sex siblings, for example) unequally. Obviously, Innocente just gave up trying to offload that task onto the Spanish government. To whom will you defer?

 

[Biblepoe]

What harm do you mean? I assume mental harm, if so what is the mental harm it causes?

Since I don’t want this thread to become about incest, I’ll just provide you with this source if you’re interested in what psychological harm is caused by incest.

What good arguments for “incest” with protection have you come across that makes you think of it as immoral?

The fact that it causes harm (as I said before).

Your right, people don’t value procreation anymore, sex is seen as harmless fun and procreation is seen as some kind of unwanted side affect.

I just want to point out that just because sex is seen as something fun the couple does (which the Catholic Church affirms when talking about the unitive aspect of sex) without necessarily wanting to have children doesn’t mean one takes an anything goes approach.

I think you missed the point, the point Peter Plato was making was that if there is no possibility of procreation, than why does the state have anything to do with marriage?

See the sources I gave for the practical effects of legal marriage. Most of them, such as spousal privilege regarding court testimony, inheritance of property without estate tax, power to make medical decisions about the spouse, and many, many more, have nothing to do with childbearing. Instead, they have to do with protecting the union of the spouses and treating them as two acting as one.

Not just because it can’t lead to pregnancy, but more “what parts fit where.”

If the parts didn’t fit, then they wouldn’t be able to have sex. Mixed-sex couples have been able to get the parts to fit for the exact same activities (or sex, an sex, non-penetrative sex), and we don’t use willingness to engage in vaginal sex to determine if the couple can get a civil marriage.

Can’t this stuff be achieved without redefining marriage?

What would the motive behind this ‘separate but equal’ approach be other than to marginalize such relationships as less than?

Why are they not given to a domestic partnership or civil union?

Perhaps that’s happened because the law is complicated and its hard to create a bill that mimic all of the laws that have to do with all of the 1,000+ rights and responsibilities of marriage. That’s an awful lot of work to create a separate name. It’s a lot less work than removing an arbitrary requirement that the two can’t both be male or female in order to get a civil marriage, which might be a matter of modifying a single sentence of law.

Perhaps it’s also because employers and insurance companies would use any excuse to cut costs by denying benefits, and a ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’ instead of a marriage would give them an excuse to do so.

Perhaps it’s also because some politicians don’t actually want same-sex couples to be treated equally as opposite-sex couples, but want to give the appearance or respecting their rights.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Gender differences are important where those differences make RELEVANT differences to the requirements of two groups.

A relevant difference is clearly manifest in the potency to make new human beings.

Equal pay (or treatment generally) for equal work (or function) is, indeed, treating like things alike and eminently fair. What you are advocating is equal treatment for unequal function (or work.)

If I have the capacity (knowledge and skills) to design and build bridges, for example, that potency is rightfully treated by employers as meriting different consideration (and pay) compared to someone who has only the competency to push a wheel barrow around.

Differing capacities are treated differently, and legitimately so. The capacity to create new life warrants unique consideration under the law. It is up to those advocating for inclusion of other couples to demonstrate why others should be treated as if they were equal with just cause. Your argument amounts to a statement that these couples should be treated equally to be fair, which simply begs the question. The onus is also on you to show why same sex couples ought to be treated equally, but also explain why other platonic relationships ought to be discriminated against.

 

[Biblepoe]

Well, if you’re going to be terse… then the answer is “false.”

WOW! So you admit that you don’t think incest causes harm!

In fact, would not harm to one’s psyche result from society’s continued treatment of incest as “taboo”?

Perhaps. But wouldn’t you agree that incest is considered taboo?

Are you familiar with Lawrence v Texas?

Lawrence v Texas was not a case about incest.