Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

I agree, that was a poor question of mine.

A better one is, would you consider protected incestual sex immoral? and if so why?

I’m afraid it’s not something I know much about so I don’t really feel in a position to offer an opinion.

Thats what I thought, until I found this article in this thread - NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality.

Because I ddn’t think people would be able to change from heterosexual to homosexual, however I have never under gone “reorientation therapy” so I wouldn’t know.

Two points I would raise with regards to this, first NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) is of questionable neutrality as a source for this material. As you can tell even from their name they have a vested interest in maintaining ongoing attempts to “treat” homosexuality as if it is some sort if disorder. Therefore the following conclusions from the APA (American Psychological Association) are threatening to it:

1. There is no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation are shown to be harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
3. There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.

Secondly, the paper which the summary is taken from does not appear to be a published / peer-reviewed source (please correct me if I’m wrong) unlike other research which has findings which are contrary to some of the items given in the summary.

Thirdly, the APA has produced reasonably thorough responses to the claims and criticisms of organisations such as NARTH, here is a summary of some research for your interest.

apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

… I think we have to consider the morality of the act and not the morality of the desire.

Sure, and thus far at least I have found no reason to believe there is anything morally wrong with the act either.

Homosexuality has not been out bred because I don’t think it is a genetic trait, I don’t think there is a such thing as a “gay gene” that can be passed on, I think it is more likely a physical or physiological disorder.

I know of no evidence that homosexuality is any kind of disorder in any of the species which have the characteristic, including humans. Do you?

The question of whether homosexuality is genetic, developmental or a mix of the two is as yet undecided, the evidence I’ve reviewed leads me to lean towards the first option, but I’ll await more evidence before I have a degree of confidence in this.

My identification of it’s immorality, is the human anatomy of men and women, the anatomy of male and female, that only men and women are sexually compatible,

And yet homosexuals do not find themselves sexually compatible with members of the opposite sex. That’s kinda key to the whole thing really.

…that two men or two women do not have the appropriate parts for such sexual compatibility and that what ever they are doing in trying to imitate such heterosexual sexual acts is therefore immoral.

There are two obvious problems here, firstly you’ll need to show that homosexual sex consists of something which is not in itself valid. Given that all the things homosexuals do are also enjoyed by heterosexuals, as activities in themselves in addition to penetrative vaginal sex, you may have a challenge on your hands there.

Secondly, once you’ve achieved that you’ll need to show that imitation is somehow immoral.

All in all I think you’ve set yourself a prodigious challenge if you follow that line.

Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.

Ah, understood. No, I do not consider that having sex without being married is necessarily immoral.

I have never heard of that, what is “practicable Objective” morality?

It basically means working out morality based on axioms which come from our nature and as such are common to all humans ie “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good”. Please note that this is not a “pleasure-pain” basis, that is far too narrow to be useful.

…civil marriage together with no-fault divorce has made marriage null and void, civil marriage is absolutly meaningless, why do they even bother with civil marriage?

Why don’t you ask some homosexuals who want to, why they want to get married. I’m sure you’ll get many different answers, each valid to that individual.

I’m curious though, given the low impression you seem to have of marriage from what you’ve written above, why are you arguing so strongly to protect it from being updated?

When homosexuals speak of civil marriage I think instead it will encourage and normalise their lifestyle for society…

I’m afraid we’re already pretty much there in most places, there’s still a bit of an odd “don’t ask, don’t tell” in places, but it’s all steadily fading out I’m glad to say.

Yes, I agree that “same sex attraction” is normal, but I don’t think that the sexual acts of homosexuality are normal, I don’t think acting on such desires is normal. How do you percieve the sexual acts of homosexuality as normal?

I’m sorry, I think you must have misunderstood, I wasn’t talking about only an attraction, I said homosexual behaviour, that includes sex. As I said

" …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…

 

[CandideWest]

Yes, I do consider the sexual acts of homosexuality to be sinful…

Sometimes people give into these desires out of weakness…

Again, it is not “out of weakness” most homosexual couples (unsurprisingly) don’t see anything wrong in homosexuality, so don’t see that they have “given in” to their desires out of weakness. Just as most heterosexual couples (both married and unmarried) don’t (unsurprisingly) don’t see anything wrong in heterosexuality, so don’t see that they have “given in” to THEIR desires out of weakness.

Okay, than what “people” can get married? and I know you have probably heard this argument before, but I think it is very relevant, that if gender doesn’t matter when it comes to marriage, why would number matter?

Because our species has evolved as pair bonding social groups. So our social structures are set up accordingly.

…I am going to be in opposition when they try to equate such a union to a heterosexual union, to a marriage.

Well homosexual unions are only equated to a marriage when that homosexual union is a marriage or at least a civil partnership, although alas the availability and meaning of that phrase differs radically in different places.

Thank you, It has.

I would like to understand your view, because I want to make an informed decision on this and thus I must understand both sides, which is what I am trying to do, you can feel free to ask me any questions you would like in your reply in understanding and challenging my views.

Thank you for reading
Josh

My pleasure, interesting to discuss with you

 

[Peter_Plato]

Er… No. Perhaps you don’t know what the term infertile means? It doesn’t mean that they can have children but choose not to. It means they cannot have children.

You missed my point. I was arguing that an infertile couple is in relevant respects no different than a fertile couple that chooses not to have children. Since a fertile couple that chooses not to have children are not compelled to do so, and since infertile couples meet all other qualifications, they are in very much the same boat as the fertile couple that chooses not to have children. A fertile couple cannot be compelled, as a result of being married, to have children. An infertile couple may, likewise, meet all the relevant criteria for having children but cannot for no fault of theirs.

A same sex couple is not in all respects identical to a heterosexual pair, those relevant differences mean that the simple fact of not being able to produce offspring is not the only factor that needs to be taken into account before attempting to claim the two couples are identical because they share that single feature. Other features could justify including the infertile couple as legitimate candidates for marriage but would still exclude the same sex couple for other reasons.

I am not presenting the entire argument here, but am claiming that simply sharing one feature (inability to produce children) is not sufficient to warrant equal treatment, other considerations also need to be taken into account.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

I’ve debated SSM with a lot of atheists and they are the same folk who rant about the bible referring to bats as birds. "the bible is wrong…a bat isnt the same as a bird whine whine whine"

Try changing the definition of the word ‘‘atheism’’ so it can be called a religion and just listen to them howl.

I have had the same experience. I find that atheists believe they understand what it means to believe. They don’t realize just how ignorant they are of the faith. Since they have no motivation to study what they detest, there seems little hope they may educate themselves about Christianity. It goes to show you, once you think you have it all figured out… you are most likely wrong. That is what is so amazing about belief in God… the discovery of the Truth extends into the horizon. Like a sunset, our faith is something of immense beauty.

These bible errancy crowd stamp their feet and wont let Jesus’ genealogy include two “dads” for Joseph - Heli and Jacob AND YET
…they happily support the gay adoption definition of two “dads”.

Please explain further. I understand that Joseph was Jesus’ earthly father, and that Yahweh was his divine Father. However, I have not heard of the fundamentalists accepting gay adoption. I would think Leviticus and Romans 1 would prevent them from adopting such a stance.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

You missed my point. I was arguing that an infertile couple is in relevant respects no different than a fertile couple that chooses not to have children. Since a fertile couple that chooses not to have children are not compelled to do so, and since infertile couples meet all other qualifications, they are in very much the same boat as the fertile couple that chooses not to have children. A fertile couple cannot be compelled, as a result of being married, to have children. An infertile couple may, likewise, meet all the relevant criteria for having children but cannot for no fault of theirs.

A same sex couple is not in all respects identical to a heterosexual pair, those relevant differences mean that the simple fact of not being able to produce offspring is not the only factor that needs to be taken into account before attempting to claim the two couples are identical because they share that single feature. Other features could justify including the infertile couple as legitimate candidates for marriage but would still exclude the same sex couple for other reasons.

I am not presenting the entire argument here, but am claiming that simply sharing one feature (inability to produce children) is not sufficient to warrant equal treatment, other considerations also need to be taken into account.

PeterPlato, you seem like a sincere gentleman and scholar. I believe CandideWest is just pulling our legs. CandideWest’s responses lack forethought, and I am under the belief that he is just here to represent the Accuser. Just a thought.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m afraid it’s not something I know much about so I don’t really feel in a position to offer an opinion.

It just seems kind of odd, that the idea of infertile incestuous marriage would be ‘frowned’ upon and yet homosexual marriage is advocated, I would find it alot harder to refute infertile incestuous marriage, because I would no longer be able to use the sexual compatibility argument.

Also especially when it comes to polygamous marriage, I would have thought that polygamy would be a societal norm before same sex was, because I would find it alot harder to refute polygamous marriage than homosexual marriage.

Two points I would raise with regards to this, first NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) is of questionable neutrality as a source for this material. As you can tell even from their name they have a vested interest in maintaining ongoing attempts to “treat” homosexuality as if it is some sort if disorder. Therefore the following conclusions from the APA (American Psychological Association) are threatening to it:

1. There is no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation are shown to be harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
3. There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.

Secondly, the paper which the summary is taken from does not appear to be a published / peer-reviewed source (please correct me if I’m wrong) unlike other research which has findings which are contrary to some of the items given in the summary.

Thirdly, the APA has produced reasonably thorough responses to the claims and criticisms of organisations such as NARTH, here is a summary of some research for your interest.

apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

What I have selected in bold are apparently fallacies that are outlined in my previous link.

Also when you say that it is not a disorder? than how can that be? because if it were a genetic trait or something than it would have to be able to be passed on and thus given the beginning of our species, it would be impossible, such a gene or something would have completely died out.

Can you please explain to me how it could not be a disorder?

Sure, and thus far at least I have found no reason to believe there is anything morally wrong with the act either.

Thats why I asked about fornication and other sexual acts aswell, but I’ll get to that.

I know of no evidence that homosexuality is any kind of disorder in any of the species which have the characteristic, including humans. Do you?

I probably don’t have the evidence you would require, but I think it would make sense to be a disorder, I don’t know how it could be anything other than a disorder as it’s obviously got something to do with our physical or psychological make up.

And given the whole point of procreation, if it was a genetic trait or something that could be passed on, it would be the death of such genetic trait.

The question of whether homosexuality is genetic, developmental or a mix of the two is as yet undecided, the evidence I’ve reviewed leads me to lean towards the first option, but I’ll await more evidence before I have a degree of confidence in this.

I think it is fairly safe to say that it is physical or psychological, the other explanations don’t make any sense.

And yet homosexuals do not find themselves sexually compatible with members of the opposite sex. That’s kinda key to the whole thing really.

Thats where I think you are wrong, it’s not that they arn’t sexually compatible with the opposite sex, it is that they don’t desire the opposite sex so they might not feel compatible, but they certainly are not compatible with the same sex, you might say that they are, but Im talking about the sexual compatibility that is only capable between a man and a woman given their sexual organs.

There are two obvious problems here, firstly you’ll need to show that homosexual sex consists of something which is not in itself valid. Given that all the things homosexuals do are also enjoyed by heterosexuals, as activities in themselves in addition to penetrative vaginal sex, you may have a challenge on your hands there.

Secondly, once you’ve achieved that you’ll need to show that imitation is somehow immoral.

All in all I think you’ve set yourself a prodigious challenge if you follow that line.

That is a rebuttal used alot, because we say homosexuals can’t be recognised as a marriage because of X and than they find a heterosexual couple already recognised as a marriage already doing X.

But the thing is that X is disordered and immoral regardless of whether it is done by a heterosexual or homosexual. It’s just that homosexuals have no choice but X.

Now when saying that X is invalid, I don’t have a good secular argument for that and you may refuse to accept this, but I know God created us male and female and thus our sexual organs are designed to be used in such ways and are not intended for X. I would have thought this would also be clear in the natural law, but people are rejecting the natural law idea in trying to say that X is natural, in which I can clearly see that it isn’t, but I don’t know how I can explain that to you.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Ah, understood. No, I do not consider that having sex without being married is necessarily immoral.

I was keen to ask you about this, because in this day and age alot of people see nothing wrong with fornication, however during the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s when contraception was introduced, fornication was on the rise and sex was seen as “harmless fun.”

I don’t have a really good secular argument against fornication, other than this scenario has already been played out from the 60s and 70s sexual revolution and people would have to be blind not to see the harm that it has caused society.

It basically means working out morality based on axioms which come from our nature and as such are common to all humans ie “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good”. Please note that this is not a “pleasure-pain” basis, that is far too narrow to be useful.

Thank you, and thus why I brought up protected incestuous sex and polygamy using that same reasoning how could you say that these are immoral?

Why don’t you ask some homosexuals who want to, why they want to get married. I’m sure you’ll get many different answers, each valid to that individual.

I’m curious though, given the low impression you seem to have of marriage from what you’ve written above, why are you arguing so strongly to protect it from being updated?

Family is just too important to be trampled all over and no fault divorce has caused a huge number of problems for society already and same sex marriage will cause even more, like the already largely accepted sexual immorality with the standard practice of fornication for example.

Same sex marriage debunks the whole nature of marriage being about mum, dad and children, it debunks everything that marriage is supposed to stand for.

This is my point of view, it is what happens when humans become arrogant and think that they know better than God, than the natural design of men and women, than the design of marriage being about mum and dad providing a strong foundation for their biological children, about family.

Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Marriage has everything to do with christianity. What I do not understand is that those who couldn’t care less about religious marriage, why do they care about civil marriage? It’s very hypocritical.

I merely want to preserve the little meaning left in civil marriage, because I know that it is extremely beneficial for society to have a valued understanding of marriage.

And for exmaple with you Candide West what does marriage mean to you?

I’m afraid we’re already pretty much there in most places, there’s still a bit of an odd “don’t ask, don’t tell” in places, but it’s all steadily fading out I’m glad to say.

I will never advocate or see the sexual acts of homosexuality as something normal so their efforts are futile on me. Like I said before the problem with this is the sexual immorality it advocates and we have already seen this harm from the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s in which will be intensified from this.

I’m sorry, I think you must have misunderstood, I wasn’t talking about only an attraction, I said homosexual behaviour, that includes sex. As I said

" …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…

Okay, I udnerstand what you are saying, but just like stealing or hatred, I don’t think it is right.

Again, it is not “out of weakness” most homosexual couples (unsurprisingly) don’t see anything wrong in homosexuality, so don’t see that they have “given in” to their desires out of weakness. Just as most heterosexual couples (both married and unmarried) don’t (unsurprisingly) don’t see anything wrong in heterosexuality, so don’t see that they have “given in” to THEIR desires out of weakness.

Exactly, people see nothing wrong with such things like pornography, masturbation, fornication and pre-marital sex.

This will be a culture that is intensified with the wide acceptance and normalisation of the sexual acts of homosexuality and it isn’t healthy for our society to encourage and normalise such things, like I said before, just look at the harm that was caused from the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s.

Because our species has evolved as pair bonding social groups. So our social structures are set up accordingly.

What makes you suggest that? would it have something to do with there only being two genders? and yet ironically gender doesn’t matter anymore in such pair bonding.

Well homosexual unions are only equated to a marriage when that homosexual union is a marriage or at least a civil partnership, although alas the availability and meaning of that phrase differs radically in different places.

Yea, it does, I think it’s one thing for the state to recognise religious marriage, but it’s a whole new level for the state to define marriage, when the state recognises marriage, what makes it different to just a contract between two people by law? why do we refer to it as a marriage instead of a contract when dealing with the law?

My pleasure, interesting to discuss with you

Likewise.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not presenting the entire argument here, but am claiming that simply sharing one feature (inability to produce children) is not sufficient to warrant equal treatment, other considerations also need to be taken into account.

I will expand on the argument above…

Take for example how scientists use various criteria for the classification of mammals.

Animals are classed as mammals if they have the following characteristics

1. Are warm blooded vertebrates
2. Give birth to live young
3. Female mammals nurse babies with milk
4. Have hair or fur covering at least part of their bodies

Essentially these are the characteristics that make an animal a mammal, just as we can list a set of characteristics that human couples would need to make them eligible for marriage.

1. Are a heterosexual pair (sexually compatible male and female)
2. Are biologically not closely related
3. Are sufficiently mature to produce and care for offspring
4. Are mentally and emotionally stable

Now take the list of characteristics that determine whether an animal is a mammal. If we were to come across an individual species Ornithorhynchus anatinus (platypus) that we determine does not give birth to live young, but instead lays eggs, we have a problem. It is how we deal with that problem that demonstrates reasonable insight.

Should the lack of one characteristic be sufficient to exclude the platypus from being classed as a mammal? Not to biologists.

Now take a normal heterosexual couple that are infertile. In all respects except one (fertility) the couple meets the eligibility characteristics for marriage. Should they be excluded?

What your argument vis a vis same sex couples amounts to is that either infertile couples should be excluded or same sex couples included based upon that one characteristic.

You claim that if infertile couples can marry, then so should same sex couples for the same reason.

The problem with that argument is that if we apply it to biology, then the inclusion of any one egg laying species (platypus or echidna) into the class mammalia would then warrant the inclusion of every egg-laying species - birds, reptiles, etc. Take your argument to any biology department to see how far it gets.

Fertility is only one of a determining set of features for marriage - it is not the only one, albeit a very important one.

The problem with your argument is that you want to isolate a feature from a set of features that taken as a whole make up a well-founded defining set for which individuals ought to be allowed to marry.

It just doesn’t make sense to focus on one characteristic to define a marriage just as it doesn’t make sense to do so in the classification of animals. If we decided that only one feature (say birth to live young) should suffice to determine which animals belong to the class mammalia, then we would end up with a number of reptiles and a few other species intermixed in the mammal class.

This is essentially your problem when you argue that a marriage should simply be a pair of loving, committed individuals in relationship. In that case, you have opened the feature set to allow adult siblings and a host of other relationships to also qualify for marriage, just as redefining the class mammalia to include all egg laying animals doesn’t make sense merely on the grounds that a few currently included mammals do in fact lay eggs.

No, I think the most reasonable approach is to clearly assess the feature set that consistently defines what a marriage is and that set is certainly not limited to the one characteristic of being a loving committed couple, just as mammals are not merely animals with backbones.

Being a loving, committed couple might be one feature, but not the only one.

 

[MJDorry]

The atheist would say abortion is the solution to such birth defects.
Problem solved. (’‘Solved’’, as in “the end justifies the means”, as in the final solution.

The atheist, as an atheist, would have no real position on abortion because it doesn’t fall within the scope of what atheism’s focus is: That there is no god. Sadly, for both sides, atheism has become widely linked with support of abortion, but I think that if an atheist were to take seriously his or her empiricism and appeals to logic, he or she would find that support of abortion on the grounds that it reduces birth rates of potentially deformed babies while also simultaneously supporting incest in spite of the high potential for said babies would be contradictory. Indeed it is, and amid what contradictions I have heard from the atheist community, this is not one of them, so I don’t think your example serves the argument. It may actually hurt it.

 

[MJDorry]

Because I’m arguing that all of the arguments presented in favor of banning these marriages are without merit. In general (for any topic), if you think something should be banned, you should present argument why it should be banned. Not having any good reason to ban something is a good reason to not ban it (a.k.a., legalize it).

So long as we’re discussing burden of proof here, it should be pointed out that depending on where you are in the world, homosexuality has never historically been explicitly and proactively banned (As the word ‘ban’ implies a prior freedom to do that which a ban is now being sought against). It has merely never been recognized. So if we’re speaking about the United States, I would reiterate that “gay marriage” has not seen, and to some extent still is not seeing, a proactive attempt to ‘ban’ it per se. Rather, whereas “gay” has not typically been included in the historical definition of marriage, motions against it are proactively trying to maintain the traditional understanding of marriage. There is nothing so much to ban, as to be preserved. Indeed, as the burden of proof is upon those who wish to challenge established understandings, it is the gay community and its re-defining of marriage which stands trial, not the other way around.

 

[stewstew03]

There is definitely a feedback loop at work here, but this does not change the need for general support for a change from the public. This is simply because the power to change the law is ultimately democratically derived.

Again - not always. Look at abortion. Before R v W, only four states allowed a woman to have an abortion whenever she (and her doctor) deemed it necessary. R v W invalidated all state laws that prohibited abortion (allowing states to ban only late term abortions). Since then, the democratic process has been working against the SCOTUS decision (i.e., mandatory waiting periods, Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, etc.).

Yes, that seems to be the point that is still being worked on in some areas. No doubt perception will catch up with reality on this subject too at some point.

It’s not a matter of perception. Homosexual couples will never serve as the foundation or building block of any society, and will therefore never be equal to those relationships that can. (However, that does not mean we should treat homosexuals unjustly or with contempt.)

 

[josh987654321]

So long as we’re discussing burden of proof here, it should be pointed out that depending on where you are in the world, homosexuality has never historically been explicitly and proactively banned (As the word ‘ban’ implies a prior freedom to do that which a ban is now being sought against). It has merely never been recognized. So if we’re speaking about the United States, I would reiterate that “gay marriage” has not seen, and to some extent still is not seeing, a proactive attempt to ‘ban’ it per se. Rather, whereas “gay” has not typically been included in the historical definition of marriage, motions against it are proactively trying to maintain the traditional understanding of marriage. There is nothing so much to ban, as to be preserved. Indeed, as the burden of proof is upon those who wish to challenge established understandings, it is the gay community and its re-defining of marriage which stands trial, not the other way around.

Thank you MJDorry.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I’ve debated SSM with a lot of atheists and they are the same folk who rant about the bible referring to bats as birds. "the bible is wrong…a bat isnt the same as a bird whine whine whine"

Try changing the definition of the word ‘‘atheism’’ so it can be called a religion and just listen to them howl.

These bible errancy crowd stamp their feet and wont let Jesus’ genealogy include two “dads” for Joseph - Heli and Jacob AND YET
…they happily support the gay adoption definition of two “dads”.

…Please explain further. I understand that Joseph was Jesus’ earthly father, and that Yahweh was his divine Father. However, I have not heard of the fundamentalists accepting gay adoption. I would think Leviticus and Romans 1 would prevent them from adopting such a stance.

The bible errancy crowd atheists complain about Joseph having two “dads” in the NT genealogy. They (mistakenly) insist that must be a contradiction. The bible doesnt show Joseph as having two biological fathers. But they have one strict interpretive rule about the necessary meaning of a word for biblical theists and yet when supporting gay marriage/adoption they say we CAN call two gay men both “dads”.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Meanwhile…
Gay adoption argument using animals.

Humans and apes? Really?

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

Human and animals? If a defender of biblical marriage mentioned animals and SSM guess what would happen!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

To me, an argument against same sex marriage is first to establish why marriage exists in the first place. It predates Christianity, and yet, though it has been between both one man and one woman, and a man and many women, it has still existed for the purpose of requiring the male and female(s) to protect and raise the children they create together. It also requires the male to stick around and provide for the woman and their children. Marriage exists because of this need for the creation and protection of life, not in spite of it.

This is why many of the cultures that were very accepting of homosexual behavior (Greeks, Romans) never even thought of such a thing as same-sex marriage: it served no purpose. They would fornicate as much as they wanted with other males (those silly Greeks), but never would marriage cross the mind: it would bear no fruit. In the civil sector, this is still the only thing that separates marriage from a mere contract. It is a special contract that protects and serves the complimentary nature of men and women to procreate and raise their offspring. Without this aspect, it becomes literally just another contract, with a special name that makes people feel special for some unknown reason.

In fact, when separating marriage from childbearing, it seems to me pointless to even get married. Most marriages now end in divorce and cause legal problems, and if children were not a primary concern, I see no benefit to entering into marriage with another. Secular males share my concern: they wait longer and longer to get married, if at all.

The view of marriage as separate from childbearing and rearing isn’t a new concept. It began to degrade with the advent of contraception and abortion, and, of course, the no fault divorce. Marriage, and sex, became primarily about the pleasure of the parties involved, and not about the commitment owed through the vows or the natural consequences of sex (where do babies come from?!?!). With the legalization of same-sex marriage, the institution will become no different than any other contract between two people, only this one will imply sexual relations of some sort and involve specific government benefits (that could honestly be included in contracts without being called marriage, but where’s the fun in that?).

Marriage has gone from being both a divine and secular institution of importance, to the present form of a contract that implies financial benefits, fruitless sex, and a 50% chance of failing. Change doesn’t always appear to be good.

But don’t worry, we have Jesus on our side! Praise be to Him!

 

[tonyrey]

The fatal flaw in the demand for a dilution of marriage by extending it to other sexual relationships is its failure to recognise the physical and psychological differences between men and women which are essential for the preservation and well-being of the family without which the basic unit of society will lose its unique status and eventually disappear, thereby defeating the purpose of the quest for equality because it will apply to an obsolete custom which will have become a meaningless description of any relationship between persons - or even persons and animals.

Why not get married to a cat, a dog, a horse or a monkey? When men and women think they alone determine what is right or wrong they reduce life to an absurd farce dominated by a quest for pleasure which finally leads to a sense of futility, isolation and emptiness. When everything is permissible nothing is valuable.

 

[inocente]

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

Your argument (“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”) appears to assume that all homosexuals are automatically less good at parenting than even the worst heterosexuals.

You have failed to explain why you think gay marriage will change the large numbers of children already living with gay parents.
tonyrey;10737319:

The misery caused by the 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…

You have still failed to explain why you think gay marriage will change the large numbers of children already living with gay parents, and without that you’re off-topic.

You have not justified your comparison with marriage.

Surely you understand the Philosophy 101 technique of testing an argument by substituting the subject?

The boot is on the other foot. You have once again failed to refute the following points:

You were too quick off the mark, please see my posts #660 and #662.

 

[inocente]

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?

By creationism I meant one of the various beliefs that Genesis is a scientific historical account, like young earth creationism, old earth creationism, day-age creationism, etc.

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

Fornication means voluntary sex outside marriage, and you’re the one arguing homosexuals must remain unmarried, so … you tell me.

*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?
*

Yes, protection isn’t 100% and it remains that incestuous relationships often involve abuse.

* 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.
*

You said “I think the logic is in the human anatomy of a man and a woman” and I was surprised you only think that and don’t know what the logic is for certain.

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

Like the old song says “Love and marriage, love and marriage / Go together like a horse and carriage. / This I tell ya, brother, you can’t have one without the other”.

Love between two people can lead to sexually intimacy but it doesn’t have to, and it isn’t required in marriage, marriage is a bond of love.

and how did you conclude that incestuous relationships usually involve some form of abuse?

It’s well documented, for instance see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

*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.*

How are verses such as the following not advocating slavery?
*
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. - Lev 25:44-46

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. - Ex 21:7

I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away.” The Lord has spoken. - Joel 3:8*

etc.

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

It means being OK with something as long as it’s hidden away and not out in the open. You said “If homosexuals give into such desires out of weakness Im hardly going to throw stones or anything”, which sounds like you’re not bothered what they do in private as long as it’s not mentioned in public.

 

[inocente]

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?

The Spanish law isn’t the slightest bit inadequate on this, it is very clear: amongst others it says (in Art. 47) direct line relatives by consanguinity or adoption, and collateral relatives by consanguinity up to the third degree may not marry each other.

You don’t seem to realize that while I’ve provided real-world evidence, all you’re doing is hypothesizing about possible worlds.

Here’s another piece of real-world evidence, a Hong Kong court ruling (on transsexual marriage) made just yesterday:

In present-day multi-cultural Hong Kong where people profess many different religious faiths or none at all… procreation is no longer (if it ever was) regarded as essential to marriage, [the judgment] added - bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22506472

Note the judgment is not just that procreation is no longer regarded as essential, it questions whether it ever was outside of some religious faiths.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MJDorry
**
The atheist, as an atheist, would have no real position on abortion because it doesn’t fall within the scope of what atheism’s focus is: That there is no god. **

Technically, yes. But by the fact that atheism divorces itself from religious traditions that are pro life, atheism does not help to erect a wall protecting the unborn from the savagery of abortion.

So far as I know, while atheists may March for various worthy causes, I’ve never heard of them marching collectively for the rights of the unborn.

I could be wrong.