Secular argument against gay marriage

[wittgenstein]

So are you saying that since cancer is natural,when my mother gets cancer I should think of it as a good thing? Natural has nothing to do with it being good or bad.
I want to be clear here! I am not saying that cancer is like marriage! I am saying the opposite, that cancer is in a totally different category then marriage.

 

[Portofino]

Sex between opposite genders does not = marriage. True, animals of opposite genders do have sex. But to call that marriage, seems to me, to be a streach.
Let me repeat myself, (see post 733) I am not saying that marriage is bad. I am happily married and believe in it. All I am saying is that natural has nothing to do with it being good.

That’s why accusations that homosexual attachments are “unnatural” do not sway me, because what is natural or unnatural is clearly not the be-all-and-end-all of morality.

Heterosexual marriage, in one respect, is in accord with nature insofar as it is in harmony with the propagation of the species. In another sense, however, it involves controlling one’s natural urges, and being monogamous. Indeed, it is heterosexual sex that is in harmony with the propagation of the species, with or without marriage. In this respect, pre-marital or extra-marital heterosexual sex, contributing to the propagation of the species, is perfectly “natural.”

In the English speaking world, “natural child” was used as a euphemism for a child born outside of wedlock. Propagating like bunnies, outside of wedlock – as, for that matter, running around naked, weather-permitting – sounds rather natural to me.

In this respect, I’m not convinced that calling homosexual contact – or homosexual marriage – “unnatural” or “against nature”, is sufficient to demonstrate its inherent immorality.

In all honesty, I could just as well call lifelong celibacy inherently immoral, according to Kant’s categorical imperative; for, if all were celibate, the human race would have become extinct.

 

[josh987654321]

So are you saying that since cancer is natural,when my mother gets cancer I should think of it as a good thing? Natural has nothing to do with it being good or bad.

No.

My apologies, I was way left field with my understanding of what you were saying. Yes, I agree with you.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[wittgenstein]

No problem. Sometimes I do not make my points as clear as I should. Many times,I have gotten into heated debates only to find out that my opponent and I were actually in agreement!

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t believe you wrote that. I quoted an article which cites nine references that the first study is seriously flawed, including even the guy’s own colleagues, and said the second study gets the exact opposite results to the research on which it was based. I even linked the original research, which contains the contrary statistics.

Everyone reading this thread can see the truth, the post is there for all to see.

It is incredibly naive to think academic progress at school is evidence that children are more fulfilled and happier living with two male adults or two female adults rather than with a man and a woman who care for them as a father and mother. They tend to concentrate on their studies - as I did - because at home they miss a normal family life.

You said “the activity of married heterosexuals is a private matter” but apparently believe that the activity of homosexuals isn’t a private matter. It follows that you are inconsistent.

The activity of homosexuals ceases to be a private matter **when they adopt children **who are exposed to a greater risk of infection.

You said “The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage” while you have argued that what people regard in a homosexual relationship is relevant. It follows that you are inconsistent.

You are assuming that a homosexual relationship is comparable to a traditional marriage!

Yes, I agree that your appeal to what you think is normal and abnormal is relativism.

It is not what an appeal to my opinion but a conclusion based on** an objective fact**: the complementarity of the father and mother.

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

It’s still subjective

Indeed. **All **beliefs are subjective but they are objective when based on established facts - not passing fashions - like physical and psychological differences which are essential for the preservation and well-being of the family.

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).

That’s still ridiculous, I’ve been arguing all along that marriage is not about sex, it’s not me who’s been arguing marriage is about sex.

The complementary roles of the father and mother remain unrefuted.

You said “the issue is whether you would prefer to have been brought up by a homosexual couple from the moment you were born” and I asked which couple. Which income bracket, how well educated, etc.

The reference to income is revealing. Most children prefer to have a foster **father **and mother regardless of income. They wish to be like other children and not belong to a one-sided household.

No, writing off 200 million people as bad parents on the basis of one irrelevant label is very relevant.

A most illogical deduction! Homosexuals are not “bad” but **through no fault of their own **two males or two females are incapable of adequately replacing the love and care of a man and woman because they do have the physical and psychological differences 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.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

No.
wittgenstein;10748168:

So are you saying that since cancer is natural,when my mother gets cancer I should think of it as a good thing? Natural has nothing to do with it being good or bad.
I want to be clear here! I am not saying that cancer is like marriage! I am saying the opposite, that cancer is in a totally different category then marriage.

My apologies, I was way left field with my understanding of what you were saying. Yes, I agree with you.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Natural Law (Catholic Encyclopedia)

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). The eternal law is God’s wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

The norm, however, of conduct is not some particular element or aspect of our nature. The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see GOOD). For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man’s nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason. In both respects it is distinguished from the Divine positive law, which contains precepts not arising from the nature of things as God has constituted them by the creative act, but from the arbitrary will of God. This law we learn not through the unaided operation of reason, but through the light of supernatural revelation.

We may now analyse the natural law into three constituents: the discriminating norm, the binding norm (norma obligans), and the manifesting norm. The discriminating norm is, as we have just seen, human nature itself, objectively considered. It is, so to speak, the book in which is written the text of the law, and the classification of human actions into good and bad. Strictly speaking, our nature is the proximate discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine nature itself, the ultimate groundwork of the created order. **The binding or obligatory norm is the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order established by the Creator. **Contrary to the Kantian theory that we must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience, the truth is that reason as conscience is only immediate moral authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and imperium. The manifesting norm (norma denuntians), which determines the moral quality of actions tried by the discriminating norm, is reason. Through this faculty we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature, what kind of action it calls for, and whether a particular action possesses this requisite character.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

Right, and of course exactly the same argument applies to homosexuals as well, they may likewise meet all the relevant criteria for having children but cannot for no fault of theirs.

Yet again, your argument either excludes infertile people with homosexuals or includes them both.

A same sex couple is not in all respects identical to a heterosexual pair…

Agreed, not identical - equivalent.

Other features could justify including the infertile couple as legitimate candidates for marriage but would still exclude the same sex couple for other reasons.

So go ahead and provide some other features then.

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.

Odd then that your arguments thus far have focused almost exclusively on that particular feature that homosexual and heterosexual relationships share.

I will expand on the argument above…

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 then, for clarity is that list any kind of official list based on an authoritative source or is that just your personal opinion?

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?

I would argue no. And of course homosexual couples are in exactly the same boat, they also fail to meet one (rather arbitrary) requirement. So it appears they should not be excluded either by the same logic.

Again you seem to keep presenting arguments which support gay marriage while arguing contrary to yourself.

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.

Because that is the one characteristic that you have fixated upon thus far. Now that we have debunked the relevance of that characteristic perhaps we can move on?

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.

No, not at all, you seem to have misunderstood your own argument. You have identified a characteristic that two groups of people (one who are permitted to marry and one who are not) share.

You have then argued that group 2 should be permitted to marry because they are only lacking one of the characteristics you identified as, yet try to maintain that group 1 should be excluded even though they only lack one characteristic.

The equivalent to this would be arguing that one platypus should be considered a mammal and another platypus should be considered to be a bird. By all means take that to a biology department and see how you get on.

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.

No, it’s you who fixated on a particular characteristic. I simply debunked the arguments you presented about that characteristic.

This is essentially your problem when you argue that a marriage should simply be a pair of loving, committed individuals in relationship.

An argument I have not made.

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

Sure and thus far you have failed to show any other relevant features to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

 

[CandideWest]

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.).

All that the above shows is that there was a differential between legal positions between different states in the US prior to Roe vs Wade. It does not show that the majority of the public were against the decision. So your example fails.

That said, there are cases where the law has moved ahead of the views of the majority of the population and sometimes it takes a while for public opinion to catch up. The banning of slavery in the US is such an example.

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.)

So, WHY do you say that homosexual couples will never be a building block of any society? Don’t just assert this to be the case, if you want your argument to carry any weight you need to demonstrate it. And preferably without falling back on their not being able to conceive children, as this argument has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

As far as evidence goes it appears that homosexuality is older than concepts such as marriage by far.

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

Yes, exactly those are the things that NARTH wishes to contest. They are also all things which would challenge the existence of NARTH. Hence why I raised the point about their impartiality on the subject being dubious. The organisation is effectively arguing in support of its own existence.

Also when you say that it is not a disorder? than how can that be?

Thus far nobody seems to have identified any evidence for it being a disorder. Without such evidence why would I consider it to be a disorder? You’re as well to ask why I don’t consider ginger hair to be a disorder.

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.

No, because there may be a tendency to homosexuality which carries benefits in itself but does not necessarily result in each individual being homosexual. It’s also worth noting that sexuality is not in reality a binary heterosexual or homosexual - rather people have degrees of sexual preferences.

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.

Not necessarily no. For example imagine the following:

Family 1.
Children 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d
Child 1a has strong homosexual traits, all other children have heterosexual traits.

Family 2.
Children 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d
All children have heterosexual traits.

It is possible that having a homosexual sibling gives 1b, 1c, 1d a substantial selection advantage over 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d. Such that even if 1a doesn’t herself breed the genes for homosexual traits (many of which 1b, 1c, 1d will share with 1a). Survive and indeed thrive due to being able to outcompete purely heterosexual families.

Obviously this is a very simplistic example and makes no account for group selection pressures which is an interesting area of work which could also encourage the propagation of genes for homosexuality. But hopefully it shows you how this can work.

Im talking about the sexual compatibility that is only capable between a man and a woman given their sexual organs.

Then you are talking about reproductive compatibility, not sexual compatibility. We have already covered the fact that homosexuals cannot have children together.

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.

No I’m afraid you misunderstood my argument. I was arguing against your position that sexual activities X and Y are only “imitations” of penetrative vaginal sex and as such not seen as valid sexual activities in themselves. We know this is not true as heterosexual couples do X and Y in addition to penetrative vaginal sex.

So if you wish to show that those sexual activities are only imitations and not valid in themselves you’ll have to provide an argument showing this to be the case.

Now when saying that X is invalid, I don’t have a good secular argument for that…

Understood and again I’d like to congratulate you on your forthcoming approach.

and you may refuse to accept this, but I know God created us male and female…

I know those are your religious beliefs, but as you said, they are not compelling to anyone who does not share your beliefs, not do they constitute a secular argument.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

The sexual revolution changed a great many things in society, both positive and negative. Like most radical changes in society I guess.

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?

I haven’t made such arguments either way. I simply don’t know enough to credit myself with an opinion on those topics.

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.

But if that is the whole nature of marriage then infertile marriage likewise debunks everything it stands for. And that’s been going on legally for… Well for as long as marriage has been around.

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.

Because for many people marriage is a social contract well understood by society and defined in law, not a religious covenant defined by churches. And please remember that it is the former, not the latter which gives married couples the important legal rights that they possess.

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

The formal legal and/or religious agreement between two people to be a married couple. This is a legally and socially recognised agreement providing both parters with duties and responsibilities to fulfil as defined by marriage laws and a set of vows.

I will never advocate or see the sexual acts of homosexuality as something normal so their efforts are futile on me.

Efforts? Not aware of any efforts. I was simply identifying the social trend. Of course with any social trend there are always those who refuse to accept it. Like those who refused to ever accept banning slavery. Where are those people now?

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

Fair enough, that’s your opinion on morality. Obviously I and many other people disagree.

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.

I say that we are a pair bonding species because it is very well established that we are. Just like many of those other species who show homosexual behaviours.

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,

Of course the state defines marriage. That’s what gives married couples their rights and responsibilities in the law.

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?

Because “marriage” is the name of this particular legal contract. And it isn’t different to a contract in law, in fact that’s exactly what it is.

Likewise.

Thank you for reading
Josh

All the best

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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.).
CandideWest;10751060:

All that the above shows is that there was a differential between legal positions between different states in the US prior to Roe vs Wade. It does not show that the majority of the public were against the decision. So your example fails.

IT shows his point that not all power comes from the legislature, and therefore a group of 9 men changed the law for everyone.
This is not democracy.

NOTE:
In fact, if you look at the origins of our system… you will find Aristotle’s treatise of government concerning the revolution of government from monarch to aristocracy, from aristocracy to democracy, and democracy to monarch. Our founding fathers established a constitutional government having all three types (executive (like monarch), judicial (like aristocracy), and legislature (like democracy). They hoped to avoid the constant violent upheavals that plagued the ancient world. FDR had a revolution, Reagan had a revolution, and we are definitely due for another (non-violent) revolution.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

That said, there are cases where the law has moved ahead of the views of the majority of the population and sometimes it takes a while for public opinion to catch up. The banning of slavery in the US is such an example.

The gay movement bears no resemblance to the struggle of Black Americans for their civil rights, and I am tired of hearing this preposterous claim.
Blacks were promised citizenship in the 14th amendment of 1868 after more than 200 years of slavery. Their struggle was an American struggle for their unalienable rights granted by their Creator as declared in the American Declaration of Independence. From 1868 to 1968 they were raped, murdered, intimidated, and altogether denied those rights as human beings (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness). They struggled to be secure within their persons and homes (the right to life), to be able to vote without intimidation and violence (the right to rule as citizens), and to live where they decided (the right to liberty).
None of these rights have or are denied to gay people.
The comparison is a classical fallacy of false analogy.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Continued from above post -
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.

Josh, have you read Humanae Vitae?
Pope Paul XI received a great deal of “crud” about it, but everything he said (unfortunately) came to be.

We have 50 STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) now. In 1960 we had 5. Aids would have not been nearly as prolific if people were not so promiscuous. (e.g. Rate of AIDs in gay community > 40%. Rate of AIDs for Amish = 0%)

We are talking about marriage in this thread because we have separated the aspects of union and proCreation when we adopted birth control. In effect, through birth control, anal sex, oral sex, we have been gayifying our unions for decades. The discussion about marriage is a fallout of the sexual depravity which promulgated in the 1960s 70s.

We fell from paradise when our first parents (Adam and Eve) gave us away to the devil. How many parents today have done the same. “I will be the sole determination of what is right and wrong”. This sin is as old as Adam and Eve.

The truth is a person, Jesus Christ.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

josh987654321;10744222:

Continued from above post -

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.

But if that is the whole nature of marriage then infertile marriage likewise debunks everything it stands for. And that’s been going on legally for… Well for as long as marriage has been around.

It’s about being open to proCreation. Its about being open to being fully alive, and fully human. A gay union CANNOT be open to proCreation, well… because 2 men cannot proCreate. This should be quite obvious. We can talk about the exceptions till we’re blue in the face… the rule still stands. Matrimony comes from the maternal.

Marriage is all about the kids; Human love and the gifts that it brings.

The Catholic Church teaches…
Masturbation and Homosexuality are contrary to the will of God.

Masturbation is a waste of time. In the same way homosexuality is a waste. If you talk about a long term practice of either, you are talking about a wasted life. Barren of the life God had intended. I tell you this not out of hate, but out of love that you may repent and find that life God intended. If God intended men to be with men, he would have made them complimentary and not created woman. There would be a gift of such union… a child.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

The real issue

Why can’t homosexuals obtain a marriage license? Is this an issue of equal protection under the law? We can better answer these questions when we understand why the state issues marriage licenses.
Marriage licenses are issued so that marriage can be tracked for the purpose of executing other laws which takes into account the marriage covenant. These laws include trial law (spousal testimony), taxation laws (filing status), and property law ( inheritance and common property). All these laws are beneficial to the married couple. So in effect the state issues marriage licenses in order to grant benefits to married couples.

Why do we grant benefits to married couples?
The state grants benefits to married couples because the state indirectly benefits from the activity surrounding family life. This is similar to the state granting support for college students in the form of student loans and grants. Having a higher educated population benefits the state in the activities this endeavor creates not only within the educational establishment but throughout society. Similarly the state promotes Military service by granting benefits to servicemen and veterans. Although there are people who disagree with military service or marriage, the vast majority of Americans believe that these activities should be promoted.

That brings up an intriguing question;
**Does the majority within a democracy have the right to promote the activities it deems beneficial to society by providing benefits? **
If the majority of people believe that homosexual marriage does not benefit society, do they have the right not to grant them the benefits of civil marriage? And if civil marriage is a benefit granted by a democratic state, the question of equality and civil rights does not apply. You do not have a right to a benefit. The real issue is whether the majority rules.

Do we have a democracy?

 

[stewstew03]

All that the above shows is that there was a differential between legal positions between different states in the US prior to Roe vs Wade. It does not show that the majority of the public were against the decision. So your example fails.

You misunderstood my argument. If you’re going to address it, read it again in context with the other posts.

So, WHY do you say that homosexual couples will never be a building block of any society? Don’t just assert this to be the case, if you want your argument to carry any weight you need to demonstrate it. And preferably without falling back on their not being able to conceive children, as this argument has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

I don’t need to demonstrate anything. You need to demonstrate why a same sex couple is equivalent to an opposite-sex couple.

 

[stewstew03]

It shows his point that not all power comes from the legislature, and therefore a group of 9 men changed the law for everyone.
…

Precisely. Thanks ATD.

 

[josh987654321]

As far as evidence goes it appears that homosexuality is older than concepts such as marriage by far.

Yup, however incest and plygamy are just as old, thats why I brought them up, following your reasoning for advocating homosexuality could you use it to discourage incest and polygamy? or given your reasoning, wouldn’t incestuous relationships and plygamous ones, even fornication have to also be advocated with such moral reasoning?

Yes, exactly those are the things that NARTH wishes to contest. They are also all things which would challenge the existence of NARTH. Hence why I raised the point about their impartiality on the subject being dubious. The organisation is effectively arguing in support of its own existence.

Okay.

Thus far nobody seems to have identified any evidence for it being a disorder. Without such evidence why would I consider it to be a disorder? You’re as well to ask why I don’t consider ginger hair to be a disorder.

The difference being that something like ginger hair isn’t so necessary to a species as procreation is.

So if you look at homosexuality on it’s own, it isn’t a beneficial trait, the sexual acts of homosexuality serve no purpose on an evolutionary point of view.

No, because there may be a tendency to homosexuality which carries benefits in itself but does not necessarily result in each individual being homosexual. It’s also worth noting that sexuality is not in reality a binary heterosexual or homosexual - rather people have degrees of sexual preferences.

Not necessarily no. For example imagine the following:

Family 1.
Children 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d
Child 1a has strong homosexual traits, all other children have heterosexual traits.

Family 2.
Children 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d
All children have heterosexual traits.

It is possible that having a homosexual sibling gives 1b, 1c, 1d a substantial selection advantage over 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d. Such that even if 1a doesn’t herself breed the genes for homosexual traits (many of which 1b, 1c, 1d will share with 1a). Survive and indeed thrive due to being able to outcompete purely heterosexual families.

Obviously this is a very simplistic example and makes no account for group selection pressures which is an interesting area of work which could also encourage the propagation of genes for homosexuality. But hopefully it shows you how this can work.

Okay, I understand, so kind of like how red hair is a predominate gene and thus two can carry the gene and not have red hair themselves and than their children might all have red hair.

Then you are talking about reproductive compatibility, not sexual compatibility. We have already covered the fact that homosexuals cannot have children together.

Okay, the reproductive compatibility is the sexual compatibility I am talking about, I don’t think that any other sexual act is actually sexually compatable, given the reproductive compatibility between men and women.

I will use “reproductive compatibility” instead of “sexual compatibility” from now on. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

No I’m afraid you misunderstood my argument. I was arguing against your position that sexual activities X and Y are only “imitations” of penetrative vaginal sex and as such not seen as valid sexual activities in themselves. We know this is not true as heterosexual couples do X and Y in addition to penetrative vaginal sex.

So if you wish to show that those sexual activities are only imitations and not valid in themselves you’ll have to provide an argument showing this to be the case.

My reply followed -
X = All sexual acts other than Y.
Y = penetrative vaginal sex

Thus I see that X sexual activities are not valid in themselves, but again this follows from my belief of the creation of men and women, that our sexual organs are “designed” and have not “evolved.” So I guess we might have to agree to disagree on this one, because you being non-religious. I think the only way I will convince you is to convince you to become a Christian and I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Understood and again I’d like to congratulate you on your forthcoming approach.

Thank you. I don’t care about “winning” this argument so to say. I am just interested in those views that are contrary to mine on this issue and why, in which I feel I am understanding alot from you Candide West. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, but I am understaning it and I think thats important.

So this way hopefully we can learn from one another on many things in relation to how we view this issue.

I know those are your religious beliefs, but as you said, they are not compelling to anyone who does not share your beliefs, not do they constitute a secular argument.

Yes, thats what I meant by “I know.” I should have used “I believe” but I didn’t want you to think I was in question to such beliefs or anything. Thats why I used “I know.” So that they are beleifs, but such beliefs make so much sense that it’s more “I know as it makes far too much sense to just believe.” but I know it is still a belief kind of like the Big Bang theory though. If that makes sense.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from post above -

The sexual revolution changed a great many things in society, both positive and negative. Like most radical changes in society I guess.

haha, I would say a great deal more negatives than positives.

Acrossthedesert, had a link here before called “Humanae Vitae.” I remember skimming over it very roughly and planning to read it later, however I forgot and can’t find the link, I think it had a great deal in all of the sexually transmitted viruses etc that are on the rise from it. Either that or I am thinking of something else I was reading.

Anyway, with the morality perspective that you have as non-religious, I can understand that you don’t have much sexual morality. Not like mine anyway, that is my theory.

When it comes to sexual morality Candide West, how do you determine if a sexual act is moral or immoral? because I also take into account the “design” of sexual organs for men and women.

I haven’t made such arguments either way. I simply don’t know enough to credit myself with an opinion on those topics.

I see, if you care to entertain the issues of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage with your moral perspective and reasoning as with homosexual marriage. I think you will find very little, if no grounds in which to refute such things and thus why the common argument is that other redefinitions of marriage will be inevitable.

Thus why people say that once same sex marriage is legalised it really will be discriminatory not to include polygamous marriage, because the same methods that are being used to promote same sex marriage are also indirectly promoting these other kind of unions being recognised as marriages.

So I think it would be interesting for you to think about those unions in relation to your reasoning in advocating homosexual marriage, I would be very interested.

But if that is the whole nature of marriage then infertile marriage likewise debunks everything it stands for. And that’s been going on legally for… Well for as long as marriage has been around.

Not necessarily infertile marriage because it is still male and female. In any case it is still mum, dad being a marriage, because such a union is still capabale of reproductive sexual compatibility. It doesn’t advocate sexual immorality in such an intimate union that marriage is.

Because for many people marriage is a social contract well understood by society and defined in law, not a religious covenant defined by churches. And please remember that it is the former, not the latter which gives married couples the important legal rights that they possess.

Why does the law have anything to do with marriage, why are certain financial benefits/taxes given to two people living together in a “marriage” and not to roommates living together who are not in a marriage? why does the law make that distinction?

The formal legal and/or religious agreement between two people to be a married couple. This is a legally and socially recognised agreement providing both parters with duties and responsibilities to fulfil as defined by marriage laws and a set of vows.

So what makes it a marriage instead of an ordinary contract? why do they call it marriage from a law point of view? and civil marriage in regards to law being just a contract, than why are they arguing for same sex marriage and not a domestic partnership or something having the same legal rights? alot of it is over the name, if they just used a different word they would still have opposition in the same legal rights part, but they would have alot less opposition, because we are simply saying that a homosexual union is not a marriage.

Efforts? Not aware of any efforts. I was simply identifying the social trend. Of course with any social trend there are always those who refuse to accept it. Like those who refused to ever accept banning slavery. Where are those people now?

How does slavery relate to same sex marriage?

Same sex marriage is a social trend, but it is a trend that is a misunderstanding of marriage. It ignores the basic fact that men and women are “designed” or like you think Candide West have “evolved” for one another, that only a man and a woman share such compatibility, which is reproductive sexual compatibility and thus why the union of a man and a woman is just so vastly different from one of two men or two women.

Unlike slavery this will not die out, because in the goepels Christ states the creation of a man and a woman to be united to one another in marriage.

Fair enough, that’s your opinion on morality. Obviously I and many other people disagree.

Yup. We will probably run into a few of those.

I say that we are a pair bonding species because it is very well established that we are. Just like many of those other species who show homosexual behaviours.

So you think the fact that we are a two gender species has absolutly nothing to do with it?

Of course the state defines marriage. That’s what gives married couples their rights and responsibilities in the law.

Because “marriage” is the name of this particular legal contract. And it isn’t different to a contract in law, in fact that’s exactly what it is.

So given their understanding of marriage being just a contract, why are people against incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage? it doesn’t make sense.

All the best

You too, thank you for your reply.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Josh, have you read Humanae Vitae?
Pope Paul XI received a great deal of “crud” about it, but everything he said (unfortunately) came to be.

We have 50 STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) now. In 1960 we had 5. Aids would have not been nearly as prolific if people were not so promiscuous. (e.g. Rate of AIDs in gay community > 40%. Rate of AIDs for Amish = 0%)

We are talking about marriage in this thread because we have separated the aspects of union and proCreation when we adopted birth control. In effect, through birth control, anal sex, oral sex, we have been gayifying our unions for decades. The discussion about marriage is a fallout of the sexual depravity which promulgated in the 1960s 70s.

We fell from paradise when our first parents (Adam and Eve) gave us away to the devil. How many parents today have done the same. “I will be the sole determination of what is right and wrong”. This sin is as old as Adam and Eve.

The truth is a person, Jesus Christ.

I want to read it, could you please provide me with a link.

Thank you for reading
Josh