Secular argument against gay marriage

[josh987654321]

Sorry, I thought you must have replied be didn’t spot them.

No need to apologise, thats fine, you are getting alot of posts to reply to on this thread and your doing a great job at getting to them all.

Thank you for your replies Inocente.

We’ve already been round this before - I’m still not alone, there are still plenty of Christians who do not believe in a designer god, and sorry it’s still off-topic.

Really? I had no idea that there were Christians who did not believe in a designer, God.

The belief in God makes sense because we need an origin, humankind needs a creator, so if God isn’t the creator and you believe in God, what is your theory on the creation of men and women or how did God not create men and women? again I apologise for saying creation, I just have no idea how you would put it or how you are viewing it in relation to your belief in God.

What do you believe about creation, what is your creation theory? what is your belief about (I say creation) but of men and women? of humankind?

Yet you’re against gay marriage.

I am against all sexual immorality being advocated, which includes fornication and the sexual acts of homosexuality and many others, how would me being against fornication imply that I embrace the sexual acts of homosexuality?

I used the fornication argument, because it is a classic example of how just because we desire something and both parties are in consent doesn’t make such actions morally right and I was hoping you would agree with me that fornication is immoral, in which I am still unsure of you’re view on fornication.

You’re the one saying marriage is about sex, not me.

I am saying that marriage includes the “love of eros” which is sex. I don’t think that marriage is just about sex, but I think you would also be mistaken to think that marriage has nothing to do with sex. This is why I think that you would be naive to think that same sex marriage wouldn’t advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality.

And on what basis do you think life-long chastity is a natural rather than unnatural state? I mean if it were in any sense natural and we were all celebate, humanity would die out pretty quick.

True. You are correct on an evolutionary point of view, If I implied/said that, than I apologise, but I do think that “chastity” is moral and the same with celibacy, I think that the “love of eros” is not the love of christianity and a love that never truly satisfies.

It is only in marriage between a man and a woman, in which the sexual act is the reproductive sexual act in which such love of eros unifies the couple and in doing so is moral, in which case any other sexual act cannot do and thus immoral.

There are many studies which say that obesity and alcohol are harmful, so I assume you want to ban burgers and beer as well. Oh, and salt, too much salt is bad, ban salt. Oh, and some people get hit by cars, ban all automobiles.

This is where my point is, I say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are harmful, they are grave depravities, they are a moral corruption and thus harmful like any other moral corruption such as fornication.

The problem is with advocating such moral corruption, which is what same sex marriage is doing.

Or are you only interested in the health and safety of the gay community and not concerned for the rest of us?

I am interested in both, I am interested in the health and safety of the gay community and thus why I oppose same sex marriage so that such sexual immorality is not advocated and encouraged amongst/for homosexuals.

I am also interested in the health and safety of the rest of us, so that such sexual immorality is not advocated and encouraged, in the sense that for the same reasons that the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as morally permissible, is the exact same reason for the viewing of fornication as morally permissible.

I would be very interested to see if you have an argument that says that the sexual acts of homosexuality are morally right and that fornication is immoral.

And I’m confused about why are you are trying to excuse incest, how does that help your case?

Becuase I hope you are in agreement with me that incest is immoral and thus I am showing how the same reasoning in which to promote same sex marriage is the exact same reasoning that can so easily be used against you in the promotion of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

On what basis do you advocate homosexual marriage yet discourage incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage?

Call me old fashioned but the twentieth century American idea of a designer god never caught on in my neck of the woods.

Like I said I am really amazed and very curious, because I have neve come across a christian who refused God as designer.

Could you please elaborate on such beliefs?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from post above -

If your second sentence were true, that would mean that all marriage in general is about advocating and normalizing sexual acts. Now be honest, did you really mean that?

haha, yes I did. heterosexual marriage advocates and normalises the reproductive sexual act for such a union. In which I find moral in marriage, it is the only kind of “love of eros” in which value adds to the union rather than one that mutually appeases sexual desires for both.

I think you have said before that if “marriage” advocates sexual relations between the two and a man and a woman are capable of the sexual acts that homosexuals are, than it would also already be advocating such sexual immorality and in a way thats correct, thus why same sex marriage is up for discussion, however a man and a woman are capable of the reproductive sexual act that two men or two women are not and thus a homosexual marriage would absolutly affirm the advocation of such sexual immorality.

And than obviously a great deal more sexual immorality would be advocated in the process, which is what I am trying to show you with fornication and the 60s and 70s sexual revolution that JimG brought up.

Do you want to go there?

OK, so then if we know the OT is not completely accurate, we can be reasonably certain the NT isn’t either and thus focus on some other religion after safely throwing the entire bible in a round receptacle.



You might want to rethink that.

My apologies, I didn’t mean “not accurate.” I meant it as in I should focus on the NT because it brings the full meaning to the OT and that you were right before when you were speaking about the inapproptiateness of us quoting the OT to suit or own whim and fancy for such an argument.

The OT advocates some things that are incorrect, so to say not in line with the truth of the NT and I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who gave the OT it’s full meaning, so thus we cannot quote OT without the full meaning that Christ gave us in the NT.

Men and women are not designed. QED

Like I said before, I am very curious to understand your view of God in relation to humankind, of men and women.

OK, but you are saying there’s a sin involved and sorry I just can’t see any sin.

And thus why I brought up fornication, if you cannot see a sin in the sexual acts of homosexuality, can you see a sin in fornication? and if so how did you arrive to the conclusion that there is a sin in fornication? If not, how did you conclude it?

I look forward to your reply inocente.

Thank you for getting around to my replies.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incest risks the death and disability of offspring and so society wishes to discourage it, just as drunk driving risks the death or disability of others and so society wishes to discourage it.

You tried to argue that procreation must be essential to marriage because society wishes to discourage incest.

Can you really not see that it doesn’t follow?

Actually what I did argue was that procreation must be essential to marriage or society (or Spanish civil law) would have no reason to claim inherently impotent incestuous couples such as same sex siblings could not marry. Incest between same sex siblings has no danger of death or disability for offspring because there is no risk of having offspring.

If marriage laws are unrelated to procreation (as you claim) then the Spanish government has no justification for claiming impotent incestuous couples could not qualify to be married for the same reason that it claims same sex couples do qualify, i.e., that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

This may be too subtle a point for you considering that logic is not your forte.

 

[inocente]

Truly you have dizzying intellect. From this point forward, your nickname shall be Vizzini.

Oh dear, what happened there, did you post in anger?

Sarcasm has its time and place but not uncharitable ad hominem, it might make you feel good but stroking your ego isn’t exactly what Christ taught is it?

Right. Let’s look at this statement that made you so upset:

Taunts from someone I only just met on the internet are not going to upset me.

Hopefully you’ve now got whatever is was out of your system, so you can post about the subject of the thread from now on.

 

[inocente]

Thank you for your replies Inocente.

Thanks for reading them!

*Really? I had no idea that there were Christians who did not believe in a designer, God.

The belief in God makes sense because we need an origin, humankind needs a creator, so if God isn’t the creator and you believe in God, what is your theory on the creation of men and women or how did God not create men and women? again I apologise for saying creation, I just have no idea how you would put it or how you are viewing it in relation to your belief in God.

What do you believe about creation, what is your creation theory? what is your belief about (I say creation) but of men and women? of humankind? *

From what I’ve read about him, my beliefs are very close to those of Father George Lemaître, the Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory. He believed in the hidden God Almighty described for instance by Isaiah, rather than the interventionist god which many these days seem to believe in.

If you’re interested, there’s a good introduction to Lemaître at catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847.

*I am against all sexual immorality being advocated, which includes fornication and the sexual acts of homosexuality and many others, how would me being against fornication imply that I embrace the sexual acts of homosexuality?
*

Fornication means sex outside marriage, therefore by definition sex within marriage is not fornication. Therefore it’s kind of like double jeopardy to prevent people from getting married and then criticize them for fornication.

I used the fornication argument, because it is a classic example of how just because we desire something and both parties are in consent doesn’t make such actions morally right and I was hoping you would agree with me that fornication is immoral, in which I am still unsure of you’re view on fornication.

If we continue using the standard definition of fornication (“voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other”) then I’d say it’s highly immoral if for example either of them is married to someone else, but if both of them are single, consenting adults in their right mind then it’s up to them unless harm may come to someone else (incest is such an example since there’s a high risk of a deformed offspirng).

I am saying that marriage includes the “love of eros” which is sex. I don’t think that marriage is just about sex, but I think you would also be mistaken to think that marriage has nothing to do with sex. This is why I think that you would be naive to think that same sex marriage wouldn’t advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality.

I don’t think this is true though. Society is perfectly willing to marry heterosexuals without asking them any questions at all about sex, so why should society have a completely different attitude when it comes to homosexual couples?

*True. You are correct on an evolutionary point of view, If I implied/said that, than I apologise, but I do think that “chastity” is moral and the same with celibacy, I think that the “love of eros” is not the love of christianity and a love that never truly satisfies.

It is only in marriage between a man and a woman, in which the sexual act is the reproductive sexual act in which such love of eros unifies the couple and in doing so is moral, in which case any other sexual act cannot do and thus immoral.*

I assume this is true of the Catholic sacrament of marriage, but it’s not true for civil marriage, and there are a lot of married people who use birth control to prevent sex being reproductive.

*This is where my point is, I say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are harmful, they are grave depravities, they are a moral corruption and thus harmful like any other moral corruption such as fornication.

The problem is with advocating such moral corruption, which is what same sex marriage is doing.*

But unless you are arguing for forced treatment or criminalization of gays, you are allowing these “depravities” to continue to produce “moral corruption” just the same.

*I am interested in both, I am interested in the health and safety of the gay community and thus why I oppose same sex marriage so that such sexual immorality is not advocated and encouraged amongst/for homosexuals.

I am also interested in the health and safety of the rest of us, so that such sexual immorality is not advocated and encouraged, in the sense that for the same reasons that the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as morally permissible, is the exact same reason for the viewing of fornication as morally permissible.*

As above, denying citizens marriage and then accusing them of fornicating is unjust.

*I would be very interested to see if you have an argument that says that the sexual acts of homosexuality are morally right and that fornication is immoral. *

To me that’s like asking whether eating apple pie is moral. Well, it depends, is it your apple pie or did you steal it? And so on.

 

[inocente]

Becuase I hope you are in agreement with me that incest is immoral and thus I am showing how the same reasoning in which to promote same sex marriage is the exact same reasoning that can so easily be used against you in the promotion of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

On what basis do you advocate homosexual marriage yet discourage incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage?

As I’ve said many times now, incest brings grave risk to offspring, and so the vast majority of us want to discourage it for that reason.

Gay marriage doesn’t bring that risk, and you can argue that father-son incest doesn’t bring that risk either, so they should also be allowed to get married. But you’re then arguing that the father should be allowed to divorce his wife on grounds of wanting to marry his son, which I think is immoral to at least the mother if not others.

You can argue that two brothers don’t bring that risk either, so they should be allowed to get married. But I’d have to ask what kind of parenting is it that leads brothers to fall in love romantically, and should society accommodate such goings-on?

Polygamy is moral in some societies but I can’t see how it would be possible to love two or more others and maintain the marriage vows with all of them.

*Like I said I am really amazed and very curious, because I have neve come across a christian who refused God as designer.

Could you please elaborate on such beliefs?*

Really? Maybe you’re led an especially sheltered life. Try conceiving of the greatest God you can imagine, then try to make Him a zillion times greater still. My understanding came from my divinity teacher talking about Isaiah and I’ll try and think of some way of explaining.

 

[stewstew03]

Oh dear, what happened there, did you post in anger?

Not angry at all! I meant it sincerely – you truly have a dizzying intellect…

…Sarcasm has its time and place but not uncharitable ad hominem, it might make you feel good but stroking your ego isn’t exactly what Christ taught is it?
…

After arguing in favor of gay marriage, now you’re going to tell everyone on this thread what Christ taught. And we should listen to you because…?

Taunts from someone I only just met on the internet are not going to upset me.

Hopefully you’ve now got whatever is was out of your system, so you can post about the subject of the thread from now on.

Relax inocente. Nobody is “taunting” you. And there are no black helicopters hovering over you either…

 

[tonyrey]

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.
Now now, temper temper.

A beautiful example of a combined evasion and an argumentum ad hominem!

In the light of your statement about passing fashions the **objective **question remains to be answered:

Why not get married to a cat, a dog, a horse or a monkey?

And what determines right or wrong in the **undesigned **scheme of things?

 

[inocente]

Actually what I did argue was that procreation must be essential to marriage or society (or Spanish civil law) would have no reason to claim inherently impotent incestuous couples such as same sex siblings could not marry. Incest between same sex siblings has no danger of death or disability for offspring because there is no risk of having offspring.

If marriage laws are unrelated to procreation (as you claim) then the Spanish government has no justification for claiming impotent incestuous couples could not qualify to be married for the same reason that it claims same sex couples do qualify, i.e., that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

This may be too subtle a point for you considering that logic is not your forte.

As I just said to josh, father-son marriage would require that the father should be allowed to divorce his wife on grounds of wanting to marry his son, and brother-brother marriage would applaud the kind of parenting that leads brothers to fall in love romantically, both of which are moral issues unrelated to procreation, so you’re still wrong.

That’s just off the top of my head, there are probably other reasons to bar “impotent incest” as you call it but I am completely brain-dead after answering all these posts, never mind the other non-internet stuff I’ve been doing, so that’s definitely it for me today.

 

[JimG]

I’m a little astonished that this thread has gone on for 40 pages. But that seems to be the nature of discussions about same sex marriage.

The facts are pretty simple. There is a sexual act that can only be done by man and woman together, and for that reason we call it the marital act, the conjugal act, or marital relations. It can be engaged in whether or not the man and woman are fertile or infertile. It remains the marital act. By its very biological nature it is directed innately to procreation, whether or not that ensues in any particular instance.

It is and always will be impossible for same sex couples to engage in marital relations. That’s the reason that same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

Now, same sex marriage advocates will say that’s just reducing marriage to sex. No, it’s only stating the obvious. Sexual complementarity is essential, but not the only characteristic of marriage.

Once we have said that sexual complementarity is non-essential, then nothing is essential. Marriage is meaningless.

And it was the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception which started us down this road. It broke the essential link between marriage and procreation. Between marriage and children. Between marriage and family. Those who rejected Humane Vitae, for example, started us on the road to same sex marriage.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Obviously my Catholic perspective means nothing to non-Catholics and especially to the many people who are not religious. Is there a strong secular argument against gay marriage? It seems like a lot of the non-religious arguments I’ve read were either pretty weak or had slightly Christian undertones.

Try this…

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?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

I’m a little astonished that this thread has gone on for 40 pages. But that seems to be the nature of discussions about same sex marriage.

The facts are pretty simple. There is a sexual act that can only be done by man and woman together, and for that reason we call it the marital act, the conjugal act, or marital relations. It can be engaged in whether or not the man and woman are fertile or infertile. It remains the marital act. By its very biological nature it is directed innately to procreation, whether or not that ensues in any particular instance.

It is and always will be impossible for same sex couples to engage in marital relations. That’s the reason that same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

Now, same sex marriage advocates will say that’s just reducing marriage to sex. No, it’s only stating the obvious. Sexual complementarity is essential, but not the only characteristic of marriage.

Once we have said that sexual complementarity is non-essential, then nothing is essential. Marriage is meaningless.

And it was the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception which started us down this road. It broke the essential link between marriage and procreation. Between marriage and children. Between marriage and family. Those who rejected Humane Vitae, for example, started us on the road to same sex marriage.

Thank you JimG. Very concisely said.

Humane Vitae

 

[Lochias]

Really? Maybe you’re led an especially sheltered life. Try conceiving of the greatest God you can imagine, then try to make Him a zillion times greater still. My understanding came from my divinity teacher talking about Isaiah and I’ll try and think of some way of explaining.

Anyone who can look at the structure and multiple functions of a human neuron, all timed to perfectly react to each other at the speed of electrical impulse, and say that God is not a designer is fooling themselves to a dangerous degree.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

I would say that such thought wanders dangerously into Non-Christian territory. To think God is incapable of designing is to deny and dismiss His wondrous deeds in all their loving detail.

 

[_Abyssinia]

An atheist identifies “the central problem with the gay marriage agenda”

 

[stewstew03]

… father-son marriage would require that the father should be allowed to divorce his wife on grounds of wanting to marry his son…

No, this assumes too much. Namely, that the father is married to his son’s mother, or that the mother/wife is still alive.

…and brother-brother marriage would applaud the kind of parenting that leads brothers to fall in love romantically

Wait a minute, what happened to: “Two people love each other - end of story”?

…both of which are moral issues unrelated to procreation…

Yes, that’s why they are fantastic examples.

That’s just off the top of my head, there are probably other reasons to bar “impotent incest” as you call it but I am completely brain-dead after answering all these posts, never mind the other non-internet stuff I’ve been doing, so that’s definitely it for me today.

I don’t see why this is so difficult for you to understand. Stop and think about it for a while and let the penny drop. This is not rocket science. No doubt your argument sounds great in your head but it needs work when written down, currently it’s real easy for your opponents to drive several coaches and horses through it.

Peter Plato is pointing out obvious holes in your “logic” vis-à-vis your position on same-sex marriage. If marriage is not about biology or procreation, then what is the justification for prohibiting adult incest? You keep preaching this idea that marriage is about love and vows, and that marriage is a fundamental right, and any society that doesn’t afford all adults this fundamental right is unfair or holds deep-seated prejudices.

Meanwhile… from the other side of your mouth…

…You claim that incestuous marriages actually do involve biology or procreation (e.g., unviable offspring), and that incestuous relationships are immoral, or at the very least they are taboo.

Just because a majority has held a prejudice against incest for most of human history, it doesn’t justify continuing the practice, right? Society is always better off without prejudice. Marriage also. But clearly there is deep-rooted discrimination against adult incest marriage, clearly there are those who hate the “sinner”, clearly something must change to make things better.

Besides, isn’t civil marriage primarily about love? And what about those vows you keep mentioning? When it comes to incest, you try to redefine marriage to make it about biology, procreation, or whatever. The marriage vows are extraordinarily profound, they define one of the deepest relationships humans can have, and you would destroy the very heart of the institution by making marriage a relationship defined by sex and bloodlines. As you point out, those concepts represent an irrelevant debasement of marriage. And yet, when it comes to adult incest, you move the goal posts. As you know, inocente, prejudice is an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge. If you can’t state any rationale for your opinion other than bafflement that anyone could think differently then it’s hard for others to distinguish it from prejudice.

After all, inocente, it’s up to the individuals to decide if they’re sexually compatible, you don’t get to decide for anyone else. If a particular man believes he is designed for another man, and vice versa, if they believe they are “soul mates”, why can’t two relatives believe they are soul mates too? If two women believe they are sexually compatible, why not two siblings? How come you “happen to know” better than them and get to call others foolish?

It must be very inconvenient that your argument in favor of same-sex marriage is also an argument in favor of incestuous marriages.

It would save everyone a lot of time if you validated your own arguments before posting. You can either spend your time defending confusing, double-minded arguments and lose the war, or come up with less confusing arguments and win, up to you.

Got it now?

 

[PRmerger]

Two people love each other. End of story.

I don’t think, inocente, that even you believe this.

Two people who are in an adulterous relationship may love each other, but I don’t think that there is anyone here who would propose that, even if they are 2 consenting adults, their liaison is moral and justified.

Love has very little to do with the morality of the situation, in this context.

 

[stewstew03]

As I’ve said many times now, incest brings grave risk to offspring, and so the vast majority of us want to discourage it for that reason.

But wait - I thought you had been arguing all along that marriage is not about sex. I don’t think your attempt to rewrite history is going to work when all the original posts are there for everyone to see. How about a discussion without any games?

Gay marriage doesn’t bring that risk, and you can argue that father-son incest doesn’t bring that risk either, so they should also be allowed to get married. But you’re then arguing that the father should be allowed to divorce his wife on grounds of wanting to marry his son, which I think is immoral to at least the mother if not others.

This is a philosophy forum, and the fact that you think something is immoral is only your opinion, it’s not evidence that something is actually immoral.

You can argue that two brothers don’t bring that risk either, so they should be allowed to get married. But I’d have to ask what kind of parenting is it that leads brothers to fall in love romantically, and should society accommodate such goings-on?

We are each created in the image of God and so are competent to make our own moral and religious decisions before Him. Certainly a secular society should accommodate consensual love. Why would anyone question what consenting adults do in private?

Polygamy is moral in some societies but I can’t see how it would be possible to love two or more others and maintain the marriage vows with all of them.

If your opinion is that polygamists can’t maintain marriage vows in a polygamous relationship then you would only see them as limited in their capacity to love, but that doesn’t say anything about what they’re really like, only about your opinion.

… My understanding came from my divinity teacher talking about Isaiah…

Hopefully that divinity teacher discussed Isaiah in context with the rest of the bible.

From catholicbible101.com/howtoreadthebible.htm:

*“The Bible is meant to be read in its entirety, and never to be taken out of context…”

“…] Another rule to follow is that you must read the bible with a sense of Tradition, what the original author meant to say, not what you think it means.”*

When reading Isaiah, a bible-reading class or discussion group would help you get more out of it.

 

[PRmerger]

One of the problems with incest that has nothing to do with infertility is that it tends to cause psychological harm

Indeed.

And the Catholic argument is that* all* immoral sex causes psychological harm. Teen sex. Premarital sex. Homosexual sex. Contraceptive sex.

 

[stewstew03]

Indeed.

And the Catholic argument is that* all* immoral sex causes psychological harm. Teen sex. Premarital sex. Homosexual sex. Contraceptive sex.

Careful PR. When Catholics start throwing around terms like “immoral” then it’s obviously a religious argument. When others use that term, it somehow takes on a secular meaning; as in, “for the greater good of society.”

 

[PRmerger]

Careful PR. When Catholics start throwing around terms like “immoral” then it’s obviously a religious argument. When others use that term, it somehow takes on a secular meaning; as in, “for the greater good of society.”