Secular argument against gay marriage

[PRmerger]

No, I’m afraid this doesn’t help at all. If we use that analogy then it appears we would have to conclude that infertile people are playing a different game as well. They to are utterly unable to score a run, not just unlikely or difficult, but impossible.

So you are saying that the senior citizens team on the field with the St. Louis Cardinals would not be playing baseball?

(Answer: of course they are.)

 

[CandideWest]

Okay. My point being that the argument presented here will either be in favor of same sex marriage or against it. So when you shoot down our secular arguments against it, it would be good if you could provide us with your secular arguments for same sex marriage aswell.

I could do I guess, but to be honest I’m struggling to find the time to reply to those writing to me on this thread as it is, without introducing a whole new set of discussion points. And secondly, such arguments would be off topic.

So I am saying that same sex marriage advocates the sexual acts of homosexuality and people see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral because of the “consent” factor and thus they will view fornication and promiscuity the exact same way because of the “consent” reasoning, thus it will advocate a whole range of sexual immorality.

I’m sorry, I couldn’t follow your logic through that. Perhaps you could break the logic down into steps from “homosexuals can get married” to “therefore people don’t need to get married to have sex”.

The two things seem to be if not contradictory then at least opposing each other.

How could any society advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality yet discourage fornication and promiscuity?

Because if you wish you could set a single clear rule that says “people should only have sex if they are married” and apply it to everyone. That would actually be a more consistent and thus stronger position than the current one with the exceptions.

Infertile couples’ marital acts are still ordered towards procreation.

Not by the terms that I’ve seen “ordered towards” explained as so far. To date it appears that either both homosexuality and infertility are excluded or neither.

There again the only definition I’ve been given of “ordered towards” is rather weak to say the least. Perhaps you have a clearer one?

Also as Peter Plato has shown, by the given use of the term thus far chewing gum is “disordered and immoral”. As such presumably it is as sinful as homosexual sex.

Yea it wasn’t a very good secular argument on my part.

No worries, we all make them sometimes.

…
There are 3 steps you take in establishing the existance of God.

1. However you section physical reality, you take the physical universe how you see it, how ever you slice it down to it’s most minute form, the fact of the matter is you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for it’s existance in itself.

Nor as far as we can tell any indication that there is anywhere a “reason for its existence”.

Therefore an athiest has a kind of haunted universe without knowing what the first cause is.

Haunted??? Not haunted at all, as far as we can tell. Not sure what you’re referring to here.

As for the cause of the universe, we are still working on determining that. There are many hypotheses, (various gods are among these), none of these hypotheses are well supported thus far.

2)…

The possibility of the human enzyme comming together by random is 1 in 10^40000, which is more than the number of atoms in this universe, it is timewise and mathematically impossible.

Which is why enzymes do not form by chance. But of course nobody believes enzymes come into existence by hurling a bunch of chemicals together. Enzymes, like the rest of us are a product of evolution, not chance.

1. Explanation of morality, conscience.

If there is no God. Than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver. Than there is no moral law and if there is no moral law. Than there is nothing to distinguish between right & wrong or good & evil, therefore if they do not believe in God than there is no right & wrong or good & evil. So if you believe in good and bad or right and wrong, than you are contradicting yourself.

Already covered. It means there is no “absolute” morality. So we shouldn’t feel justified in imposing our morality on say bats or chimps or wolves, it doesn’t mean we can’t establish a valid system of morality for our entire species.

Only in the judeo-christian world view will you find these 4 questions answered with corresponding truthfullness and with the coherance of a world view.

1. Origin
2. Meaning
3. Morality
4. Destiny

And of course other religions can and do argue either that they answer those questions better, or that they answer different questions better.

If these arguments are not even convincing to those who share the initial premise (that there is a god or gods) then how would you expect them to be convincing to someone who does not share that premise?

Immoral. …

Sorry, appears you misunderstood my question, I was asking which is morally BETTER (or worse whichever way you prefer to answer).

a). A heterosexual couple having sex using contraception outside of marriage
b). A heterosexual married couple having sex using contraception.

And the same question for the following two:

a). A homosexual couple having sex outside of marriage
b). A homosexual married couple having sex.

So your answers might be “a” is morally better in the first and “b” in the second. Or vice verse etc.

So really according to you fornication and promiscuity is moral as long as both parties are in consent? and Im not talking about anything more than unmarried people sleeping around with one another with complete consent and agreement.

Consent is necessary but not sufficient. So it depends.

 

[CandideWest]

I think you will find all throughout history that the embracement of atheism and the rejection of God has been most catestrophic for a society and primarily the individuals who believed such a lie.

Really? My review of history led me to the conclusion that believing utterly in religion to the point where people will do anything in its name has led to many horrors. For example crusades, jihads, witch hunts, human sacrifice, the inquisition… Etc.

I’m just glad that at those points in history people didn’t have access to modern weapons. For example, if “Richard the Lionheart” had access to nuclear weapons I strongly suspect he would have used them without hesitation. Fortunately we live in less violent times now.

I wish I could say something to you, that will inspire you to read the Gospels, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Because it is the recount of Immanuel, God being with us. The gospels hits us so hard for that reason, it is unlike anything else.

Been there, done that I’m afraid. A careful and extensive reading of the bible was one of the things which put me off Christianity.

Anyway I say this, because I know it would be haunting for those who suppress the “big questions” in life and wonder aimlessley through it.

???Er, I suppose it would be. But who on earth are you talking about?

Okay, I’ll drop those and just stick with fornication.

Righto.

But it’s still the same sexual act.

But it is not ordered to procreation. To use PRMerger’s analogy - they cannot possibly ever score a run.

I’ll drop that argument, (if you don’t mind).

No worries.

I am not entirely sure either, so for example can a homosexual couple drive to a state where same sex marriage is legal. Get married. Drive back to their home state and be recognised as a marriage where same sex marriage has not been legalised?

Presumably yes, otherwise if you asked a married couple “are you married” they would have to answer with “it depends where we are”. Which seems odd.

Even stranger, what happens if one spouse is in a state where it isn’t recognised and the other where it is? Is one married and the other not? Mind you, the law can be an odd beast, so I wouldn’t bet either way on this one.

I also think adoption agencies should take in all relevant factors, the problem is the subjectiveness of it all and if homosexual unions are seen as equal to heterosexual marriages, than it would be society saying that a father figure and mother figure are irrelevant for society and thus would mean that an adoption agency couldn’t consider those factors, which I think would be wrong.

But we have already covered that - at worst adoption by a homosexual couple can only be as bad as adoption by a single person, and we actively praise single people who adopt. So we must admit that adoption by a homosexual couple is better than the alternative which is the child being raised in an adoption agency.

True, but Christ never advocated slavery.

True, but he never said anything against it either and there was plenty elsewhere to support it, and it was common practice at the time.

True.

Whats your secular argument that says otherwise?

? ? ? I haven’t got a secular argument that says we should pick the gender requirement and ignore the others. That was my point.

Remember Christianity, the New Testament, was a catalyst for abolishing slavery. The United states was founded on Christian values so how could Christianity have been in support of slavery when they used Christianity to help abolish slavery?

Because some Christians used Christianity to support slavery and some to oppose slavery. In truth the people supporting slavery had the better biblical references. But times moved on.

Wouldn’t male and female pair bonding make sense for a marriage because thats how we have evoloved?

Sure, and nobody is arguing that we ban heterosexual marriage. Equally I don’t see any reason to deny homosexual pair bonding because we evolved with that trait too.

 

[stewstew03]

I started to reply to you, then saw that and the other uncharitable remarks and decided to ignore your posts from yesterday.

If you want to post them again but this time without the personal remarks, I’ll read them and reply.

Well that’s ironic… almost every line from my “uncharitable” post was simply cut/paste from your posts (posts 22 through 782). I’m sure other readers recognized them - I’m surprised you did not.

 

[CandideWest]

Gum is not a nutrient. It doesn’t qualify as food, and chewing gum is not considered eating.

Er, exactly. It is using the mouth, saliva glands, jaw muscles and indeed the action of chewing. Which is “ordered towards” providing nutrients for the body, for something else. Hence disordered.

So you are saying that the senior citizens team on the field with the St. Louis Cardinals would not be playing baseball?

(Answer: of course they are.)

But that isn’t sufficient for your analogy to hold, it has to be impossible for your senior citizens team to score a run. Not just difficult, or unlikely but physically IMPOSSIBLE despite them playing the game properly.

Can you show that?

(Answer: of course you can’t)

 

[PRmerger]

Er, exactly. It is using the mouth, saliva glands, jaw muscles and indeed the action of chewing. Which is “ordered towards” providing nutrients for the body, for something else. Hence disordered.

You are directing your “ordered towards” in the wrong direction, ironically.

It is not a mouth that is ordered towards something, but rather the act of eating.

As I said, chewing gum is not an act of eating.

 

[PRmerger]

But that isn’t sufficient for your analogy to hold, it has to be impossible for your senior citizens team to score a run. Not just difficult, or unlikely but physically IMPOSSIBLE despite them playing the game properly.

No, Candide. The natural end of the game of baseball is to score more runs than the other team. Not to score a run.

And if you believe that a senior citizens team can score more runs than the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals…well…that’s just :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

Er, exactly. It is using the mouth, saliva glands, jaw muscles and indeed the action of chewing. Which is “ordered towards” providing nutrients for the body, for something else. Hence disordered.

Perhaps we need some clarification here.

Are you under the misapprehension, Candide, that the argument being presented is that a particular *organ *in the body is ordered towards one end only?

 

[CandideWest]

You are directing your “ordered towards” in the wrong direction, ironically.

It is not a mouth that is ordered towards something, but rather the act of eating.

As I said, chewing gum is not an act of eating.

If you really struggle with that one then sure, we can just restrict ourselves to the act of chewing. Makes no odds to the argument.

The act of chewing is ordered towards breaking down food for swallowing and subsequent digestion. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

 

[CandideWest]

No, Candide. The natural end of the game of baseball is to score more runs than the other team. Not to score a run.

And if you believe that a senior citizens team can score more runs than the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals…well…that’s just :whacky:

Well go ahead and show it to be physically impossible then. For the purpose of ease, lets assume for the moment that the Cardinals decided pre-game that out of respect for the nerve of the OAP’s and to mess with the bookies, that they decided to throw the game deliberately.

Now, by all means demonstrate that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the OAP team to actually win. Thats what you’ll need to do for your analogy to hold. I don’t think you can, but it’s the challenge you set yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

Well go ahead and show it to be physically impossible then. For the purpose of ease, lets assume for the moment that the Cardinals decided pre-game that out of respect for the nerve of the OAP’s and to mess with the bookies, that they decided to throw the game deliberately.

Now, by all means demonstrate that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the OAP team to actually win. Thats what you’ll need to do for your analogy to hold. I don’t think you can, but it’s the challenge you set yourself.

Heh.

I’ll use the same argument and say, “Go ahead and show that it’s impossible for an ‘infertile’ couple to conceive.”

I suggest you google, “They said we couldn’t have children, and then we got pregnant” and see how many sites you get.

 

[PRmerger]

If you really struggle with that one then sure, we can just restrict ourselves to the act of chewing. Makes no odds to the argument.

The act of chewing is ordered towards breaking down food for swallowing and subsequent digestion. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

That’s not the argument that is being presented. Chewing does not need to be ordered towards feeding the body nutrients. Eating is.

 

[PRmerger]

Heh.

I’ll use the same argument and say, “Go ahead and show that it’s impossible for an ‘infertile’ couple to conceive.”

I suggest you google, “They said we couldn’t have children, and then we got pregnant” and see how many sites you get.

For your convenience.

 

[stewstew03]

Ahh, interesting. So it looks like chewing gum is indeed disordered…

Perhaps - but only if chewing gum replaced eating food.

Try this: for one week, restrict those parts of your body that are intended for breaking down food, digesting food, etc., to chewing gum exclusively. Do not use any body parts to take in sustenance. After one week of chewing gum, and not chewing food, report back and let us know how you feel…

 

[stewstew03]

If you really struggle with that one then sure, we can just restrict ourselves to the act of chewing. Makes no odds to the argument.

The act of chewing is ordered towards breaking down food for swallowing and subsequent digestion. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

Agreed. Chewing gum, when it replaces the “ordered” act of chewing food, is disordered.

By the way - some people actually do chew gum instead of food. Some people chew food, swallow it, and immediately regurgitate it. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like you are suggesting that there is no such thing as an “eating disorder.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ahh, interesting. So it looks like chewing gum is indeed disordered and sinful then. Because it is using the mouth, saliva glands, the action of chewing etc in a manner which is not “ordered towards” providing the body with nutrients. I suspected as much but wasn’t sure.

Interesting. Out of curiosity why do I never see Catholics campaigning against this “disordered and sinful” behaviour?

Once again you are twisting the argument. The argument was that eating (not merely chewing) was ordered towards providing nutrients to the body, so an attempt to use the process of eating for, say, recycling paper or reprocessing asphalt into tar would be disordered and likely sinful. Mouths, teeth and lips are multifunctional - they can be used for whistling, talking, breathing, etc. - but the digestive system and the process of eating taken in total is not. The reproductive system and its use in sexual intercourse as a complete activity, is, likewise, ordered towards the creation of new life. The fact that new life is constantly being killed in the womb should be taken as an indicator that the “system” is being misused and that misuse is morally offensive.

Chewing AND swallowing (attempting to digest) toxic items such as poisons or other non-food items, perhaps even gum, is disordered and could very well be sinful if intended harm results.

 

[stewstew03]

Well I’m not alone with this one, but I have repeatedly pointed out in many different variations of the theme) that if marriage is all about the children, and infertile people cannot have children any more than homosexuals can, then infertile people should not be permitted to marry by the same argument.

At this point most people simply abandon the claim or start pretending that infertile people can have children really, but choose not to etc.

Who said “marriage is exclusively about children”? If that were true the state would prohibit contraception, or encourage polygamy, or be willing to take risks with inbreeding. The state has an interest in maintaining stable family units, one of the building blocks of any civilization. They also have an interest in promoting the idea that couples should care for and nurture any potential offspring.

Our Constitution promotes an individual’s right to free expression and aims to encourage the free exchange of ideas. The pornography industry, as well as the Ku Klux Klan, benefit from this ideal, but it is an unintended consequence. Similarly, infertile couples just happen to benefit from the state’s interest in protecting the family unit – but it is an unintended consequence.

 

[Eleve]

That’s not the argument that is being presented. Chewing does not need to be ordered towards feeding the body nutrients. Eating is.

What secular principle would lead anyone to think that chewing is not ordered toward nutrition, while at the same time leading them to think that sex is ordered toward reproduction?

Perhaps - but only if chewing gum replaced eating food.

Try this: for one week, restrict those parts of your body that are intended for breaking down food, digesting food, etc., to chewing gum exclusively. Do not use any body parts to take in sustenance. After one week of chewing gum, and not chewing food, report back and let us know how you feel…

So what if you masturbate and also engage in wholesome, monogamous, heterosexual sex? What accounts for the sinfulness of masturbation in cases where it isn’t replacing sex?

 

[PRmerger]

What secular principle would lead anyone to think that chewing is not ordered toward nutrition, while at the same time leading them to think that sex is ordered toward reproduction?

Well, as I appealed to religion/God/theology how many times in this discussion, (answer: zero)

I think your question rather odd.

 

[PRmerger]

So what if you masturbate and also engage in wholesome, monogamous, heterosexual sex? What accounts for the sinfulness of masturbation in cases where it isn’t replacing sex?

If masturbation results in release, then it has replaced sex, has it not?