Secular argument against gay marriage

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

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 don’t know what the case is, so i’ll drop that argument (as long as you don’t mind).

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.

Okay, but if homosexual couples are arguing for equality, than how could you take that factor into account? wouldn’t it be discrimination, because for homosexual couples to have marriage would mean that male and female no longer matters in family life, because male and female familes would be seen as equal to male and male or female and female families wouldn’t it?

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, he didn’t say anything against it.

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

Okay.

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.

Okay, but unlike slavery, abortion, no fault divorce and same sex marriage are all addressed in the new testament.

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.

We evolved with the trait of same sex attraction but not with the physical human anatomy of a man and a woman for two men or two women to be compatible sexually in a way anywhere near the compatiblity of a man and a woman, thus it isn’t a marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Acrossthedesert]

But that’s irrelevant. I’m talking about the act of chewing here.

The same argument that shows that homosexual sex is “disordered and immoral” seems to show that chewing gum is “disordered and immoral”.

If I have made an error or misunderstood something then by all means please identify the error.

Just pointing out that eating is a much better analogy to sex than the “gum” analogy. Eating disorders can be agreed upon. And both eating and sex have ends not simply founded in pleasure alone. Gum chewing is just a fun past time.

If you want to find the truth, it would be better to speak about the best analogy and in the best terms and language in order to avoid ambiguity. However, if you simply wish to find a weak argument to tear down (the straw man fallacy), then continue forward.

Keep in mind there is such a thing as mental masturbation. It occurs when the participants of a discussion simply like to banter about a subject with clever literary devices without regards to actually determining the truth. Mental masturbation is as useless as the sexual version.

 

[CandideWest]

The purpose of chewing food is to obtain sustenance.

The function of chewing is to break down food.

Does that make sense?

Ahh, so you are saying that chewing gum fails both the purpose and the function of the act of chewing. So again, definitely disordered and immoral then yes?

 

[CandideWest]

Just pointing out that eating is a much better analogy to sex than the “gum” analogy.

…

Again, not relevant. I am just checking that by Catholic use of the term chewing gum is disordered and immoral. Thus far it appears to be.

 

[CandideWest]

Heh.

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

Ahh so we’ve come back around to the old “oh they CAN have children even though they’re infertile” argument.

Surely you can see this is silly?

To be clear, some people are misdiagnosed as infertile, this does not mean that ALL infertile people are actually fertile.

 

[inocente]

So you are saying the Old Testament was not inspired by God?

Jesus didn’t countermand the Old Testament because there is no contradiction between what justice demands (eye for eye) and Jesus’ words of caution concerning how a sinful human being should respond when wronged.

Jesus’ teaching concerned how we as sinners should treat each other regarding the demand for retribution. Clearly, his point was about bearing wrongs done in order to demonstrate a particular attitude regarding who ought to mete out justice - that God will do so in his time. We are not to provide others an excuse to continue a sequence of harm by rendering harm in return for harm. That, however, does not mean someone who does harm to others is going to escape retribution. Just retribution will come to all of us for evil we have done; it is likewise important that we should not take it upon ourselves to be vengeful and thereby ruin our own spiritual formation.

I noticed you didn’t use the following as one of your Biblical quotes:

Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-19)

It is not according to me, it is you who are claiming that “unchanging God changed His mind.”

Your notion that we should not punish wrong-doers and should instead leave it to God is a recipe for chaos.

The more usual way of reconciling Ex 21:23-25 with Matt 5:38-42 is that the former was originally intended as a reminder to magistrates to punish offenders by doing right to their victims, and Jesus is countermanding its use by anyone else.

The clue is to read the verses in context rather than isolation - the preceding verse in Exodus is talking about a court.

As for not changing the Law, Lev 20:13 talks only of men and the Lord commands their execution. You are applying it to women as well and are ignoring the punishment.

Maybe you’re not claiming God changed His mind and are just claiming the OT should be rewritten.

But the thread is still about secular arguments.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

These statements imply that people who are not religious have no spiritual values - at least with regard to the nature of marriage. There is no reason to believe this is true because gay marriage is opposed by many people - not because they are homophobic but because they know the meaning of marriage will be distorted. In the name of “progress” the status of the man and the woman in the family will be undermined. Any male can claim to be an adequate substitute for the mother and any female can claim to be an adequate substitute for the father. The sheer absurdity of this hypothesis speaks for itself regardless of sex, race, colour, class, income, nationality or ideology…

 

[inocente]

The remark “if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children rather than just scoring debating points” is an ad hominem. Please refrain from making personal remarks.

Errr, I was enjoining you to look at the research, and as you have still not referred to any of the studies on that page I’m still not sure if you have.

In any case it would be discriminatory to require that to be placed with homosexuals children must be “more content, more developed and more fulfilled” than with heterosexuals.

The simple fact that children are at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals is sufficient reason not to legitimise gay marriage - especially when taken in conjunction with the attempt to destroy the basic unit of family life.

You keep ignoring the fact that gay marriage won’t change the number of children placed with homosexuals by adoption agencies, and that those agencies wouldn’t place them if there was a higher level of risk.

A ridiculous attempt at ridicule based on a desperate expedient!

You’re the one who claimed that “children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals” and you’ve still not provided any evidence whatsoever.

A person who is confident of success wouldn’t hesitate for one moment to pursue the subject…

You’re the one hesitating to meet my request to provide evidence for your claim that (a) there are universal differences in the way that men and women think and behave, and (b) those differences are biological and don’t vary by culture.

*Homophobic discrimination is irrelevant to the reality of paternal and maternal instincts, the physical and psychological needs of adolescents and the evolution of the male and female characteristics.

Is the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child culturally dependent?*

How does that square with your claim that two women are never as good as a man and a woman at caring for children?

The fact remains that two men cannot be parents.

One man can be a parent but two can’t?

The fact remains that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned with equality - not the unselfish love to be found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.

Please provide evidence for your claim that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were only concerned with equality and were unconcerned about love.

To imply that the argument for gay marriage has nothing to do with morality is consistent with the view that morality is determined solely by passing fashions, the laws of the state and the behaviour of the majority - which is not only unChristian but at odds with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You said “The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified” to which I asked “So why do you keep going off-topic?”, so I’m glad you agree that gay marriage is a moral issue.

 

[josh987654321]

This isn’t just directed just at you inocente, however I would really appreciate it if you took the time to just view this very short clip on youtube inocente.

This is for everyone who is christian (non-christians are welcomed too! ) and supports same sex marriage.

Anyway this is a very good youtube clip that only goes for a total of 9:00 minutes, so it’s very short and very good.

Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity - Ravi Zacharias

Thank you for reading
Josh

He’s extraordinarily and embarrassingly sexist. To save others having to sit through it, the argument is that sexuality is sacred based on the notion that “God created mankind and womankind” (not humankind ) which in turn is based on the notion that God created women to meet emotional needs of men which God Himself cannot meet. So there you go, the purpose of women is to meet the emotional needs of men .

Yikes!!!

Please watch this one Innocente - youtube.com/watch?v=Fpmu42g6mDs

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

In response, I ask: Do you think adultery is still a sin, or not? They stoned people to death for that, too. Because we no longer kill someone for it by law, does that mean it’s now perfectly ok?

That’s what’s known as a circular argument. Jesus countermands Lev 20:10 but says adultery is immoral (“Go now and leave your life of sin”), the question I asked which started this was “where does Jesus say homosexuality is immoral?”.

*But I’m not asking what I must do to inherit eternal life. I’m not asking anything of Jesus at all; I’m asking you.

If we no longer stone people for adultery, how is it still sinful? Please answer the question.*

Of course it’s sinful, it breaks the marriage vows.

I asked you what is written in the Law because you asked where does Jesus tell us “to ignore that particular Jewish law and custom”, but for Jesus it isn’t a matter of the letter of the law but of its purpose (to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and to love your neighbor as yourself).

 

[PRmerger]

Ahh so we’ve come back around to the old “oh they CAN have children even though they’re infertile” argument.

Surely you can see this is silly?

To be clear, some people are misdiagnosed as infertile, this does not mean that ALL infertile people are actually fertile.

Take your pick, CW. You can’t have it both ways.

Either the analogous senior citizens baseball team, like an infertile couple, have a possibility of winning/getting pregnant…in which case this illustrates why infertile couples’ unions are moral…

OR!

The senior citizens baseball team, like an infertile couple, will admittedly never achieve the natural end of their activity, yet we see how their play is still ordered towards this end…in which case this illustrates why infertile couples’ unions are moral.

Which is your position?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your notion that we should not punish wrong-doers and should instead leave it to God is a recipe for chaos.

Where, precisely, does my point imply that? I said sinners should not seek vengeance.

The more usual way of reconciling Ex 21:23-25 with Matt 5:38-42 is that the former was originally intended as a reminder to magistrates to punish offenders by doing right to their victims, and Jesus is countermanding its use by anyone else.

The clue is to read the verses in context rather than isolation - the preceding verse in Exodus is talking about a court.

You have this odd way of reading your own implications into the arguments of others when nothing of the sort is necessarily implied. Have you ever heard of the principle of subsidiarity? Did I say Jesus intended his words to be applied to properly ordained authorities acting on behalf of the people?

As for not changing the Law, Lev 20:13 talks only of men and the Lord commands their execution. You are applying it to women as well and are ignoring the punishment.

Maybe you’re not claiming God changed His mind and are just claiming the OT should be rewritten.

But the thread is still about secular arguments.

Responding to your posts is an exercise in futility because you just looking to read nonsense implications into the arguments of others and deflect how each point made rebuts one of your arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s what’s known as a circular argument. Jesus countermands Lev 20:10 but says adultery is immoral (“Go now and leave your life of sin”), the question I asked which started this was “where does Jesus say homosexuality is immoral?”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm

For, of course, the only way you know what Jesus said is because the Catholic Church proclaimed that this is what Jesus said…

and when we hear the Church, we hear Him.

 

[CandideWest]

My apologies, i’ll try and articulate it more accuratly for you.

…

1. If people have that attitude towards sex, which is the “consent” factor (“If it’s not hurting anyone than whats wrong with it?”) Than a whole vast range of sexual activity will be seen as “moral” with that same reasoning. Thus when the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral by society, all sexual activity with “consent” will be considered moral, which will include fornication, promiscuity, polygamy and a whole vast range of sexual activity.

Ahh, but we’ve already covered that point, consent is necessary but not sufficient. So we in fact do not say that all sex is ok because homosexual sex is ok. Just like we do not say that all sex is ok when we say that heterosexual sex is ok.

Pre-marital sex is immoral. The only time sex is moral, is in a marriage and when it is targeted towards procreation, so even if they are infertile it is still the same sexual act that unifes the couple.

Again, I disagree. I know these are your beliefs and they seem to be based on your religion, but you do not seem to be able to support them using secular arguments.

Homosexuals are normally fertile, but the act is infertile, heterosexuals may be infertile, but the act itself is not infertile, the infertility is not a result of the act.

But that sex act IS infertile if it is between two infertile people.

It’s saying that the first cause must be non-physical,

Not quite, it’s saying that the first cause isn’t part of our universe if we define the first cause as the cause of everything in our universe. That’s no problem, we’re still working on determining what that cause is.

it must be something that is infinite, something finite cannot be a first cause because it requires something else to explain it’s own creation.

No, Aquinas covered this one, to be the first cause it just needs to be timeless.

Thus God being infinite, non-physical, has no biginning nor end is the only first cause there can be.

Again, your religious belief, not a Secular argument you can support.

If you disbelieve in God, than life has no meaning. Thus is a haunted existance without meaning.

Completely false and really quite insulting. I have plenty of meaning in my life thankyou.

Many people find this hard because infinity is a hard concept, thus why people say “edge of the universe” our minds cannot comprehend infinity.

Thus far I have heard no logic that proves that something infinite is required to create something finite.

Yes they are, A product of Theistic Evolution, in which God created us to naturally evolve into humankind during our creation (not darwins theory from apes though). So such evolution did not occur through something random, we did not come about humankind through some incredibly lucky or random sequence of events, like I said the chances of that is 1 in 10^40000, but by the exact right sequence of events.

Yes, and if we had not we would not be here to notice that we had not. The anthropic principle.

Incidentally evolution is unguided by its very nature. “Guided evolution” is NOT evolution, “Guided evolution” actually means “selective breeding programme”.

Not even the Big Bang Theory explains life.

??? Nor does it try to.

Now, I have entertained the above because it interested you. However, this is way off topic and frankly a little close to the edge of the moderators ban. On that basis I am not going to reply any further on these topics. To be honest I’d suggest if you want to talk about such things then there are different threads which are more appropriate. If you wish to have the last word on these topics then by all means go ahead.

If there is no “absolute” morality how do you think people establish a system of morality for our entire species? In the eyes of the Nazis, they established a valid system of morality for their society too.

Yes, and everyone else disagreed with them. So their system of morality failed.

If you think there is no “absolute” morality, than you also think there is no “absolute” value to human life

No, the very act of valuing is subjective. To value requires a valuer. If you struggle with this, ask yourself, what is valuable to a rock? We can say that the value of human life is very high to people, but that doesn’t make it “absolute”. Only “practicably objective” for our species.

…and thus moral subjectivism justifies all evil.

Nope, again it’s moral absolutism that seems to have been the justification behind horrors such as crusades, jihads, human sacrifice, witch hunts, inquisitions… Etc

If you start from the axiom “suffering is bad” you cannot get to “causing gratuitous suffering is good”. But people can and have got there using various “absolute” moralities, including the Christian variety.

Besides, if atheism is correct, than over 90% of the entire world is delusional. So if there is no God, than how can over 90% of humankind be so delusional?

Not delusional, simply incorrect.

They are convincing, why do you think Christianity is the largest religion in the world?

They are not convincing to the adherents of those other religions, self evidently. If they were then they would have all become Christians.

 

[inocente]

Please watch this one Innocente - youtube.com/watch?v=Fpmu42g6mDs

You posted your view that there is no secular argument against gay marriage (“There is no such thing as a secular argument on morality” - post #910) so this is off-topic, as is the video’s title.

 

[CandideWest]

Your question assumes that I have moral subjectivity.

All of them are Immoral … end of story.

??? Really? So if I asked you “which is morally better (or morally worse)
a). raping and torturing a woman to death
OR
b). lying to your friend about the size of a fish you caught”

…you would not be able to pick one?

If so, I’m somewhat concerned about your sense of morality, but I’ll drop the question. However, I think you will in reality be able to say that while b). is still immoral is clearly morally better than a). Agreed?

Maybe this might help - youtube.com/watch?v=VUV7Llizrp0

Not at all I’m afraid. The position this video attacks is that of someone arguing that there is no such thing as morality, a position I clearly disagree with, as I have given a route to a practicably objective moral system.

Im glad you have read it, may I ask why or what about it put you off please?

The contradictions, the very poor morality being recommended, the rather contrived claims of fulfilled prophecies in the New Testament… All kinds of stuff really.

I was talking in relation to you, because your religion says none so I am assuming Athiest?

Yes I’m an atheist, and because of that you assume I “suppress the big questions”??? Well, as the young people these days say “lol”.

To use her analogy aswell, “but they are still playing baseball.”

Her analogy fails because because she either has to show its impossible for them to win (under any circumstances) or she needs to show there is a rule book to comply with for sexual acts (and that’s it’s secular). Neither of which she has done.

I don’t know what the case is, so i’ll drop that argument (as long as you don’t mind).

Sure, no worries.

Okay, but if homosexual couples are arguing for equality, than how could you take that factor into account? wouldn’t it be discrimination, because for homosexual couples to have marriage …

Well it depends what you mean by “take into account”. If there is established evidence that children who are adopted by individuals are worse off than those who are adopted by couples, then it is not discriminatory for an adoption service to take this into account when considering an adoption request by an individual. If there is no such evidence then there is nothing for them to “take into account”.

Equally, if there is established evidence that children who are adopted by homosexual couples are worse off than those who are adopted by heterosexual couples, then it is not discriminatory for an adoption service to take this into account when considering an adoption request by a homosexual couple. Again, if there is no such evidence then there is nothing for them to “take into account”.

Thus far the evidence I have seen on the issue reveals no such disadvantage to children raised by homosexual couples.

Okay, but unlike slavery, abortion, no fault divorce and same sex marriage are all addressed in the new testament.

Slavery is addressed in the NT too, for example Luke 12:45-48.

We evolved with the trait of same sex attraction but not with the physical human anatomy of a man and a woman for two men or two women to be compatible sexually in a way anywhere near the compatiblity of a man and a woman, thus it isn’t a marriage.

Again, you are talking about reproductive compatibility, not sexual compatibility. We have already covered this.

Thank you for reading
Josh

All the best

 

[inocente]

Where, precisely, does my point imply that? I said sinners should not seek vengeance.

Post #908 - “Clearly, his point was about bearing wrongs done in order to demonstrate a particular attitude regarding who ought to mete out justice - that God will do so in his time.”

*You have this odd way of reading your own implications into the arguments of others when nothing of the sort is necessarily implied. Have you ever heard of the principle of subsidiarity? Did I say Jesus intended his words to be applied to properly ordained authorities acting on behalf of the people?

Responding to your posts is an exercise in futility because you just looking to read nonsense implications into the arguments of others and deflect how each point made rebuts one of your arguments.*

Sorry but I can’t read minds and so can only respond to what is posted.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s what’s known as a circular argument. Jesus countermands Lev 20:10 but says adultery is immoral (“Go now and leave your life of sin”), the question I asked which started this was “where does Jesus say homosexuality is immoral?”.

Of course it’s sinful, it breaks the marriage vows.

This is, again, quite inconsistent of you. You argue below that what is important is not the letter of the law but its intent, yet above you claim it is about the “vows” or contract which is nothing more than the letter of the law (recall your argument from Spanish civil law: it is what the law says that is important) all the while denying the purpose of marriage is to bring new human life into existence. If it really is about purpose, how can you possibly deny that the ultimate purpose behind the physical union of two complimentary human genders is to be the loving means by which new human beings come into existence?

I asked you what is written in the Law because you asked where does Jesus tell us “to ignore that particular Jewish law and custom”, but for Jesus it isn’t a matter of the letter of the law but of its purpose (to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and to love your neighbor as yourself).

Interesting how you are arguing purpose above and yet deny design in the universe. How can we understand purpose without understanding the intended purpose for which things are designed?

Loving others means to love them through the proper exercise of human faculties which entails understanding of the proper purpose of human faculties.

 

[stewstew03]

Ahh, so you are saying that chewing gum fails both the purpose and the function of the act of chewing. So again, definitely disordered and immoral then yes?

It appears this exchange is an exercise in futility…

Best of luck!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Post #908 - “Clearly, his point was about bearing wrongs done in order to demonstrate a particular attitude regarding who ought to mete out justice - that God will do so in his time.”

Which doesn’t preclude God acting through properly ordained human instruments.

Sorry but I can’t read minds and so can only respond to what is posted.

Then stop reading into points implications that are not necessarily entailed.