Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

These aren’t failings with the argument. If they were, then…

a) The fact that not everyone agrees that theft is wrong and some engage in break and entry is not a reason for claiming that, therefore, laws concerning theft should be revised. Just because not everyone agrees means nothing in terms of actual morality. You will have to present a more compelling “failing” than this one to claim that Argument 1 fails.

Again, marriage law as it stands doesn’t support your argument here. It doesnt make any requirement for couples to have or be able to have children. So if the law didn’t actually say that theft is wrong you might have a point there. But it does, so you don’t .

The anti gay marriage argument (in argument 1) is that those people who make the argument believe that marriage is all about procreating and raising children. The law as it stands and the majority of other people disagree with them.

b) You keep ignoring the fact that infertile couples are doing everything “right” but do not have children because of nothing that is in their control. They have ordered their actions towards having children - they are playing the game by the rules, so to speak - but just don’t win at the game. Same sex couples are not playing by the rules of “generating new life” and are demanding that the game change to meet their own mode of playing. That is an important distinction whether you want to admit it or not.

That doesn’t help. If marriage is all about procreating and raising children, and homosexuals are disqualified from having marriage because they cannot have children, then infertile people are disqualified for the same reason. The fact that some of them do their best to have children doesn’t help them any more than it does homosexuals.

What you have failed to show is that there is no difference between a disorder that is morally relevant and one that is not.

If the end towards which certains actions are ordered is morally important, then it could well be that “disorder” in such cases is morally relevant and immoral, whereas there might be ends which are not morally important and therefore disordered actions in these cases could be morally neutral.

So, your argument is that chewing gum is “disordered” but that this doesn’t mean it’s immoral?

If so then how do we distinguish in secular terms between “disordered” actions which are immoral and “disordered” actions which are not? Until we know that we really have no way of determining if the “disorder” argument makes any difference to homosexual marriage or not.

Perhaps you would like to specify some criteria and then we can discuss to determine if the “disordered” argument has any relevance on this thread or not.

Neither argument fails without assuming that same sex behaviour is morally licit.

And neither argument works without assuming that homosexuality is immoral.

The only reason you gave for claiming that it is, is that some people approve of it.

Incorrect, I never made anything like that argument. I consider things to be moral unless I know of a reason to consider them immoral. Thus far no argument has been presented that homosexual sex is immoral. Thus I consider it to be moral.

Your attempt at divide and conquer has not been successful except to those, like you, who simply think same sex behaviour is morally licit but can provide not reason other than it has support among a proportion of human beings.

You have either completely misunderstood the arguments presented, or you are deliberately pretending so that you can argue against a position nobody holds (straw man falacy)

Hitler, likewise had support among a large number of citizens from Germany and other countries. In itself, that does not make his actions morally commendable.

So not only do you falsely ascribe to me an argument I didn’t make, but then you commit the association fallacy “reductio ad Hitlerum” on that imaginary position.

Come on Peter Plato, surely you don’t imagine that such weak arguments are going to convince anyone?

 

[PRmerger]

Your analogy does not answer my argument and you have made no attempt to show that your analogy is in any way analogous.

No case for me to answer.

How 'bout you answer this question posed earlier?

I meant is your paradigm for what’s a moral sexual liaison: consenting adults who aren’t married to other people?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Come on Peter Plato, surely you don’t imagine that such weak arguments are going to convince anyone?

Again, it is very interesting how you go about dismissing arguments without actually addressing them.

I’ll have another go at it.

Only free rational beings are capable of acting morally. We do not condemn animal behaviour as immoral because, as far as we know, animals are incapable of making free and rational decisions and acting on them.

Morally important considerations and standards are only morally relevant and important because moral beings are capable of making them or making use of them and because of the impact of resulting actions on other moral beings. Without the existence of moral beings, moral considerations would be meaningless. The existence of moral beings is what makes moral decisions and moral principles important.

The only way to bring new human beings (humans are the only biological species capable of acting morally, as far as we know) into existence is through the sexual union of a heterosexual pair of human beings.

The coming into existence and subsequent moral development of human beings is of prime moral importance because it is the only means by which new and morally valuable human beings can come into existence.

If the existence of moral human beings is important - and it is - given that all human morality hangs on the existence of human moral beings, then the sole means by which human moral beings can come into existence (heterosexual union) ought to be treated in accord with its unique status as the only means by which moral human beings can come into existence. If morality is valued for its own sake, then the sole means by which the creation and development of human moral beings can occur should likewise be accorded unique status. That status has, traditionally, been recognized as belonging to the institution of marriage, which properly understood is intended as the means by which new moral human beings are brought into being and raised to become individuals capable of rational moral decision-making and action. Safeguarding the only means by which new human beings come into existence would seem to be a principle moral imperative and any action or decision that entails results contrary to this end would necessarily have moral implications.

Since marriage is the institution long recognized as the only means by which new moral human beings come into existence, then any attempt to compromise its role towards its properly ordered end would be immoral, in principle.

To be clear, this is not to argue that same sex unions are necessarily immoral, though they might be, it does argue that compromising the purpose of marriage by redefining it or acting within a state of marriage contrary to its proper end (creation of new morally competent human beings), is immoral.

To be even more clear, this does not mean couples have a responsibility to produce as many offspring as possible. It does mean that couples have a duty to do all in their power and to the limits of their power to create and raise morally responsible offspring. That would mean the couple would need to refrain from teaching, aiding or abetting immoral intentions and behaviour and be compelled to refrain from such behaviour themselves. Such actions would be immoral precisely because they are fostering immoral behaviour among their offspring.

Since marriage has unique status - the only means by which new human and therefore morally important beings are created and formed into moral beings - it would be immoral to compromise the role of marriage and the responsibilities of those individuals entering into it. A redefinition of marriage to include other relationships compromises the unique status of marriage and, therefore, it would be immoral to redefine or advocate for the redefinition of marriage. It would, likewise, be immoral for those in a state of marriage to act contrary to the moral development of the children they have brought into existence. Actions which jeopardize the moral development of children are immoral - divorce could very well be if children are “demoralized” (in the literal sense) as a result.

Notice that infertile couples are not acting contrary to the ordered goal of marriage because there is no attempt to alter its status as a moral institution aimed at producing new moral beings - if they are ready and willing to do so. However, same sex marriage advocates are, in fact, compromising the value of marriage with regard to its principle role - by claiming its role is not the creation of new, moral human beings.

 

[josh987654321]

Ok, lets do this slowly. A man (M) is married to a woman (W).

Man (M) has sex with another woman (w’).

He is not married to woman (w’).

Therefore he is having sex with a woman he is not married to.

The definition you have given for fornication is “voluntary sexual intercourse between persons **not married **to one another”

Therefore he is committing fornication. By. Your. Definition.

:banghead: My deepest apologies, you are right.

May I refrase the question for you.

Could you please give me an example of what sexual acts with consent **for all parties **(fornication and/or promiscuity) you see as immoral?

So adultery would have consent for all parties including his wife.

Would it still be immoral?

I don’t know that they are necessarily.

Okay, so you wouldn’t have a problem with the law also including polygamous marriage?

Unless we have some reason to consider them immoral then why would we consider them immoral?

Okay, so any sexual act with **consent for all parties **involved, would be morally right?

Again, reproductive compatibility. You keep getting those two mixed up, and again we have already covered that one.

Yes we have already covered it, you don’t have to reply to this one.

I mentioned reproductive compatability before and you mentioned infertility, I am talking about the sexual act, so even if they are infertile it is not infertility from the act, because it’s still the same sexual act.

What is relevant to morality is whether or not there is some kind of suffering or harm caused. Thus far nothing of the sort has been identified. Now, as I have already said, it is possible that research on polygamous relationships will likewise reveal that they are generally happy and emotionally fulfilling for all parties. If so then I will agree there is nothing immoral in it.

Okay.

If you want to use “design” as an argument then you’re going to need to show evidence of design. Thus far you have not.

Well, if there is no design, than it should really be moral to use our sexual organs for just about anything we like as long as there is consent for all parties involved right?

??? What analogy? Also please note that I have specifically argued against the idea you keep putting forwards that nothing is sexually immoral as long as there is consent.

My apologies, I should have clarified, I meant as long as there is consent “for all parties involved.”

So you are sayin that homosexual sex acts are such that they automatically stop fornication from being a sin?

Again, the argument here is not whether the sex act is moral in itself. I’m quite confident that your mind will never budge from that position. What I’m asking you is effectively whether it is morally worse to have one “sin” or the same “sin” and another “sin” as well.

Thus far you argument seems to be that in one case it is better to have only one “sin” and in the other case it doesn’t matter how many “sins” you commit. This is, to say the least, a little inconsistent.

But as per the question I’ve written above, at least doing it while married avoids that extra “sin” – fornication.

The 1st scenario Im saying that the sexual act is moral, however it is immoral outside of marriage.

The 2nd scenario Im saying that the sexual act is immoral and thus whether inside a marriage or outside a marriage, it doesn’t make any difference to that sexual act being morally better or worse, it’s still immoral.

Consider this, it’s like saying can I drive 100km/h on a public road? Id say it depends where you are, on whether your in a 100km/h speed zone or not, if you are than it’s morally right to go 100km/h, if you are not than it’s immoral to go 100km/h.

Than it’s like saying, can I drive 200km/h on a public road? Id say no, because there are no speed limits in which allow you to go 200km/h, thus it doesn’t really matter what public road you are on, you cannot drive at 200km/h on any public road.

Why on earth do you keep talking about things coming together “by random” you seem to be determined to attach a position nobody holds. Again, enzymes (like the rest of us) evolved. We didn’t just come together by chance.

Exactly, yet if there is no God, it’s saying that we did come together by chance.

??? Again, no idea what you’re talking about I’m afraid.

All kinds of different things.

Okay, can we drop this bit in our debate? (if you don’t mind).

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Ahhh, sorry “what’s that got to do with the price of fish” is an expression where I come from. You say it when someone says something which is totally unrelated to the subject at hand. So for example when in a conversation about gay marriage someone comes out and says “how do you get something from nothing” you might say “what’s that got to do with the price of fish” as an alternative for “what’s that got to do with the subject at hand?”

See?

Ahh, okay, I see, I have never heard of that expression before.

Anyway don’t worry about these arguments, I was just putting ideas out there for you, incase you had never thought of them.

Again, nobody thinks people came about by chance, we evolved. The probability problem is an issue for theists, not atheists. We already have a well established mechanism by which complex organised systems come into existence (evolution).

It still doesn’t explain the first life form to evolve from and if we did evolve from animals, wouldn’t there be humans who are half animal or animals who are half human or something more inbetween, why would the gap be as far as it is to distinguish between two species?

You are trying to make an analogy between a piece of art and the psychosexual development of a child. The two are simply not analogous.

It is no use asking people questions about changes in their life after that change has happened, because they will tell you about their perceptions from the place they finished, not their perceptions on the journey which is what you need to know about.

But wouldn’t you also need to establish where they finnished? Perceptions along the journey are meaningless unless you know where they finnished with those perceptions.

Firstly what way I “use discrimination”.

Secondly you have not shown any logical argument here, you have again taken two unrelated points and put the word “then” in between them. That is not an argument. There is no case for me to answer.

Okay, don’t worry about it, I’ll ask the question below.

Right, so if you want to learn about what sexually immoral parents teach their children about sexual morality. Your best bet is to find a married couple where one or both of the partners cheat and ask them.

There is a difference though, they will say that adultery is immoral, the homosexual parents will say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral.

Indeed, because as far as we can determine there is nothing immoral there.

Than it should follow that as long as their is consent for all parties involved that any sexual act with that parameter is moral shouldn’t it? if not could you please give me an example of a sexual act where there is consent for all parties involved and it is immoral.

Again, you clearly have no idea what that term really means, I would suggest you cease using it and seek a more appropriate term.

What would you call it?

Then by all means demonstrate that there is this detriment. Thus far some research has been posted on this thread on the topic and that found no detriment. If you want to use this argument then you’ll need to post some of your own showing your conclusion.

So your telling me that the removal of biological parents which does not benefit a child in any way is not a detriment?

Depends where and how you say it I guess. Most people will probably just laugh such things off. Which is probably the best response, some people will be hurt though.

So if I said that the gay lifestyle was immoral because the sexual acts of homosexuality are gravely immoral, would that be labelled as discrimination against sexuality?

Thank you Candide West for your reply.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

What about this?

• wikipedia

Are you quite sure there is no evidence that children are exposed to a greater risk of infection from practising homosexuals who share their accommodation and come into close physical contact with them?

You’ve taken statistics for the worst behaved most promiscuous individuals, it is NOT evidence about the children. It would be like you using evidence that prostitutes have a high risk of HIV/AIDS to claim that all women pose a higher risk to children, or you using evidence that most child abuse is by heterosexual males to claim no father should ever be allowed near his kids.

You have made serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals, and you have tarred all 200 million homosexuals in the world with one brush, and the worst brush you could find at that. Your allegations are unfounded until you cite evidence that THOSE CHILDREN have a higher rate of disease than children living with heterosexual parents. There are lots of kids living with homosexual parents so don’t be coy.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ve taken statistics for the worst behaved most promiscuous individuals, it is NOT evidence about the children. It would be like you using evidence that prostitutes have a high risk of HIV/AIDS to claim that all women pose a higher risk to children, or you using evidence that most child abuse is by heterosexual males to claim no father should ever be allowed near his kids.

It is not a question of “worst behaved” unless you consider anal sex an example of worst behaviour… The biological fact that most homosexuals practise anal sex poses** a greater risk of serious infection **to children who have physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong and medically unjustifiable.

You have made serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals…

It remains a fact that to expose children - or allow them to beexposed** - to a greater risk of serious infection** by homosexuals who practise anal sex and have close physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible. Many adoption agencies throughout the world do not place children with homosexuals for that very reason.

… and you have tarred all 200 million homosexuals in the world with one brush, and the worst brush you could find at that.

False!

1. Not all homosexuals adopt children.
2. In many countries homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children.
3. Not all homosexuals practise anal sex.

Your allegations are unfounded until you cite evidence that THOSE CHILDREN have a higher rate of disease than children living with heterosexual parents.

Irrelevant. To expose children - or allow them to beexposed** - to a greater risk of serious infection** by homosexuals who practise anal sex and have close physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible.

 

[inocente]

It is not a question of “worst behaved” unless you consider anal sex an example of worst behaviour… The biological fact that most homosexuals practise anal sex poses** a greater risk of serious infection **to children who have physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong and medically unjustifiable.

It remains a fact that to expose children - or allow them to beexposed** - to a greater risk of serious infection** by homosexuals who practise anal sex and have close physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible. Many adoption agencies throughout the world do not place children with homosexuals for that very reason.
False!

1. Not all homosexuals adopt children.
2. In many countries homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children.
3. Not all homosexuals practise anal sex.

Irrelevant. To expose children - or allow them to beexposed** - to a greater risk of serious infection** by homosexuals who practise anal sex and have close physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible.

As I thought you have no evidence whatsoever, just opinions, and your allegations are unfounded.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The biological fact that most homosexuals practise anal sex poses** a greater risk of serious infection to children who have physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and and socially irresponsible.

 

[inocente]

The biological fact that most homosexuals practise anal sex poses** a greater risk of serious infection **to children who have physical contact with them for many years is morally wrong and medically unjustifiable.

That’s your hypothesis but as you have zero evidence the only place to file your hypothesis is the round receptacle.

 

[CopticChristian]

You’ve taken statistics for the worst behaved most promiscuous individuals, it is NOT evidence about the children. It would be like you using evidence that prostitutes have a high risk of HIV/AIDS to claim that all women pose a higher risk to children, or you using evidence that most child abuse is by heterosexual males to claim no father should ever be allowed near his kids.

You have made serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals, and you have tarred all 200 million homosexuals in the world with one brush, and the worst brush you could find at that. Your allegations are unfounded until you cite evidence that THOSE CHILDREN have a higher rate of disease than children living with heterosexual parents. There are lots of kids living with homosexual parents so don’t be coy.

narth.com/2012/06/regenerus-study-on-homosexual-parenting/

Regnerus Study on Homosexual Parenting

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups–with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated “suboptimal” (Regnerus’ word) in almost every category.

I believe that subjugating children to Homosexual parents may not be in their best interest. In order to know more, further information should be made available. The Regenerous study points out some problems and the comments that appear at the link mention others.

I believe that caution concerning “The Best Interest of The Child” dictates that fewer children not more children should be given to Homosexuals to parent.

 

[tonyrey]

The biological fact that most homosexuals practise anal sex poses* a greater risk of serious infection ***

Your crude remark is not only against the form rules it is also false:

Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).

• Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
• The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.

The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.

• **Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. ** If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
• Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. ** HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex. **
• The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. **In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse. **

medinstitute.org/2012/06/anal-sex-a-dangerous-trend-3-2/

To expose such a risk of serious infection throughout their most vulnerable years to children who have close physical contact with homosexuals is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible*.

*The same organization also stresses the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys - which demonstrates the inadequacy of lesbian parents:

A recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics underscores the important role that fathers play in adolescent sexual health and behavior. Previous research and interventional programs have focused on the role of mothers on the sexual behavior of adolescents with little or no attention to the pertinent role of fathers in adolescent sexual health.

This study was a structured literature review of studies published over a span of three decades between 1980 and 2011 using a target population of adolescents aged 11-18 years with a focus on the processes of paternal parenting. A literature search of six relevant electronic databases was conducted with a yield of 13 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.1

Paternal variables were classified into five groups: paternal attitudes about adolescent sexual activity, monitoring and discipline-related behaviors, paternal involvement in adolescent’s life; emotional qualities of the father-adolescent relationship including warmth, closeness, attachment; and father-adolescent communication about sex.

ibid.

 

[Portofino]

To expose such a risk of serious infection throughout their most vulnerable years to children who have close physical contact with homosexuals is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible*.*

Risk of infection is not solely a matter of anal sex versus vaginal sex, but a matter of promiscuity versus monogamy.

So, yes, a heterosexual couple where the male partner engages in unprotected anal sex (with women), and has multiple partners, would also be putting his adoptive child at risk for infection.

The thing is, you have no way of knowing whether a heterosexual male who came of age after the sexual revolution is practicing anal sex or not, and has had multiple partners, or not. You cannot make assumptions about that individual, or about a group of individuals (heterosexual males, in this case). It is the same with homosexual males; you cannot assume that the particular homosexual males in question have not only had unprotected anal sex, but have done so with multiple partners.

This would be a sexual equivalent of racial profiling, though – if a gay man took an AIDS or STD test – I imagine that the “risk of infection” grounds of preventing him from adopting a child would be removed, because you could not prove that he would not live monogamously with his partner (indeed, the professed intention in same sex marriage is a lifelong commitment to remain monogamous; and, though a homosexual man could cheat on his partner, a heterosexual man could cheat as well).

/I]
The same organization also stresses the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys - which demonstrates the inadequacy of lesbian parents: ibid.

Then why does the Catholic church not speak out against single parent adoption, or disallow a single woman to adopt a child? An objection which is not invoked against a single woman who adopts a child, is being used as a justification for not permitting two women to adopt a child.

This double standard may be tolerable to those who choose to take the logic that “two wrongs don’t make a right” but the fact is that, because one is unwilling to put one’s “money where one’s mouth is” regarding an alleged wrong – a single mother deliberately depriving an adoptive child of a father – one weakens one’s argument that it is, in fact, wrong.

I’m no lawyer, but double standards do not tend to hold up well, legally, presumably in the name of fair and non-prejudicial treatment.

 

[tonyrey]

Risk of infection is not solely a matter of anal sex versus vaginal sex, but a matter of promiscuity versus monogamy.

So, yes, a heterosexual couple where the male partner engages in unprotected anal sex (with women), and has multiple partners, would also be putting his adoptive child at risk for infection.

The thing is, you have no way of knowing whether a heterosexual male who came of age after the sexual revolution is practicing anal sex or not, and has had multiple partners, or not. You cannot make assumptions about that individual, or about a group of individuals (heterosexual males, in this case). It is the same with homosexual males; you cannot assume that the particular homosexual males in question have not only had unprotected anal sex, but have done so with multiple partners.

This would be a sexual equivalent of racial profiling, though – if a gay man took an AIDS or STD test – I imagine that the “risk of infection” grounds of preventing him from adopting a child would be removed, because you could not prove that he would not live monogamously with his partner (indeed, the professed intention in same sex marriage is a lifelong commitment to remain monogamous; and, though a homosexual man could cheat on his partner, a heterosexual man could cheat as well).

The higher incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases among homosexuals is not the sole reason for opposing gay marriage but it is certainly not insignificant.

Why not speak out against single parent adoption, or disallow a single woman to adopt a child? An objection which is not invoked against a single woman who adopts a child, is being used as a justification for not permitting two women to adopt a child.

This double standard may be tolerable to those who choose to take the logic that “two wrongs don’t make a right” but the fact is that, because one is unwilling to put one’s “money where one’s mouth is” regarding an alleged wrong – a single mother deliberately depriving an adoptive child of a father – one weakens one’s argument that it is, in fact, wrong.

A single mother does not **deliberately **deprive an adoptive child of a father. The agency selects her if the child will otherwise remain unadopted.

I’m no lawyer, but double standards do not tend to hold up well, legally, presumably in the name of fair and non-prejudicial treatment.

Inapplicable!

 

[Portofino]

The higher incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases among homosexuals is not the sole reason for opposing gay marriage but it is certainly not insignificant.

A society that protects individual rights will adopt a basic rule of thumb – that, although your rights may be entitled to protection based on your belonging to a group, you cannot be discriminated against based on your belonging to a group.

Civil rights legislation is a key example. The rights of racial or ethnic minorities are protected by law; however, racial or ethnic minorities must be treated with equal rights, as individuals.
Thus, you cannot cite patterns of statistical behavior as a basis of discriminating against a particular individual in question.

Refusing to adopt to a male couple, because it is assumed they are more likely to have HIV, would be discriminatory. In actuality, the heterosexual male may be the one with HIV, while the homosexual male may be perfectly healthy.

In terms of female couples, it is a non-sequitir, as there is no HIV crisis among lesbian women, and no indication that they have higher STD rates than women who sleep with men (if anything, it would be the opposite).

single mother does not **deliberately **deprive an adoptive child of a father. The agency selects her if the child will otherwise remain unadopted.

Inapplicable!

The point is that you are not demonstrating how, though a single mother who adopts is not deliberately depriving a child of a father, a female couple who adopts is deliberately depriving a child of a father. There appears to a bias here, a logical inconsistency.

 

[CopticChristian]

A society that protects individual rights will adopt a basic rule of thumb – that, although your rights may be entitled to protection based on your belonging to a group, you cannot be discriminated against based on your belonging to a group.

Civil rights legislation is a key example. The rights of racial or ethnic minorities are protected by law; however, racial or ethnic minorities must be treated with equal rights, as individuals.
Thus, you cannot cite patterns of statistical behavior as a basis of discriminating against a particular individual in question.

Refusing to adopt to a male couple, because it is assumed they are more likely to have HIV, would be discriminatory. In actuality, the heterosexual male may be the one with HIV, while the homosexual male may be perfectly healthy.

In terms of female couples, it is a non-sequitir, as there is no HIV crisis among lesbian women, and no indication that they have higher STD rates than women who sleep with men (if anything, it would be the opposite).

The point is that you are not demonstrating how, though a single mother who adopts is not deliberately depriving a child of a father, a female couple who adopts is deliberately depriving a child of a father. There appears to a bias here, a logical inconsistency.

Homosexuality is not a static state. It is fluid. There are and have been homosexuals that are no longer homosexual.

There are not now ever been women that are not women, men that are not men or any racial group of people that were born, for example Chinese and the next day are not Chinese.

 

[tonyrey]

The higher incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases among homosexuals is not the sole reason for opposing gay marriage but it is certainly not insignificant.

It is not merely belonging to a group but belonging to a group with a higher incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases. Moreover you are assuming homosexuals have a right to get married yet with a civil relationship they already have equal rights to a heterosexual married couple.

Civil rights legislation is a key example. The rights of racial or ethnic minorities are protected by law; however, racial or ethnic minorities must be treated with equal rights, as individuals.
Thus, you cannot cite patterns of statistical behavior as a basis of discriminating against a particular individual in question.

You are assuming there is discrimination yet in a civil relationship homosexuals already have equal rights to a heterosexual married couple.

Refusing to adopt to a male couple, because it is assumed they are more likely to have HIV, would be discriminatory. In actuality, the heterosexual male may be the one with HIV, while the homosexual male may be perfectly healthy.

The homosexual male may be perfectly healthy at present but the greater risk of infection in the future cannot be ignored given the higher incidence of sexual diseases among homosexuals.

In terms of female couples, it is a non-sequitur, as there is no HIV crisis among lesbian women, and no indication that they have higher STD rates than women who sleep with men (if anything, it would be the opposite).

Lesbians are also liable to diseases resulting from unnatural sexual practices which pose a risk to children. It is not the main reason for opposing marriage but it is certainly not insignificant and in a civil relationship they already have equal rights to a heterosexual married couple.

A single mother does not deliberately deprive an adoptive child of a father. The agency selects her if the child will otherwise remain unadopted.

The point is that you are not demonstrating how, though a single mother who adopts is not deliberately depriving a child of a father, a female couple who adopts is deliberately depriving a child of a father. There appears to a bias here, a logical inconsistency.

Lesbians who adopt a child are deliberately depriving a child/children of a father because they replace a father and mother whereas a single heterosexual woman may well find a man who would fulfil the father’s role.

 

[tonyrey]

(For the benefit of anyone who hasn’t noticed.) This discussion is continuing on another thread as this one is likely to be closed very soon!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

(For the benefit of anyone who hasn’t noticed.) This discussion is continuing on another thread as this one is likely to be closed very soon!

Yes, also for those that don’t know, in general once a thread reaches 1,000 messages it get’s closed.

@Toney - I’m guessing the thread that you are referring to is this one? : Why should marriage be preserved for a man and a woman?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, also for those that don’t know, in general once a thread reaches 1,000 messages it get’s closed.

@Toney - I’m guessing the thread that you are referring to is this one? : Why should marriage be preserved for a man and a woman?

Correct!