Secular argument against gay marriage

[tonyrey]

Yes. Catholics do not claim any books of the Bible have moral authority. Authority is a characteristic of living organisms, not books, no matter how holy.

Our moral authority is a Person. And this Person speaks through the living entity of His Body, the Catholic Church.

A book by itself is insufficient: it needs to be interpreted correctly.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;10807262:

I already said that it’s irrelevant to your serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals - NOTHING YOU HAVE POSTED IS EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ADOPTED CHILDREN. Surely you can see that the evidence is irrelevant unless it is about the children?

How can it be possibly irrelevant when the children have close physical daily contact with homosexuals for years on end? Only in a dreamworld are they immune in such circumstances. Morality should not be based on wishful thinking but take facts into account - medical facts in this context.

Although I did look at the actual study, which was a summary of an internet trawl of 13 papers which concluded that “Existing research preliminarily suggests fathers influence the sexual behavior of their adolescent children; however, more rigorous research examining diverse facets of paternal influence on adolescent sexual behavior is needed. We provide recommendations for primary care providers and public health practitioners to better incorporate fathers into interventions designed to reduce adolescent sexual risk behavior”.- pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1313.full.pdf

Not exactly world-shattering (and irrelevant to your allegations that children adopted by homosexuals have elevated risk of infection).

The same organization also stresses the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys - which demonstrates** the inadequacy of lesbian parents**. It is a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics that underscores the important role that fathers play in adolescent sexual health and behavior.

Still no response to the other facts in my post.

Silence implies assent or unjustified dissent.

 

[PRmerger]

Not off the top of my head no. Where are you going with this PR?

I want to know what your moral compass is regarding sexual morality. It can’t be merely “consenting adults” because, clearly in the case of adultery the 2 parties are* consenting* to the sexual tryst.

And I suspect that you do not view adultery as moral, yes?

So what are the criteria you use to discern whether a sexual encounter is moral?

Surely you can’t say, “I don’t judge whether a sexual encounter is moral” because then, of course, you cannot state that sexual slavery, pedophilia, etc etc etc is immoral.

How do you discern what’s moral and what’s immoral?

 

[CandideWest]

Except that they be male-female.

Which as has been extensively discussed already does not entail that a married couple will or are able to have children.

It does. It requires male-female pairing. Homosexual marriages cannot reproduce together and thus don’t qualify.

Incorrect the law does not distinguish between couples who can or will have children from those who won’t or can’t.

Infertile couples, celebrate couples, etc are permitted to marry. No attempt is even made to determine if a couple will or can have children prior to granting a marriage licence.

It is quite evident that this requirement simply does not exist.

 

[Muze]

Which as has been extensively discussed already does not entail that a married couple will or are able to have children.

But it does describe the conditions necessary for procreation in that a male and female are required to do so.

Incorrect the law does not distinguish between couples who can or will have children from those who won’t or can’t.

Well, in the sense that a male-female combination is required, it does.

If the state desired to enact a more strict standard, it certainly could do so, but, as shown, it would be inaccurate and inefficient.

Infertile couples, celebrate couples, etc are permitted to marry. No attempt is even made to determine if a couple will or can have children prior to granting a marriage licence.

Again, as shown, determining whether a couple is infertile is often an inexact science. Even experts who think a couple is infertile is proven wrong from time to time.

So, given the inexact nature of the science and the miniscule number of people who are exceptions ,the male-female standard is effective and efficient, even if imperfect.

It is quite evident that this requirement simply does not exist.

Actually, it is quite evident both from Supreme court rulings and from the practice of the states that this is exactly what was intended.

I’ve not heard any evidence from you to suggest what other standard might be in place.

 

[tonyrey]

How can it be possibly irrelevant when the children have close physical daily contact with homosexuals for years on end?

**“close physical contact every day” **is more accurate and more elegant!

 

[CandideWest]

But it does describe the conditions necessary for procreation in that a male and female are required to do so.

But it doesn’t actually describe the conditions for procreation in that it doesn’t require that a couple are able or willing to have a child.

Well, in the sense that a male-female combination is required, it does.

And in the sense of actually distinguishing between those who can and cannot have children, it does not.

If the state desired to enact a more strict standard, it certainly could do so, but, as shown, it would be inaccurate and inefficient.

This hasn’t been shown, it’s perfectly possible to define at least some people as being unable to have children for definite (ie for right now say you can’t get married if a man has no testes or a woman has no ovaries). And as the science improves we could move that boundary to more accurately match those people who are actually infertile.

However, the law makes NO ATTEMPT to do so.

Actually, it is quite evident both from Supreme court rulings and from the practice of the states that this is exactly what was intended.

I’ve not heard any evidence from you to suggest what other standard might be in place.

??? Supreme Court rulings have banned couples who cannot have children from getting married? This is news to me. Have you got a link I could have a read on the topic please?

 

[inocente]

How can it be possibly irrelevant when the children have close physical daily contact with homosexuals for years on end? Only in a dreamworld are they immune in such circumstances. Morality should not be based on wishful thinking but take facts into account - medical facts in this context.

Sigh… I’m surprised you really can’t see that all you have are hypotheses.

You have accused adoption agencies of placing children with homosexuals in the knowledge they will be exposed to elevated rates of infection.

Suppose one of those agencies sued you for defamation and you attempted to prove your claim. The court would not accept anything you’ve posted up to now because it merely indicates that children might hypothetically have been exposed (if the agencies had acted unprofessionally etc.).

To prove your case you would need to produce evidence that real children had a higher rate of real infections. If that were true it would be front-page news, a major scandal. But there is no scandal is there? Despite your theories, real children placed with homosexuals do not contract more infections.

We’ve been round this a number of times and as it’s off-topic anyway I’ll let you have the last word.

The same organization also stresses the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys - which demonstrates* the inadequacy of lesbian parents***. It is a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics that underscores the important role that fathers play in adolescent sexual health and behavior.

There are far more boys raised by single-parent mothers than raised by lesbian couples, and as equal marriage won’t alter the number of lesbians raising boys this is all off-topic.

*Still no response to the other facts in my post.

Silence implies assent or unjustified dissent.*

Nope, it implies that we’ve danced around all those points many times on this thread and you can’t force me to get up and dance around them with you yet again. Thanks for asking me but my feet are tired, show me a new dance or I’ll sit this one out.

 

[Muze]

But it doesn’t actually describe the conditions for procreation in that it doesn’t require that a couple are able or willing to have a child.

And that’s fine. Couples that aren’t initially willing to have a child often do, and then change their minds. The point is that they’re creating the right conditions for procreation to occur…

And, as pointed out, determining who is actually able or unable isn’t an exact science nor is it inexpensive. Thus, the male-female standard is both accurate and efficient, even if imperfect.

And states, if they wished to, could require a certificate of fertility if they wanted to.

And in the sense of actually distinguishing between those who can and cannot have children, it does not.

Umm… two men cannot procreate together. Two women cannot procreate together, either.

Thus, there is a clear sense of what COUPLES may procreate together, namely heterosexual ones.

This hasn’t been shown, it’s perfectly possible to define at least some people as being unable to have children for definite (ie for right now say you can’t get married if a man has no testes or a woman has no ovaries). And as the science improves we could move that boundary to more accurately match those people who are actually infertile.

That’s one possible standard, and a state could do that if they wished to.

However, the law makes NO ATTEMPT to do so.

Other than the male-female standard, that’s true. But no state is required to enact a particular standard.

And the male-female standard DOES fulfill the standard of procreation in an efficient manner.

??? Supreme Court rulings have banned couples who cannot have children from getting married? This is news to me. Have you got a link I could have a read on the topic please?

Don’t be deliberately obtuse.

Skinner v. Oklahoma clearly states that ‘We are
 dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights 
of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and
 survival of the race.’

The court closely ties marriage and procreation as fundamental. If a union doesn’t involve procreation, then it doesn’t serve this function.

 

[CandideWest]

And states, if they wished to, could require a certificate of fertility if they wanted to.

Exactly, but they don’t. So again, clearly there is no requirement for a couple to be able or willing to have children.

Umm… two men cannot procreate together. Two women cannot procreate together, either.

Thus, there is a clear sense of what COUPLES may procreate together, namely heterosexual ones.

Ummm, infertile people cannot reproduce together either.

Thus there is a clear sense its not all heterosexual couples, just the fertile ones. But yet again, these couples which cannot reproduce together ARE permitted to marry.

That’s one possible standard, and a state could do that if they wished to.

Ok, so if the state wanted the “ability to have children” as a requirement for marriage then they could put that requirement into law. But they haven’t yet again, looks like no requirement here.

Other than the male-female standard, that’s true.

And since the male-female standard does not do this we can safely say that the law makes NO ATTEMPT to do so. As I said.

Don’t be deliberately obtuse.

Skinner v. Oklahoma clearly states that ‘We are
 dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights 
of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and
 survival of the race.’

The court closely ties marriage and procreation as fundamental. If a union doesn’t involve procreation, then it doesn’t serve this function.

I’m not being obtuse, you claimed that a Supreme Court ruling had shown there to be a requirement for couples to be able to have children in order to get married. Clearly nothing in what you have quoted above says this.

If you genuinely think there is a requirement in law on couples to be able to have children in order to marry, then by all means come up with a reference. But don’t just keep saying about male-female requirement as if any male can have children with any female. Clearly this is silly.

 

[CandideWest]

I want to know what your moral compass is regarding sexual morality. It can’t be merely “consenting adults” because, clearly in the case of adultery the 2 parties are* consenting* to the sexual tryst.

And I suspect that you do not view adultery as moral, yes?

Yes, as I’ve said before.

So what are the criteria you use to discern whether a sexual encounter is moral?

Whether or not it results in happiness or suffering (both long and short term) for those involved.

 

[Muze]

Exactly, but they don’t. So again, clearly there is no requirement for a couple to be able or willing to have children.

As explained, “willing” isn’t a prerequisite to procreating together. If they (male and female) are engaging in vaginal sex, then the potential for procreation exists.

But they DO have to be male-female, which fundamentally IS the requirement to procreate. Thus, without further details of the individuals involved, the male-female couple is generally able to procreate together. Homosexual couples cannot. Thus, they are not eligible.

Ummm, infertile people cannot reproduce together either.

True, but once again, a practicality issue arises for the state. A certificate of fertility would be both expensive and inaccurate.

Without engaging the expense of examining each couple, the state can only deal with biology in general, which states that a male and a female are necessary for procreation.

Thus there is a clear sense its not all heterosexual couples, just the fertile ones. But yet again, these couples which cannot reproduce together ARE permitted to marry.

And that’s an indicator the imperfection of the standard chosen. That doesn’t mean that this isn’t the standard. Again, state have practicality issues to deal with. When these laws were written, there wasn’t a way to know who was fertile and who was not.

Even now, there often isn’t a definite answer.

And, if law makers want to adjust the law to account for modern science, they may do so. They just haven’t.

Ok, so if the state wanted the “ability to have children” as a requirement for marriage then they could put that requirement into law. But they haven’t yet again, looks like no requirement here.

There is a requirement. You simply keep ignoring it. It’s male-female couples.

And since the male-female standard does not do this we can safely say that the law makes NO ATTEMPT to do so. As I said.

So, you’re claiming that pairs of humans that are not male-female (say, male-male or female-female) can procreate together? Do we need to have the birds and bees talk?

I’m not being obtuse, you claimed that a Supreme Court ruling had shown there to be a requirement for couples to be able to have children in order to get married. Clearly nothing in what you have quoted above says this.

What I quoted shows that the state believes that marriage and procreation are fundamental to our survival. Clearly homosexual unions do not participate in this in ANY WAY. (If you think you can come up with a way that homosexual unions further the survival of the human race, let me know…)

If you genuinely think there is a requirement in law on couples to be able to have children in order to marry, then by all means come up with a reference. But don’t just keep saying about male-female requirement as if any male can have children with any female. Clearly this is silly.

Done. That you ignore the obvious and either don’t know or won’t acknowledge how babies are made isn’t really relevant to the reality of the situation.

 

[CandideWest]

As explained, “willing” isn’t a prerequisite to procreating together. If they (male and female) are engaging in vaginal sex, then the potential for procreation exists.

As explained, if there is a requirement in law that a couple is able to have children then they must be able to have children. But we can and DO permit people who cannot have children to marry, quite happily and knowingly. So there clearly is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.

But they DO have to be male-female, which fundamentally IS the requirement to procreate.

Nope, the fundamental requirement to be able to have children is just that, that the couple are ABLE to have children. As plenty of heterosexual couples are NOT ABLE clearly the fundamental requirement is not simply being a heterosexual couple.

And, if law makers want to adjust the law to account for modern science, they may do so. They just haven’t.

Exactly, if lawmakers want to introduce a law that requires a couple to be able to have children in order to marry they can do. They just haven’t.

There is a requirement. You simply keep ignoring it. It’s male-female couples.

Which as we have discussed is NOT a requirement for a couple to be able to have children.

So, you’re claiming that pairs of humans that are not male-female (say, male-male or female-female) can procreate together? Do we need to have the birds and bees talk?

So you’re claiming that men with no testes and women with no ovaries can have children as long as they’re in a heterosexual relationship? Yes, I fear you may need to have a birds and bees talk. Alternatively there are some good articles on wiki which can help you along if you’d rather do your own research.

What I quoted shows that the state believes that marriage and procreation are fundamental to our survival.

Sure, but (as I said) what you quoted does NOT show any requirement for a couple to be able to have children in order to marry.

Ultimately you can keep on pretending to yourself that there is a legal requirement to be able to have children in order to marry if you like, but if you can’t actually point to any such legal requirement you’re not going to convince anyone I’m afraid. And when people can point to couples who got married while knowingly failing this “requirement”, your argument becomes absurd.

 

[Muze]

…

Are a male and female required for two people to procreate together?

 

[CandideWest]

Are a male and female required for two people to procreate together?

Yes. Now, do both of those people need to be fertile (able to have children) in order to reproduce?

 

[Monkey1976]

Yes. Now, do both of those people need to be fertile (able to have children) in order to reproduce?

You keep missing the point and bringing up the “infertile heterosexual” issue. That’s a red herring. For heterosexual couples, unless some aspect of their reproductive systems is actually broken - whether intentionally through contraception or unintentionally due to physical problems - children are very likely going to result from a marriage. Just like insurance companies use probabilities to make decisions regarding the rates charged to a particular group of customers and how much coverage to offer in return, marriage laws are written based on the probabilities which marriages have demonstrated - namely, that children are an extremely likely result. Same-sex couples - by the very nature of their biology - are incapable of producing children 100% of the time.

Because the production of children is a positive benefit to the government (which I would hope is an obvious point), the government offers incentives in the form of benefits and tax breaks to couples who enter into matrimony, as it is most likely that children will result. Granted, couples can and do produce children outside of the married state, but marriage is required to reap the full legal benefits of producing children.

Exactly what is the positive benefit that same-sex couples provide to society that requires legal recognition as “marriage” but is insufficiently recognized in a “civil union”, or that requires any recognition whatsoever outside of existing legal structures?

 

[Portofino]

Exactly what is the positive benefit that same-sex couples provide to societyQUOTE]

That’s not the point, Monkey1976. A Catholic’s freedom of religion, for example, is not contingent upon Catholics “proving” that their freedom of worship will accrue a benefit to society. What is beneficial or not beneficial is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. The notion of individual rights is not contingent upon proving that one will benefit society, in the eyes of that society – again, a minority of Catholics living in a Muslim country would be out of luck, if that were the case – but, as I see it, has to do with the fact that no one has proven that it infringes upon the individual rights of others.

It is this latter standard that safeguards freedom of worship – that it does not demonstrably harm anyone, not that it is required to demonstrably help anyone. It is negative criterion, not a positive one, and it tends to favor the one claiming rights for himself, not the one granting the rights. It is, in its way, analogous to the notion of being “innocent until proven guilty” – the burden of proof is placed on those who would deprive others of a particular right, not those who would grant others a particular right.

 

[Monkey1976]

Monkey1976;10812869:

Exactly what is the positive benefit that same-sex couples provide to society

That’s not the point, Monkey1976. A Catholic’s freedom of religion, for example, is not contingent upon Catholics “proving” that their freedom of worship will accrue a benefit to society. What is beneficial or not beneficial is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. The notion of individual rights is not contingent upon proving that one will benefit society, in the eyes of that society – again, a minority of Catholics living in a Muslim country would be out of luck, if that were the case – but, as I see it, has to do with the fact that no one has proven that it infringes upon the individual rights of others.

But this isn’t an issue of rights, it’s an issue of wanting the benefits attached to a particular institution while refusing to accept the responsibilities attached to that institution. In this country, any individual has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any other - we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The law doesn’t care if you are attracted to your spouse, or how much you love your spouse. As far as the law is concerned, its only interest is in the production of children and the protection of their rights. We’ve already addressed the issue of infertile heterosexual couples, so leave that red herring at the market.

Alaskan residents receive dividends in their state tax refunds based on profits from the oil pipeline as an incentive to remain in Alaska. I would also like to receive these dividends, but I have no desire to move to Alaska. Which course should I pursue: Accept that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, or campaign to redefine the term “Alaskan resident” to include those living in other states?

Advocates for same-sex “marriage” insist that these “marriages” require legal recognition, and should be given the same privileges and incentives as traditional marriages. To do so incurs a cost to the government, which leans to a cost being incurred by every taxpayer. For traditional marriages, these costs are balanced by the production of children. What is the balance given by same-sex couples which is only available by redefining the institution of marriage to something it has never been in any society before AD2000, and is unavailable without legal recognition or under the label “civil union”?

It is this latter standard that safeguards freedom of worship – that it does not demonstrably harm anyone, not that it is required to demonstrably help anyone. It is negative criterion, not a positive one, and it tends to favor the one claiming rights for himself, not the one granting the rights. It is, in its way, analogous to the notion of being “innocent until proven guilty” – the burden of proof is placed on those who would deprive others of a particular right, not those who would grant others a particular right.

Freedom of religion (“Freedom of worship” is a misnomer, but that’s a totally different rabbit hole) is not absolute in the United States. A person who worships Huitzilopochtli would still be prevented by law from performing human sacrifices. From a legal point of view, there is no difference between a Catholic diocese and Rev. JimBob’s FourSquare Apostolic Pentecostal Holy Spirit Temple of the Snake-Handling Holiness Apostolic Faith Church - both are non-profit religious entities, and receive certain tax benefits as such because our lawmakers have determined that they provide a positive good to society.

 

[CandideWest]

You keep missing the point and bringing up the “infertile heterosexual” issue. That’s a red herring.

Er, no, it isn’t its very much on the point. I think perhaps you have misunderstood Muze’s argument here. You see he /she tried to argue the existence of a legal requirement for a couple to be able to have children in order to marry. The fact that some couples who are unable to have children are still legally allowed to marry shows quite clearly the inaccuracy of this position.

For heterosexual couples, unless some aspect of their reproductive systems is actually broken - whether intentionally through contraception or unintentionally due to physical problems - children are very likely going to result from a marriage.

Ummm, no. Children are a very likely result of a fertile couple having unprotected sex regularly for a long period of time, whether or not that couple are married has no bearing on this whatsoever.

Because the production of children is a positive benefit to the government (which I would hope is an obvious point), the government offers incentives in the form of benefits and tax breaks to couples who enter into matrimony, as it is most likely that children will result.

And also because of the other benefits that marriage brings such as lower crime rate, higher social stability, greater economic output, greater ease for taxation etc.

Granted, couples can and do produce children outside of the married state, but marriage is required to reap the full legal benefits of producing children.

Indeed, partially because it is NOT just about children.

Exactly what is the positive benefit that same-sex couples provide to society that requires legal recognition as “marriage” but is insufficiently recognized in a “civil union”, or that requires any recognition whatsoever outside of existing legal structures?

As has been previously (and extensively) discussed earlier in this thread. Marriage of infertile couples still gathers the government of the country all those additional benefits which do not relate to children. This explains why married childless couples still gain numerous legal and tax advantages while long term unmarried relationships with children do not.

As for the existing legal arrangements, they are unequally implemented. This results in legal rights of a homosexual couple with a civil union getting some of the appropriate rights, but not others in some places, and different or no rights at all in others.

It is also important to remember that even if civil union and marriage were legal identical it is still true that drawing legal distinctions between groups by its very nature supports and encourages discrimination against minority groups. Ie it gives some people the excuse to say “of course going and beating up gay people is ok, even the law recognises they’re different from us “normal” folks”. Etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether or not it results in happiness or suffering (both long and short term) for those involved.

Hah. How can one tell if it results in long term suffering when one is engaging in the behavior? What if it doesn’t result in short term suffering, but rather suffering appears later?

This doesn’t seem to be a very practical way to discern whether a sexual encounter is moral.

And does that mean that consenting adults who are living together get a STD that this means that their liaison was immoral?