The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

[InSearchofGrace]

Since the state does not prevent the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples then it cannot use infertility as an excuse to prevent the marriage of homosexual couples. That is a double standard, which I hope no-one will accept.

Since pretty much everyone accepts infertile heterosexual couple can marry it is incumbent on the opponents of same sex marriage to come up with a different secular reason to oppose such marriages.

Again I will refer you to heterosexual marriages. I will accept any restrictions on “sensual or hedonistic” same sex marriages as are also equally applied to “sensual and hedonistic” opposite sex marriages. You are free to apply exactly the same restrictions that currently exist for heterosexuals to homosexuals.

Can you please explain the restrictions that are currently in place for heterosexual marriages.

rossum

You have to pay attention. You asked this already and this was answered in post #59 already by sw85, and repeated in his post #77 for your benefit.

Your last sentence is ridiculous and gratuitous.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That’s a really poor argument. For one thing, we’re not talking about the government “allowing” people to marry but “extending civil recognition” to their unions. Homosexual couples are perfectly free to bugger one another all they like; they can even go into churches and exchange vows and rings and walk around telling people they’re “married” and no one can stop them. All that’s being said is that this union is not sufficiently compelling to justify certification by the state. You are saying that their happiness actually materially depends on their being issued this certificate, and moreover that happiness itself is a sufficiently compelling reason to justify issuance of it. I hope you can see the absurdity in that.

For another, this argument, followed to its logical conclusion, would justify the government handing out endless amounts to stuff to anyone who claims their happiness depends on it. Where does it end?

Excellent post. You know, I was just thinking about your question in the end, wondering why it seems that homosexualists act or sound as if homosexual ‘marriage’ would be the be-all and end-all of their wants/needs. They have yet to prove that homosexual ‘marriage’ has a material, valid social purpose towards the common good, although they have had undeserved successes with activist judges and misguided legislators in some states.

I went back to a post by rossum, which he directed to Elizabeth.

So? Are you going to ban adoption by married couples because the children aren’t conceived by both parents.

There is no current requirement in heterosexual marriage that all children be genetically related to both parents. There is no legal ban on using a sperm donor if the husband is infertile. Why do you suddenly find these things problematical in a same-sex couple when they are not a problem with opposite-sex couples?

rossum

This may have been obvious all along, but what homosexualists really want is unencumbered access to children as afforded by technology (and willing egg donors and wombs for hire) or adoption of children by homosexual couples. It would appear that this is really the motivation behind the push for homosexual ‘marriage.’

They want children, which they can’t have on their own. Homosexuals already know they can “bugger one another all they like” and stage weddings and play house. But legalized homosexual ‘marriages’ paves the future for them through children who would feel or be beholden to them. Assuming no abuse takes place, adult children could or would look after them in old age. If homosexual parenting models the ideal heterosexual parenting, love and affection between a non-biological homosexual parent and the adopted grown child is possible. Never mind if the children grow up with unwanted psycho-social issues themselves, as social scientists predict.

Homosexuals recognize that those in marriages and long term unions would end up old and alone, if they don’t predecease their spouses or partners. Those with children have a built-in advantage in old age, the advantage for all other parents in society, actually, with society’s historical promotion of traditional marriages geared for raising children.

As rossum declared, he “expects many countries and US states to change their secular laws to allow either same sex marriage or some equivalent civil union for same sex couples” preferably in his lifetime. What can the rest of us say about the march to legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ everywhere?

I say: something smells, something is rotten, in Denmark. Funny, how that saying came about, considering that it is the country which was first in legalizing same sex partnerships (has same legal effects as marriage) in the world in 1989! Ever since, the Danish Parliament has been mired in sorting legislative battles over adoption and artificial insemination.

If the same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized in the whole country, what would ensue from said social experiment just so a segment of the population is happy would be, just to name a few, new and massively changed family (and divorce!) laws, new definitions to hate speech, further polarization on first amendment issues, more legislation and court battles, etc. Lawyers would be so pleased!
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please remember that I am Buddhist, so appeals to God or similar will not be accepted.

Even though the title/subject of this thread is “The Secular Case…,” the fact remains that this is a Catholic forum, and faithful Catholics conform ourselves to an understanding of how universal, permeating divine law applies to the secular realm. There is no division. This holds true for us whether particular individuals believe in God, believe in another religion or some philosophy, or believe in nothing.

 

[rossum]

Homosexual couples are perfectly free to bugger one another all they like;

It is also the case that heterosexual couples are free to indulge in buggery if they so wish. That is not seen as an impediment to heterosexual marriage, so I fail to see why it should be seen as an impediment to half of homosexual marriages. Lesbians are less likely to indulge in buggery than heterosexuals. Are you arguing for the encouragement of lesbian marriage above heterosexual marriage? If not then your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

All that’s being said is that this union is not sufficiently compelling to justify certification by the state. You are saying that their happiness actually materially depends on their being issued this certificate, and moreover that happiness itself is a sufficiently compelling reason to justify issuance of it. I hope you can see the absurdity in that.

Happiness can depend on equal treatment. Happiness can depend on being allowed to visit your long term partner in hospital. Happiness can depend on social recognition. I hope you are not saying that marriage has no effect at all on the happiness of participants in a marriage.

We use sex as a proxy for fertility because fertility itself cannot be measured in a manner that isn’t arbitrary or grossly intrusive.

Look at a woman’s birthday. If it was more than seventy years ago then she is infertile. People already have to give their date of birth to get a marriage licence anyway. That is not currently seen as intrusive.

rossum

 

[sw85]

It is also the case that heterosexual couples are free to indulge in buggery if they so wish. That is not seen as an impediment to heterosexual marriage, so I fail to see why it should be seen as an impediment to half of homosexual marriages. Lesbians are less likely to indulge in buggery than heterosexuals. Are you arguing for the encouragement of lesbian marriage above heterosexual marriage? If not then your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

In other words, freedom is not enough; choice must be endorsed by government handout.

Happiness can depend on equal treatment.

This is highly circular reasoning. You say gays have a right to get married because they have a right to be happy, then explain that their right to be happy is applicable here because they have a right to be married.

The notion that gays are being treated inequitably assumes a priori that there is a right to “gay marriage.” You have yet to establish that. If there isn’t such a right, than the law is quite equitable: gays, like heterosexuals, must marry someone of the opposite sex.

Happiness can depend on being allowed to visit your long term partner in hospital.

I suggest gay couples denied hospital visitation without cause take that up with the hospital (and, if necessary, a lawyer).

Happiness can depend on social recognition.

Why does this require a marriage certificate? And doesn’t this mean the government is effectively held hostage to anyone who claims “my happiness depends on it”? This slope is slippery, indeed.

I hope you are not saying that marriage has no effect at all on the happiness of participants in a marriage.

I am certainly saying there is nothing innate to civil marriage that imbues people with happiness. And I am saying there is something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks so.

Look at a woman’s birthday. If it was more than seventy years ago then she is infertile. People already have to give their date of birth to get a marriage licence anyway. That is not currently seen as intrusive.

rossum

It is, as I said, completely arbitrary. There is nothing intrinsic to the age of 70 itself that causes infertility. The relationship is at best probabilistic and correlational.

We use sex as a proxy for fertility because it is, at once, not arbitrary (because it is reasonable, in the absence of further evidence, to assume that same-sex couples are infertile and heterosexual couples are fertile, because that is their natural state) and not invasive.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It is also the case that heterosexual couples are free to indulge in buggery if they so wish. That is not seen as an impediment to heterosexual marriage, so I fail to see why it should be seen as an impediment to half of homosexual marriages. Lesbians are less likely to indulge in buggery than heterosexuals. Are you arguing for the encouragement of lesbian marriage above heterosexual marriage? If not then your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your first sentence is true, but the practice, according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Sexual Behavior is not high among heterosexuals. According to the National Institute of Health and British Medical Journal, the practice of anal sex is prevalent, in fact, the favored sex act of homosexuals. Not surprising, is it?You may not like to read or hear the comment, but it is true and indeed relevant. Homosexuals are free to perform their favored sex act as much as they want, and they can’t say they are not free to do so, or they are being prevented by anyone. What they can’t force is for all of society to regard it as normal and ordered for procreation. Its practitioners do it for no purpose but sensual pleasure. Period.

As to lesbians, while the practice is less likely done by them, as you said, they are known to perform the creative equivalent to it. It is routinely done by not a few. No need to be graphic here but it is likewise reported and self-reported data is easily accessible.

To state as if the ability of heterosexuals to engage in anal sex should be an impediment issue to heterosexual marriages because anti-gay ‘marriage’ folks point to the purposeless sex act of homosexuals, and to ask if anyone should be encouraging lesbian ‘marriage’ above heterosexual marriage are again ridiculous and gratuitous.

Happiness can depend on equal treatment. Happiness can depend on being allowed to visit your long term partner in hospital. Happiness can depend on social recognition. I hope you are not saying that marriage has no effect at all on the happiness of participants in a marriage.

I don’t see what you could be complaining about. Where you live, civil partnerships, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, are a form of union which give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner’s children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one’s partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others.

Society, including in your country, already recognizes homosexual couples as individuals who wish to spend their lives together. Who is standing outside their door to prevent this or to harass them for living together? What practical rights are being denied them at work and every aspect of life in the community?

Your bellyaching is too much.
,

 

[rossum]

Your first sentence is true, but the practice, according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Sexual Behavior is not high among heterosexuals.

We are agreed that this particular sexual practice should not be seen as an impediment to two people getting married.

I don’t see what you could be complaining about. Where you live, civil partnerships, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, are a form of union which give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.

Correct. What I am complaining about is places where such civil partnerships are not available. It does not particularly matter to me whether the exact word “marriage” is used, as long as the legal status is identical.

What is not an issue here in the UK, but is in the US, is that the individual States are constitutionally obliged to recognise marriages performed in other States. They are not obliged to recognise civil partnerships performed in other States. Until that is changed, then in the US there will be a real legal difference between a marriage and a civil partnership. It can be resolved by either allowing same sex marriage, or by extending recognition of civil partnerships across all States. For example a marriage performed in Illinois is legally recognised in Texas. A civil union performed in Illinois is not legally recognised in Texas. That is a real legal difference between civil union and marriage in the US.

rossum