The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

[rossum]

You don’t have a prayer if you will maintain that the childlessness of an older man and woman married to each other is consistent with or is in the same category of childlessness of two men or two women who insist they have a claim to marriage.

I do not see the split you are proposing as valid. Where would you categorise a younger couple who are infertile for non-age related reasons?

Childlessness is childlessness for the point of view of the state, which is what we are discussing here. The state is not interested in the cause of the childlessness, just its existence.

Why should the state treat one childless couple differently from another childless couple?

rossum

 

[babylonsfalling]

Found this article today, it’s a few years old, but I think it’s still relevant. In debate with supporters of gay marriage who wish to make religion irrelevant, these are some interesting points to make.

Read the entire article here: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

One point the article makes is that homosexual marriages are not of interest to the state because homosexual unions are inherently sterile and cannot provide the state with any benefits (children). This would in turn, cost the state money, as the state would be required to give the homosexual couple the financial benefits of marriage, without having a child to invest in.

There are several other points made in the article that are very interesting to note. Please read the article in its entirety (it’s not too terribly long) and post your thoughts. Is any of it news to you, or is it all pretty much common knowledge?

I think the most obvious secular reason for society to not allow gay marriage and not do anything else to condone homosexual activity is the disease levels that go hand in hand with homosexual activity. And I’m not just talking about aids. They have all kinds of diseases that the average hetero never even hears of and the fact is they get these diseases over and over again. They deal with this all their lives and end up dying off on average about 20 years earlier than the average hetero.

I know all these diseases can be caught by heteros but the fact is, it isn’t happening that way when you look realistically at the numbers. 1 to 3 percent of the population are homosexuals but these folks are responsible for nearly 50% of the aids cases.

That’s all any sensible person needs to know in order to oppose gay marriage.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I do not see the split you are proposing as valid. Where would you categorise a younger couple who are infertile for non-age related reasons?

Childlessness is childlessness for the point of view of the state, which is what we are discussing here. The state is not interested in the cause of the childlessness, just its existence.

Why should the state treat one childless couple differently from another childless couple?

rossum

The argument is valid.

As part of my post 15 reflects,

It makes sense to publicly recognize and promote the institution of marriage itself, because of its unique purpose and promise, so that men and women may be encouraged to choose that state in life. The fact that some particular marriages will never have children secondary to pathology in either the man or woman, or the normal aging process that brings about menopause in older women, is incidental to the purpose and promise of privileging the institution. After all, some couples will also lose their children through disease or accidents. The institution is privileged socially because of its purpose, which is also ordinarily fulfilled.

The state is only as good as the leader or ruling class behind it. History showed examples of how the state does not always do the right thing and can be immoral by any standard, as a matter of fact. It therefore does not deserve unqualified support. For example, physician and medical scientist Joseph Mengele conducted studies on twins in Auschwitz in the name of the state. In a grander scale, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, each committed the most evil of abuses against populations in the name of the state.

On the subject of the OP: In the U.S., the states that have legalized same sex ‘marriage’ did not do it by voting by the people, but by misguided or manipulated legislators or through activist judges who did not act for the common social good. [Please see post #20 why same sex ‘marriage’ is not for the common social good.] What does this say about the state?

Finally, let me go to the word ‘childlessness.’ Without trying to offend couples who are unintentionally infertile here, childlessness is an unfortunate condition. The continuation of society hinges on childbearing, ideally no lower than a rate of 2.1 for each couple so that there are enough children to grow up, to adequately sustain and replace parents as they age and die.

The state would serve society and its future by promoting the institution of traditional marriage, and not institutionalizing a social experiment that is by nature sterile, which no degree of youth or reproductive good health could help.

Hence, the state should not look at childlessness as just childlessness.
,

 

[rossum]

I think the most obvious secular reason for society to not allow gay marriage and not do anything else to condone homosexual activity is the disease levels that go hand in hand with homosexual activity. And I’m not just talking about aids. They have all kinds of diseases that the average hetero never even hears of and the fact is they get these diseases over and over again. They deal with this all their lives and end up dying off on average about 20 years earlier than the average hetero.

I know all these diseases can be caught by heteros but the fact is, it isn’t happening that way when you look realistically at the numbers. 1 to 3 percent of the population are homosexuals but these folks are responsible for nearly 50% of the aids cases.

That’s all any sensible person needs to know in order to oppose gay marriage.

Then you would allow lesbians to marry? The rate of STDs in lesbians is lower than that in gay men and also lower than in hetrerosexuals.

rossum

 

[rossum]

For example, physician and medical scientist Joseph Mengele conducted studies on twins in Auschwitz in the name of the state.

Godwin’s Law. You lose. You might also want to do some research into Hitler’s attitude to gays and gay marriage, in particular the origin of the pink triangle symbol.

What does this say about the state?

It says that the state is following the laws of the state and that its elected legislators, or its judges, are performing the tasks they were elected, or appointed, to do. Do you think that every decision of every state legislature should be put to a referendum? Or is it just the decisions you personally disagree with?

Hence, the state should not look at childlessness as just childlessness.

You have failed to make a case for why one childless couple should be treated differently from another childless couple.

rossum

 

[dskysmine]

I have talked to an intelligent gay man that is very informed and he thinks that gay marriage isn’t going to help the homosexuals in their struggle for equality. He doesn’t believe that putting gay couples in the same level as heterosexual couples is correct. He believes in love between two men and two women and he doesn’t agree with the Church or states that condemn homosexual activity but he agrees that gay marriage is senseless. (I’m just quoting him) He thinks that the main problem in the world today isn’t gay marriage or homosexual activity but promiscuity and the cult of the body. Homosexuals can be just as monogamous as heterosexuals but this doesn’t make them more capable of having children or making a family.

I’m not sure if he thinks that homosexuals who want to have children aren’t actually just fooling themselves about their homosexuality.

Anyways… not all homosexuals agree with gay marriage.

 

[sw85]

Then women past the menopause, and people of both sexes who are for some reason infertile, should be denied a civil marriage?

This does not seem to me to be a very good argument.

rossum

In the case of menopause, there is no objective “age of menopause” and so any determination must necessarily be either arbitrary or grossly intrusive on the government’s part.

This goes even moreso for the case of infertility, since infertility is largely probabilistic and cannot be measured without excessive invasion of privacy.

Think of it this way. Why do we have a drinking age of 21? To keep the immature from drinking. But plenty of people are immature who can legally drink, and plenty of people are younger than 21 who are highly mature. We use age as a proxy for maturity because maturity cannot be assessed without a highly intrusive process of inquiry on the government’s part. Likewise with fertility.

EDIT: All of this is of course simply a justification for the civil definition of marriage. The natural law (Catholic) definition of marriage permits the elderly and infertile to marry so long as they are capable of completing the sexual act, because morality consists in using one’s faculties in a manner consistent with their end, regardless of whether or not they are capable of achieving that end.

 

[John21652]

I did. It didn’t.

He had two arguments: 1. Such marriages are rare. 2. We can’t tell.

1 Also applied to same sex marriage. His argument is shaky when he applies it to women over the menopause. I would not be surprised if such marriages were more common, or as common, as same sex marriages.

2 Is false. We can tell in many cases, such as post menopausal women, hysterectomies and orchidectomies.

His argument also doesn’t apply to a same sex couple, one of whom has children from a previous relationship, not unknown among lesbians.

His case is weak.

rossum

And your case is weaker.

As the articles main thrust was on the social benefits of marriage, which test gay ‘marriage’ fails dismally, your shallow attempts at undermining the authors mention of side issues is to dismiss the main thrust of the article. T attempt to rebutt one of the side issues by stating " I would not be surprised…" shows how vacuous your argument really is.

The shallowness of your attempts at portraying gay ‘marriage’ as having some public interest is further displayed when you tell InSearchofGrace she has lost the argument because she mentioned a study done by a famously deviant doctor who operated during Hitler’s regime. The so called “Godwins Law” is often evoked by those whose moral relativism is brought into sharp focus and the only way they think they can refute such a comparison is by declaring that there is nothing to be learned by using one of history’s most evil regimes as an example of what moral relativism can visit upon a society.

Such a childish refusal to debate ISOG and to hide behind a rediculous ‘law’ someone on the internet’s user groups invented is tantamount to admitting your argument is trashed. You asked ISOG " Why should the state treat one childless couple differently from another childless couple?" In terms of social benefit the answer is just so obvious as to denote the question as being rather silly.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Godwin’s Law. You lose. You might also want to do some research into Hitler’s attitude to gays and gay marriage, in particular the origin of the pink triangle symbol.

You wish!

Godwin’s law, eh? I don’t think it is hyperbole that I mentioned the Nazis and Hitler. Actually, homosexuals (the noisy ones) are so taken by their drama, overstating their case that they need to have same-sex ‘marriage’ in places like the UK, Western Europe, and the U.S., where they live freely as couples with practical and legal rights, anyway, living the love that that not only speaks but now shouts its name to everyone! They embarrass those who simply wish to live quiet homosexual lives who do not insist on legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ and accept that adoptive children are better with heterosexual married couples, and humiliate those who live chastely.

As for the persecution of homosexuals under Hitler’s regime, you have further given evidence why we should not give the state unqualified support. You are the one who implied that the point of view of the state is supreme (in considering childlessness is childlessness).

It says that the state is following the laws of the state and that its elected legislators, or its judges, are performing the tasks they were elected, or appointed, to do. Do you think that every decision of every state legislature should be put to a referendum? Or is it just the decisions you personally disagree with?

No, not every decision of state legislature should be put to a referendum. But same-sex ‘marriage’ should be, IMO, as the minority is being given rights by the state that are not uplifting but degenerative to society. Reasons were already covered in posts upthread.

As for your question if I’m only picking for referendum those decisions with which I personally disagree, I will tell you: No, sir. I actually surprise quite a few with my position because I have a homosexual sibling who lived the lifestyle for a period of time in San Francisco. You might think that because of this, I should personally be on that (your) side of the argument. Defenders of homosexual behavior who are not practicing homosexuals themselves promote same-sex causes because they commiserate with the perceived suffering of and unfairness to homosexual members of their family. I love my sibling but I don’t approve of homosexual behavior and homosexual causes.

You have failed to make a case for why one childless couple should be treated differently from another childless couple.

Again, you wish! Re-read my posts 15 and 23.
,

 

[babylonsfalling]

Then you would allow lesbians to marry? The rate of STDs in lesbians is lower than that in gay men and also lower than in hetrerosexuals.

rossum

No, I wouldn’t. I’m not going by secular reasons, even though I do believe that lesbians are less at risk than male homosexuals. If both were equal I’d still be against any condoning of homosexuals marriage because it’s condemned by God. I put up a secular reason because of the title of this thread but even if homosexual activity were equal in disease rates to hetero activity…I’d still be against it.

And regarding lesbians…

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

 

[rossum]

As the articles main thrust was on the social benefits of marriage

Please indicate how the social benefits of a childless heterosexual marriage are significantly different from the social benefits of a childless homosexual marriage.

Would you have any objections to a lesbian, with children from a previous heterosexual marriage, marrying another woman? Such a marriage would not be childless.

The shallowness of your attempts at portraying gay ‘marriage’ as having some public interest

I seem to remember some Eighteenth century document talking about, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” To a gay couple, getting married may well be part of the “pursuit of happiness”; just loo at those pictures from New York yesterday. Were those couples happy? That seems to me to be enough of a public interest.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m not going by secular reasons

Then this thread is probably the wrong one for you, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (emphasis added).

You may want to contribute to one of the many other threads on the subject or to start one of your own.

rossum

 

[Nate13]

Then this thread is probably the wrong one for you, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (emphasis added).

You may want to contribute to one of the many other threads on the subject or to start one of your own.

rossum

uh did you read any of what was posted? He said he personally would still condone homosexual marriages because of his faith, but then proceeded with a large section of data from a study which you chose to ignore. You also only chose to pick out the argument amount marriages needing to be procreative in one of the original posts, and ignored the other 3 or 4 arguments that were placed forward with it. Why don’t you respond to those arguments as well, instead of continually bashing one argument against the wall and claiming you have destroyed the entire argument.

 

[babylonsfalling]

uh did you read any of what was posted? He said he personally would still condone homosexual marriages because of his faith, <—If that’s what I said, then I typoed something. but then proceeded with a large section of data from a study which you chose to ignore. You also only chose to pick out the argument amount marriages needing to be procreative in one of the original posts, and ignored the other 3 or 4 arguments that were placed forward with it. Why don’t you respond to those arguments as well, instead of continually bashing one argument against the wall and claiming you have destroyed the entire argument.

I don’t condone homosexual marriage. If I said I DO condone it, I typed it incorrectly.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Then this thread is probably the wrong one for you, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (emphasis added).

You may want to contribute to one of the many other threads on the subject or to start one of your own.

rossum

You’re probably not even qualified to say what’s right for me, or anyone else here.

A non secular person can very easily put forth secular reasons for something, especially something as obviously wrong (from both perspectives) as homosexual behavior in or out of some fake marriage scenario.

If you think it’s too difficult to think outside of your own perspective, that says a lot about you, not others. It’s not wise to presume your limits onto others. MOST people can think outside their perspective.

 

[rossum]

A non secular person can very easily put forth secular reasons for something, especially

Then by all means do so. I merely took you at your word:

I’m not going by secular reasons

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

Below is a secular article which discusses important anthropological implications to traditional marriage, which in turn have practical importance for an ordered society:

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?page=1

 

[InSearchofGrace]

… To a gay couple, getting married may well be part of the “pursuit of happiness”; just loo at those pictures from New York yesterday. Were those couples happy? That seems to me to be enough of a public interest.

rossum

What looks to you as enough of a public interest is deceptive. Undoubtedly, practicing homosexuals and promoters of homosexuality rejoice about the development in New York, where news and pictures are largely coming from the left media.

The left’s view on marriage may be evolving, but America’s is not.

*Same-sex “marriage” is not nearly as popular as the left would have us think: it’s certainly nowhere close to mainstream. And traditional marriage is not nearly as outdated.

The Alliance Defense Fund and Public Opinion Strategies announced the results of a research endeavor designed to ascertain an accurate view of the public’s opinion on marriage. After conducting more than 1,500 surveys and a scientific poll (conducted May 16 – 19 of this year), we were thrilled to find that 62 percent of Americans believe marriage should only be a union between one man and one woman.

Think about it: 62 percent (only 4 percent away from 2/3 of all Americans).

While such a high number may seem staggering to anyone who has bought into the left’s roster of seemingly endless polls showing that support for true marriage has faded to nearly nothing, the number, 62 percent, is right in line with numbers voters in various states across the nation have been providing at the ballot box since 1998.

The message this particular research communicates is simple: Americans are married to marriage. They believe in marriage as it’s always been, and they want it to remain that way.*

By the way, it looks like you missed this post where I mentioned why I feel certain legislative decisions should be affirmed or denied by referendum. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is definitely one that should be voted on by the people for good reason.
,

 

[rossum]

By the way, it looks like you missed this post where I mentioned why I feel certain legislative decisions should be affirmed or denied by referendum. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is definitely one that should be voted on by the people for good reason.

I didn’t miss it. What I missed was the objective criteria by which it is decided which legislation has to go to a referendum.

Merely because you personally, or the Catholic Church, is against something does not make it referendum-worthy. Should the allowing of divorce in civil marriage have been put to a referendum for instance?

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I didn’t miss it. What I missed was the objective criteria by which it is decided which legislation has to go to a referendum.

Merely because you personally, or the Catholic Church, is against something does not make it referendum-worthy. Should the allowing of divorce in civil marriage have been put to a referendum for instance?

rossum

Divorce is an unfortunate social issue but it is not necessarily immoral, not intrinsically evil. Same sex behavior (acts) is always immoral and intrinsically disordered, a sin. Just explaining what the CC teaches for you to understand why she would not deem divorce as a comparable referendum matter.

I guess we have to disagree on SSM being referendum worthy. The objective criteria was fully discussed which you just don’t accept. It does not lead to the social common good, whereas homosexuals insist on an unnecessary need for SSM simply for adult desire and to normalize what is not normal.

It is not just me or the CC who who would think the issue is referendum worthy. Many Christians and non-Christians would.

images.rnews.com/media/2011/7/24/images/marriage_opprallyfcf8cc25-155c-44f0-b389-c12bfa5d2f41.jpg

Protesters Rally Against Gay Marriage

While many same-sex couples are celebrating Sunday’s legalization of gay marriage, others are not. Members of the organization “Let the People Vote” are rallying in cities across the state and in Rochester protesting same-sex marriage legislation.

“We the people want to have a chance to vote on this issue. We think the legislature should put it before the people to vote and let the people decide on an issue of this magnitude,” said Duane Motley, organizer.
…
Duane Motley believes the Marriage Equality Bill was pushed too fast through the legislature. He would like to see it repealed.

“They didn’t even allow legislators to debate the issue on the floor. They didn’t allow legislators to explain their vote. They rammed it through, so they could make the 11 o’clock news,” said Motley.
…