What are the non-religious positions against "gay marriage"?

[PassingThru]

I understood what the purpose of this thread was, I was just saying that it is difficult to convince a non-religious person without bringing up our catholic theology. Thats all.

I find it interesting that when confronted by those who disagree that gay marriage should be illegal, it is so easy to throw them into a “non-religious” or “anti-religion” category. I would hope you (and others) can see how people can support the rights of others, even if we personally disagree with the behavior. Certainly you are aware that the Catholic population supports the rights of gays to marry in roughly the same proportions as the general population, yes? And that it is around half, and rising by the day, yes?

Its about the same as someone professing that all Catholics are anti-gay bigots. Just lump everyone together, much easier that way.

(Not direct to you personally, just an observation from many different posters here)

 

[rossum]

Certainly you are aware that the Catholic population supports the rights of gays to marry in roughly the same proportions as the general population, yes? And that it is around half, and rising by the day, yes?

Proposition 8 passed by about 52% to 48%. Think what the proportions would have been if the vote had been held 20 years ago or 50 years ago. I suspect that in another 20 years the Catholic opposition to gay marriage or civil partnerships will be in about the same state as the Catholic opposition to divorce and condoms is now.

rossum

 

[Mamanurse]

I find it interesting that when confronted by those who disagree that gay marriage should be illegal, it is so easy to throw them into a “non-religious” or “anti-religion” category. I would hope you (and others) can see how people can support the rights of others, even if we personally disagree with the behavior. Certainly you are aware that the Catholic population supports the rights of gays to marry in roughly the same proportions as the general population, yes? And that it is around half, and rising by the day, yes?

Its about the same as someone professing that all Catholics are anti-gay bigots. Just lump everyone together, much easier that way.

(Not direct to you personally, just an observation from many different posters here)

I have to say that I don’t care what the cafeteria catholics are supporting these days, there are still some catholics who say that they themselves wouldn’t have an abortion, but wouldn’t bat an eye to someone who did have one. Your statement, if true, only goes to show the ever rising immorality of our society. I guess when I post here, I am posting from my understanding of the church teaches…I can’t speak for everyone else. No lumping here…

 

[Mamanurse]

Proposition 8 passed by about 52% to 48%. Think what the proportions would have been if the vote had been held 20 years ago or 50 years ago. I suspect that in another 20 years the Catholic opposition to gay marriage or civil partnerships will be in about the same state as the Catholic opposition to divorce and condoms is now.

rossum

Again, only goes to show how the influence of immoral behavior has been seeped into the minds of the faithful. When I was young, I was proud to be a catholic, when I left the church I made fun of catholics for things they believed, when I finally smelled the coffee and returned, I realized what I had missed…a center to build my moral compass.

 

[vontroster]

Here is a link where marriage is defended from a legal standpoint in one of the best arguments I’ve read.

cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

 

[Mater]

Honestly you can’t. There is nothing that anyone can say to someone to try and say that gay marriage is wrong if you’re not going to bring up religion. The only reason why people are against gay marriage is because of their religious beliefs.

Adam, this is not true. People have argued from a non-religious standpoint. Including gay people. Please see the link I gave at the beginning of this thread. Heterosexual bonding has many benefits to society. Proponents must be able to articulate the benefits to SOCIETY of licensing and providing special benefits to same gender bonding, not just to the individuals concerned. We don’t license long term committed friendships, though they certainly exist in our society. Why not?

 

[chrysostim83]

Why would the date of the study matter if the behavior has not changed? Are homosexual men simply pairing off and living chaste lives together? Or are the still engaged in sexual behavior that involves multiple sexual partners? Do the gay newspapers still have “social” advertisements in which men describe themselves as “I have a big mushroom head”? Do you think that man really grows mushrooms?

It’s an interesting point, but the problem is if all we quote is the old study, then we are not in a position to know if the behavior has changed or, if it has, by how much. It’s not as if gay men were a separate species, so that you could carry out one study once and then know how they will behave forever. No, they’re just like the rest of the human species: the pattern of their sexual behaviors emerges out of a complex combination between their freedom and the myriad of conditions that qualify that freedom. But if any of those conditions have changed (and it is very likely that more than a few have changed already) then the statistics of the past will not have much to say to the present.

 

[atassina]

They engage in the same behavior as they did during the fall of the Roman empire. The behavior and how it relates to society is the issue.

 

[chrysostim83]

They engage in the same behavior as they did during the fall of the Roman empire. The behavior and how it relates to society is the issue.

Of course it’s true that homosexuals engage in homosexuality. That’s almost a tautology. The point at issue was the grounds for holding that homosexuals are more promiscuous than anyone else. An old study (by Bell and Weinberg and possibly someone else, but in any case dating from 1982) was cited by an article on Catholic Answers to show that this is the case; my objection is that an old study cannot be relied on for this kind of time-sensitive statistic.

I don’t want to divert the flow of this thread. It just seemed worthwhile to point out what’s wrong with quoting Bell and Weinberg on rates of promiscuity among gay men. Don’t get me wrong. You could probably find current statistics that show that certain gay men are more promiscuous than anybody else. But choosing to quote Bell and Weinberg rather than the current data reveals a preference for sensational talking-points over sober truth.

 

[atassina]

Are there any new scientific studies?

 

[jmj603]

Are there any new scientific studies?

I would argue that the burden of proof is reversed here.

Marriage is the universal norm and tradition. We know that societies based on marriage work well enough to get us this far. Shouldn’t the onus be on those seeking to radically alter the definition?

What is it about homosexual sex that is worthy of legal and social protection? (Can we even define “homosexual sex”?) If there is anything worthy of legal and social protection, does it rise to the level of the protection granted to marriage?

 

[atassina]

I agree. However, the burden of proof has shifted to the people who support traditional marriage. Why? Because many say, “Who’s it going to hurt?”