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

[CHRISTINE77]

Huh?

If two men decide to have sex with each other, they are both potentially opening themselves up to health risks. They can take steps to protect themselves, though they are not perfect, but they have voluntarily taken on a known risk.

If a brother and a sister have sex, they could create a baby with severe genetic malformations, therefore an incestuous couple is putting the burden of risk onto someone else.

If a gay couple having sex put MY or YOUR health at risk, we would have standing to prevent it, but it doesn’t. Incest is a different story.

HUH? If a brother and sister use a condom, they won’t have a baby. However, it is morally wrong.

Gay men who have unprotected sex and then have sex with a women (or another man) are giving the third party sexual disease. This happens quite frequently, especially in third world countries. That’s wrong too.

 

[Lethe]

1. Children thrive and do better in society with BOTH parents. Men and women complement each other in the family. Kids learn some things from their mothers, others from their fathers. They need two-parent household, one man, one woman.
   **2. Gays have a much higher risk of HIV/AIDS (44x more than heterosexual males) and other STDs. They are also at risk for certain cancers, especially anal cancers, which are almost nonexistant in non-gay men.
2. Homosexual acts are more harmful to health than smoking. Active homosexuals have shorter lifespans than smokers.
3. Heterosexual marriages improve health.**
4. Gays are 14x more likely to attempt suicide, 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.

2+3, as well as being incredibly controversial stats, are not true for lesbians. Lesbians are less likely to get STDs than heterosexual couples. ‘gay’ does not = homosexual men only. Besides which, if homosexual men are ‘married,’ they will probably not be having sexual contact with other people than their partner, and therefore less likely to be catching STDs. This argument only holds up if you assume the gay couples will not be having sex if they are not married, or that marriage would promote it. Which is simply not true - if promiscuous and unmarried, the risk to their health will be larger.

4 - where did that come from?! Actually, the most recent study shows heterosexual men supposedly live longer if married, but heterosexual women live less long. Or do you mean mentally (i.e. sexual immorality, inversion etc) - which is not really something you can approach objectively, and I am sure mental health in general, for most people, improves with companionship.

All of which actually says, health-wise, a woman is healthier homosexual, and a man heterosexual(!)
But gay marriage or lack of shouldn’t be based on physical health.

Where I live (UK,) civil partnerships are allowed but are not called marriage. That is fine by me. Marriage has a long history and religious ties that I think it is just too messy for gay people to get tangled up in. They can still get the ceremony, the public declaration to spend the rest of their lives together.

The rational reasons for not haing gay marriage would, I guess, be that male/female complement each other, and that a m/f relationship can bring forth children.

 

[chrysostim83]

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

Just a heads up: these statistics come from a study (if you can bring yourself to call it that) by Paul Cameron who, to put it mildly, has a reputation for misrepresenting research into homosexuality.

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

Always look at the footnotes. This study was carried out almost 30 years ago, so it represents sexual behaviors (1) before the AIDS epidemic in (2) the nearly forgotten world of the gay ghetto. It can hardly be taken as representative of homosexual behavior nowadays.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Thanks for the heads up chrysostim. I didn’t know about Cameron, but he’s not the only person cited. That article was written back in 2004 so many of the studies are a bit dated. Alot of them are from the 90’s. There are a few places in that article that mention the different statistics prior and subsequent to the AIDS epidemic. I don’t know how believable those statistics are, but then again I’m not really sure how believable any statistics are. I guess I’ll just retract my position to saying “if these health risks are true, then they are relevant” Anyway thanks for pointing Cameron out to me, I’ll look in to him and keep a watch out.

 

[atassina]

**

Moreover as marriage is reduced more and more to a big fancy wedding and continual cohabitation, it will continually be seen as entirely optional until society starts looking at it wondering why we have the institution at all.

**

Thank you for this perceptive insight. From this one talking point I could develop much. Hats off to you.

 

[atassina]

The article. . . went on to conclude that marriage doesn’t civilize men, women civilize men.

The article came to the correct assumption. At least two of my friends have told me that they would be either dead or in prison if it weren’t for their wives. Men need women. Women need men.

 

[atassina]

The difference is that homosexual behavior puts at risk only those who choose to participate, and presumably they know (or should know) what those risks are. On the other hand, the risks involved with incest are borne by someone else.

You are correct. However, incest is not a natural or functional part of marriage. Incest is not a consequence of marriage; rather, incest is a disfunction, an aberration of marriage. Therefore, the fact does not apply to or justify the argument for homosexual unions.

 

[atassina]

. . .If a gay couple having sex put MY or YOUR health at risk, we would have standing to prevent it, but it doesn’t. Incest is a different story.

People, homosexual or heterosexual, who volunteer to have aids or any other sexually related disease by engaging in risky social-sexual behavior put my health at risk. Sexual intercourse is a social act and requires a social response. Therefore, I as a member of society am involved in their seemingly personal sex act. Don’t ask me to condone or legislatively support disordered behavior.

 

[Seeker2010]

People, homosexual or heterosexual, who volunteer to have aids or any other sexually related disease by engaging in risky social-sexual behavior put my health at risk.

Not only is that one of the single most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen written on this board, it’s also simply false.

If YOU do not have sex with them after they have become infected, there is no possible way for you to become infected, too. And if you’re not infected, your health is not at risk. AIDS is not an airborne infection, and you can’t get it from a toilet seat.

Therefore, I as a member of society am involved in their seemingly personal sex act.

How, exactly, is this so? How are you involved if your neighbors have sex, assuming it’s done in such a way to keep it private?

 

[atassina]

Thanks for the heads up chrysostim. I didn’t know about Cameron, but he’s not the only person cited. That article was written back in 2004 so many of the studies are a bit dated. Alot of them are from the 90’s. There are a few places in that article that mention the different statistics prior and subsequent to the AIDS epidemic. I don’t know how believable those statistics are, but then again I’m not really sure how believable any statistics are. I guess I’ll just retract my position to saying “if these health risks are true, then they are relevant” Anyway thanks for pointing Cameron out to me, I’ll look in to him and keep a watch out.

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?

 

[atassina]

Not only is that one of the single most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen written on this board, it’s also simply false.

If YOU do not have sex with them after they have become infected, there is no possible way for you to become infected, too. And if you’re not infected, your health is not at risk. AIDS is not an airborne infection, and you can’t get it from a toilet seat.

How, exactly, is this so? How are you involved if your neighbors have sex, assuming it’s done in such a way to keep it private?

Point 1) People who join the military volunteer to die for their country if it happens. People who engage in risky sexual behavior volunteer to die for that momentary rush. Do I need to spell it out any further? The only difference is that soldiers die with honor and not selfish motives.

Point 2) If sex is not a social act, would you approve stopping all government funding for any sex disease? Yes or no?

 

[Seeker2010]

Do I need to spell it out any further?

Yeah, ya do, 'cause I haven’t got the first clue what you’re trying to say.

Point 2) If sex is not a social act, would you approve stopping all government funding for any sex disease? Yes or no?

Why?

 

[Mamanurse]

This is a hard one to refute without pointing out that the institution of Marriage was brought to light by those of religious beliefs. Marriage as stated in the bible is for man to woman. The problem that I have with allowing gay marriage is to admit that what I believe in the bible means nothing. Not to mention the fact that the main purpose of intercourse and sexual relations are to procreate…obviously, as we catholics are aware that it is also Unitive as well. I just don’t see a way to express the obvious disconnect from what a religious Marriage is vs a sexual union of homosexuals. While I understand that men and women in homosexual relationships feel a sense of friendship and closeness with eachother, I just feel that a true Marriage should be for what, I believe, God intended it to be…a fruitful relationship between a man and woman who are open to life.

 

[atassina]

Seeker2010:

Does “Why” mean Yes or No?

 

[Mamanurse]

Point 1) People who join the military volunteer to die for their country if it happens. People who engage in risky sexual behavior volunteer to die for that momentary rush. Do I need to spell it out any further? The only difference is that soldiers die with honor and not selfish motives.

Point 2) If sex is not a social act, would you approve stopping all government funding for any sex disease? Yes or no?

I have to say that both of these are horrible examples of what you trying to say, which honestly I am not sure what you are trying to say. But our military men and woman are not engaging in risky behaviors for their own benefit…they are PROTECTING our country! My husband is a US Marine and would have been proud to die PROTECTING his country, getting a rush has nothing to do with this. This is a HUGE difference from what you are comparing.

As far as sex being a social act, thats streching it pretty far. Yes, its social if the individuals don’t take responsibility for their actions and sleep with anyone breathing. I feel sad that my neighbors are two gay men who, regardless of having more than 20 heart stents placed, continue to smoke, drink and party.,…but I don’t feel that their sex is part of my “society”. IDK, maybe I am misunderstanding you…

My personal opinion about gays in general is to cringe about the thought of the activities they do, but unfortunately our society has made these relationships completely normalized. It is now we, who still have regard for the true concept of a christian marriage that are now being made fun of. IDK…there is just now good way to argue gay marriage without religion being referenced. Very frustrating

 

[atassina]

This is a hard one to refute without pointing out that the institution of Marriage was brought to light by those of religious beliefs. Marriage as stated in the bible is for man to woman. The problem that I have with allowing gay marriage is to admit that what I believe in the bible means nothing. Not to mention the fact that the main purpose of intercourse and sexual relations are to procreate…obviously, as we catholics are aware that it is also Unitive as well. I just don’t see a way to express the obvious disconnect from what a religious Marriage is vs a sexual union of homosexuals. While I understand that men and women in homosexual relationships feel a sense of friendship and closeness with eachother, I just feel that a true Marriage should be for what, I believe, God intended it to be…a fruitful relationship between a man and woman who are open to life.

Mamanurse:

I am not asking you to deny our religious beliefs. Rather, we need to develop a set of reasons or a logical basis for our particular belief in one man, one woman marriage, and a rationale for our opposition to so called “homosexual marriages”. The purpose is to give a reasoned argument to convince non-religious or anti-religious people that marriage should stay as it always has.

We are not arguing for laws against homosexual behavior; rather, we are promoting the common good. In essence, we are against all disordered behavior which would include lying, stealing, fornication and other disordered behaviors.

Most likely our final conclusions will come from natural law reasoning that includes the common good concepts.

 

[Mamanurse]

Mamanurse:

I am not asking you to deny our religious beliefs. Rather, we need to develop a set of reasons or a logical basis for our particular belief in one man, one woman marriage, and a rationale for our opposition to so called “homosexual marriages”. The purpose is to give a reasoned argument to convince non-religious or anti-religious people that marriage should stay as it always has.

We are not arguing for laws against homosexual behavior; rather, we are promoting the common good. In essence, we are against all disordered behavior which would include lying, stealing, fornication and other disordered behaviors.

Most likely our final conclusions will come from natural law reasoning that includes the common good concepts.

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.

 

[Adam1986]

Are there natural law arguments that prohibit “gay marriage”? How can we demonstrate that “gay marriage” is bad for society without using theology or scripture?

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.

 

[Adam1986]

This is an argument against allowing gay couples to adopt, not against gay marriage.

This is an argument against promiscuous unprotected sex, not against gay marriage.

In the first place, you’re arguing against homosexual acts, here, not marriage specifically. And in the second place, the practice you pick as a comparison – smoking – is perfectly legal.

This is an argument from heterosexuals to get married, not against gay marriage.

Again, this does not speak to gay marriage as an issue.

You don’t seem to understand the first thing about argumentation.

THIS.

 

[Adam1986]

1. Children thrive and do better in society with BOTH parents. Men and women complement each other in the family. Kids learn some things from their mothers, others from their fathers. They need two-parent household, one man, one woman.
   Not all marriages have children whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
2. Gays have a much higher risk of HIV/AIDS (44x more than heterosexual males) and other STDs. They are also at risk for certain cancers, especially anal cancers, which are almost nonexistant in non-gay men.
   How is that relevant to marriage? Also the higher instances come from many sexual partners. If someone is married, they will most likely be in a mongomous relationship.
3. Homosexual acts are more harmful to health than smoking. Active homosexuals have shorter lifespans than smokers.
   Again that has nothing to do with marriage. However can you please quote your source on that one?
4. Heterosexual marriages improve health.
   It’s not that heteerosexual marriages improve health, it’s that marriages in general improve health.
5. Gays are 14x more likely to attempt suicide, 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.
   AGAIN nothing to do with marriages. And btw the reason why gay people are more likely to commit suicide is because of the hatred that they face from people on a daily basis. I’m NOT saying that you’re hateful; I’m just making this point because you mentioned suicides.

More info: catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

I’ve also read that 75% of gay men come from homes without fathers. They end up needing and seeking male approval in sexual ways. Gays need counselling and a positive male influence/role model, not to be having sex with other men (bad health effects).
THAT’S NOT TRUE AT ALL!! Wow, OK sorry for the yelling, but that is one of the most outrageous claims I have ever heard about why men are gay. I come from a home with a loving and supportive father as does my boyfriend. I personally don’t know of any gay men who come from homes with no fathers. I know a few who come from a divorce; but their fathers were and still are in the picture. Though I’m sure there are many gay men who have no fathers. Just as there are many straight men who have no fathers. But it’s no where near 75%! Where did you read that???