Homosexual Marriage?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Philwelch » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:31 pm UTC

Fine, I overstated. The point remains: the federal government has fuck all to do with who can get legally married. It's a state issue. We live in a federal system. If you have a legal marriage under California or Massachusetts law, even a gay marriage, all the federal laws about income taxes and shit will apply to you. It's not that federal law doesn't involve marriage, it's that federal law has fuck all to do with whether gay marriages are legal or not (aside from DOMA).
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
vordhosbn
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:16 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby vordhosbn » Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:08 am UTC

This is my attempt to make a contribution other than "Oh me yarm homophobs r gay! lol", submitted here for your brief reading pleasure :)

Because women and men share equal status as persons under the law, the legal distinction between the two groups becomes irrelevant. As such, a marriage may be defined not as a partnership between a man and a woman but between two persons. A ruling that bans gay marriage must assume that there is some legal difference between men and women and thus any ruling to restrict gay marriage should be viewed as based on legal fallacy.
Ego Custodiam Ipsos Custodet

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby cspirou » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:39 pm UTC

What is the non-religious case against gay marriage?

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this. I believe that any religious or traditionalist argument for a ban on gay marriage is doomed to failure. Neither are supported by the constitution. The only one I can think of is because gay people can have kids biologically so you can't really treat them as a "family" in that sense.

Just so you know my position on gay marriage is one that pisses off everyone. In a sense it's the democratic position. I am 100% for civil unions but I don't really care if they can actually get married. If the argument is about legal rights, sharing property, adoption and so on then I see no reason why they cannot have those rights just because they are the same sex. Even though I have no problem with homosexuals I do think it's unusual. So from that point of view the marriage aspect is that it's accepted as a normal occurrence. More of a symbolic fight then one where they gain rights. My reasons to think it's unusual is biological. Propagation of the species involves different sexes. I fully admit that these are pre-conceived biases I hold. You can argue that my line of thinking is because it's been institutionalized and that in 100 years gay relationships will not raise an eyebrow just like interracial ones don't either(at least in most places). Also that homosexuality was generally accepted in societies like ancient Greece. But a lot of people believe that people are generally against homosexuality for religious reasons. If I hold these views then I can certainly extrapolate an assume that there are non-religious people who have a very negative view about homosexuality. If that exists then there will certainly be a non-religious legal case against it.

That being said I'm also voting "NO" on prop 8.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby segmentation fault » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:52 pm UTC

as far as your argument is concerned: marriage isnt necessarily about procreation, and what about the straight couples who are incapable of conceiving?

personally i have not heard a valid argument against gay marriage from either a religious or secular perspective. maybe there is one out there, but i havent heard it.

p.s. the only way gay couples can have the same rights as straight married couples is if you call it 'marriage.' insurance companies can deny covering a spouse unless you are 'married'. 'civil union' doesnt cut it. a little semantics can go a long way.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Angua » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:55 pm UTC

The only non-religious arguement I can think of is that homophobic people don't like the idea, and think that if it is made public it will cause more people to become homosexuals. If you are going to accept that they can have civil unions and have the same rights as married couples (hospital visits, inheritance, etc) then why not let them be married? Lots of people these days are married, but not done so in a Church, are they any less than those who are married by a priest? I don't think that homosexuals should complain about the religious sects that won't let them get married, as they should just find a sect that does. However, I think that it is unfair not to let them be married. As they can adopt and also use IVF they can have families, unless you also believe that sterile couples should not be allowed to marry. Also, as homosexuals are allowed to get married in other countries (like Canada). The UK allows Civil Partnerships which is a marriage in all but name (same legal privileges), and I suspect the name change was to pacify all the people who don't agree with marriage.

*edit, ninja'd by segmentation fault
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby seladore » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:58 pm UTC

So tl;dr -

Prejudice.

I'm not sure what you are saying here... gay people shouldn't marry because it's unusual, and can't procreate with one another? What about abstinent / infertile couples?

If you are just playing devil's advocate, then I'll just say I am not aware of any good reason to deny gay people marriage rights. All the reasons I have heard have been thinly veiled prejudice and hatred.

User avatar
Mancho
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:51 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Mancho » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:44 pm UTC

I think an appropriate question/response is, from a secular perspective, what is the purpose of marriage? Tax breaks? Benefits? There are a few issues at stake. (from a purely American perspective)

1) Traditionally, only one person in a marriage has a paying job. The (US) government seeks/sought to help these couples by offering tax breaks. Same goes for benefits.
2) Marriage also has the added benifit of procreation (in most cases). This helps the government in the long run by increasing taxes collected by said government. (i.e. when the kids get older, they pay taxes) So it's in the government's interest to aid families.

It's already been a long day so I'll leave it at these most obvious arguments. So this leads to some other questions. If gay marriage is legal, what reason would there be for tax breaks and benefits for married couples? Am I missing something obvious?

User avatar
Liet Kynes
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:44 am UTC
Location: My spoon is too big...MY SPOON IS TOO BIG!

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Liet Kynes » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:57 pm UTC

my philosophy is "If it doesn't effect me go ahead," why should I care?

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby segmentation fault » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:04 pm UTC

Mancho wrote:It's already been a long day so I'll leave it at these most obvious arguments. So this leads to some other questions. If gay marriage is legal, what reason would there be for tax breaks and benefits for married couples? Am I missing something obvious?


A) its common for both to have jobs now, especially high paying ones.
B) its completely possible that a same sex couple has one person that either doesnt work or doesnt make that much.
C) adoption
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby TheStranger » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

Mancho wrote:I think an appropriate question/response is, from a secular perspective, what is the purpose of marriage? Tax breaks? Benefits? There are a few issues at stake. (from a purely American perspective)

1) Traditionally, only one person in a marriage has a paying job. The (US) government seeks/sought to help these couples by offering tax breaks. Same goes for benefits.
2) Marriage also has the added benifit of procreation (in most cases). This helps the government in the long run by increasing taxes collected by said government. (i.e. when the kids get older, they pay taxes) So it's in the government's interest to aid families.

It's already been a long day so I'll leave it at these most obvious arguments. So this leads to some other questions. If gay marriage is legal, what reason would there be for tax breaks and benefits for married couples? Am I missing something obvious?


It's important to note that those tax breaks only really come into play when there is a significant difference in the income of the married couple. Traditionally this was because the man would work a full time job and the woman would stay at home to care for the kids. As such you had a single income supporting two (or more) individuals (I know more then a few married couples who file separately because their incomes were comparable... which would make their taxes much higher if they filed jointly).
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Jessica » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:07 pm UTC

Mancho wrote:It's already been a long day so I'll leave it at these most obvious arguments. So this leads to some other questions. If gay marriage is legal, what reason would there be for tax breaks and benefits for married couples? Am I missing something obvious?

Because, just because two people are gay, doesn't mean that both are working, or that both contribute equally financially to the relationship? And, just because two people are straight, means that one person is automatically a dependant?

One can be a dependant whether one is in a marriage or not.

The best secular case I can make against gay marriage is that even if you give in to gay marriage, there will always be other people who are in non-traditional family structures who'll want legitimacy. A problematic system remains problematic even if you allow some people to be part of the majority.

Of course, personally, I think that's stupid. Just because a system is corrupt, doesn't mean we should try and make things easier for large groups of minorities while we wait for the system to be fixed.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Mancho
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:51 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Mancho » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:39 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:
Mancho wrote:It's already been a long day so I'll leave it at these most obvious arguments. So this leads to some other questions. If gay marriage is legal, what reason would there be for tax breaks and benefits for married couples? Am I missing something obvious?

Because, just because two people are gay, doesn't mean that both are working, or that both contribute equally financially to the relationship? And, just because two people are straight, means that one person is automatically a dependant?

One can be a dependant whether one is in a marriage or not.


That's why I said "traditionally." In a "traditional" marriage, the woman would stay home and raise children. Hence the pay disparity is not just a disparity, but one person making an income, and one not (and of course the added cost of raising children). Conversly, there is little reason why both people in a gay relationship wouldn't necessarily be employed, since there would be no children as a product of the relationship. (huge oversimplification, but there it is). And why should a pay disparity make a difference, since presumably that disparity would have existed before the marriage, and without children to care for, there is no reason one should be dependant.

I'm approaching this from a very simplistic view of marriage to be sure, but there are way too many variables to possibly cover them all.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby qinwamascot » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:41 pm UTC

Liet Kynes wrote:my philosophy is "If it doesn't effect me go ahead," why should I care?


So you'd be fine with discrimination against minorities so long as it doesn't affect you? I understand your point, but I think this might need clarification.

The best secular case I can make against gay marriage is that even if you give in to gay marriage, there will always be other people who are in non-traditional family structures who'll want legitimacy.


is that really a problem? So long as it doesn't cross into marrying non-consenting people, I don't see a problem. And there isn't a slippery slope because there's a definite line between who legally can consent to marriage (adults and in some cases minors with parental permission) and who can't (children, animals, etc).

As for the OP, I have a friend who claims it will undermine the sanctity of marriage as a tradition, but he has no problems with civil unions. That being said, that's somewhat a religious argument already.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby TheAmazingRando » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:43 pm UTC

Personally, I don't that the government shouldn't be recognizing any marriages, since marriage has such strong historic religious and social connotations. Instead, they should have a general stamp of "civil union" that applies to any marriages, same or opposite sex, polyamorous, etc. Let people decide what marriage means to them, and then let the government recognize it, rather than having any majority decision dictate what everyone's marriage has to mean.

Of course, as long as the government institution of marriage exists, I think they should use it equally on any orientation. But I can imagine someone might oppose gay marriage as an extension of opposing any government-recognized marriage, so much so that they wouldn't vote in favor of gay marriage if it were on the ballot. This would be an entirely secular reason.

Even so, such a person would still definitely be voting no on California Prop 8, since it intends to amend the constitution with a specific government definition of marriage, which would definitely be contrary to the goal of abolishing the legal institution of marriage altogether.

I saw a sign while I was driving home from school the other day that said "PROP 8 = FREE SPEECH" and I have no idea how anyone could possibly make prop 8 be helpful for free speech, or no on prop 8 be harmful towards it.

User avatar
Alias
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:01 pm UTC
Location: East London, UK

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Alias » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:56 pm UTC

my girlfriend (an athiest) has the following opinion;

who cares about "marrige" if a civil partnership is a marrige in a but name?

and for this reason doesn't see the point in forcing christian objectors (or whomever) to accept gay marrige, as marrige is a religious concept, as a rule.

personally i'm super duper equal rights, and a bit anti religion in politics thus gay marrige = good imo.
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Jessica » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:18 am UTC

Argument vs civil union:
a) Civil unions in many places are not actually equal to marriages. I get the "separate but equal" idea in my head every time I hear about civil unions. As has been stated before, in many instances a civil union can be legally treated as different from a marriage, for things like insurance, taxes, adoption, visitation in hospitals etc.

b) In the few places where civil unions are legally mandated to be equivalent to marriages (if that's even truely possible...), why the linguistic hoops? As much as the current meme is "marriage is a religious concept", well... that's just not quite true. It's much more than that. Marriage is just a simple name for a union between two people. Classically a man and a woman. Many religions see marriage as an important religious step (it's a catholic sacriment) but, unlike say, first communion, Religion isn't exclusive to catholism, or christianity. Or the abrahamic religions. It's pretty much a universal concept, and has been since, well, before the concept of separation and church and state. Before people thought that one could rule, or do anything without religion.

So, yes, there is a religious ceremony attached to marriage, and most people think of "By the power vested in me..." but that's just one (christian) ceremony. there are many others. There are Pagan marriages, Buddist, hindu, and athiest marriages. As wikipedia sums up, "Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals". It's not just for the christians, so why do they suddenly get to take the word for themselves?
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Alias
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:01 pm UTC
Location: East London, UK

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Alias » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:24 am UTC

Jessica wrote:Argument vs civil union:
a) Civil unions in many places are not actually equal to marriages. I get the "separate but equal" idea in my head every time I hear about civil unions. As has been stated before, in many instances a civil union can be legally treated as different from a marriage, for things like insurance, taxes, adoption, visitation in hospitals etc.

b) In the few places where civil unions are legally mandated to be equivalent to marriages (if that's even truely possible...), why the linguistic hoops? As much as the current meme is "marriage is a religious concept", well... that's just not quite true. It's much more than that. Marriage is just a simple name for a union between two people. Classically a man and a woman. Many religions see marriage as an important religious step (it's a catholic sacriment) but, unlike say, first communion, Religion isn't exclusive to catholism, or christianity. Or the abrahamic religions. It's pretty much a universal concept, and has been since, well, before the concept of separation and church and state. Before people thought that one could rule, or do anything without religion.

So, yes, there is a religious ceremony attached to marriage, and most people think of "By the power vested in me..." but that's just one (christian) ceremony. there are many others. There are Pagan marriages, Buddist, hindu, and athiest marriages. As wikipedia sums up, "Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals". It's not just for the christians, so why do they suddenly get to take the word for themselves?


yeah i phrased that badly... marrige is seen as a religious concept, and in the west it was (as far as im aware) almost entirley christian ceremonies (the classic wedding both here and the states is in a church and all that jazz)... if its legally equal (although, ofc, it isn't always) i don't see why either side care about what its called.

also as far as adoption goes; i'm not sure gay parents should have the same rights... im not sure if it counts as off topic, but basically it is shown that a child needs both a mother an a father. ideally. im not saying gays shouldn't adopt, just that stable hetrosexual homes should be given first choice, as it were.

note: i am in no way anti-gay... in fact i only recently came to the conclusion that i am not, in fact, bisexual
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby cspirou » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:33 am UTC

seladore wrote:
I'm not sure what you are saying here... gay people shouldn't marry because it's unusual, and can't procreate with one another? What about abstinent / infertile couples?

If you are just playing devil's advocate, then I'll just say I am not aware of any good reason to deny gay people marriage rights. All the reasons I have heard have been thinly veiled prejudice and hatred.


I'm not saying that they shouldn't get married. What I am saying is that if they have all the rights of a married couple but the only difference is that it just isn't called marriage then what does marriage represent to them? You can't use the argument of cohabitation or finance. Why is it so important that there union be called a marriage? I believe a public aspect plays strongly into this. So it's basically to let other people know that you are in fact married. In other words public acceptance. That's where I'm getting at. The fight for gay marriage isn't about being denied rights but for public acceptance. So it's not about whether they should be allowed to marry but whether it is a right worth fighting for.

Seg fault mentioned that rights are different for civil unions and being married. In which case I am 100% for gay marriage. But the way as I understand it is that they are fighting for a symbolic gesture. Which renders me neutral.

kooldude29
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:47 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby kooldude29 » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:34 am UTC

Exactly. I don't see the point in forcing them to be in a "civil union" if they get it harder than a traditionally "married" couple. Sure, most people refer to the word "married" as between a man and a woman. But really, the correct way to live one's live is just their personal opinion. I beleive that americans should choose how to live thier life. Why do we want to ban gay marrage? Discrimination.

As for any religious arguement, as jessica stated, marrage isn't just christian. There is NO reason why somebody who lives differently than the christian way should be denied marrage. As an American, i beleive law should not be decided by religion.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Jessica » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:36 am UTC

Alias wrote:yeah i phrased that badly... marrige is seen as a religious concept, and in the west it was (as far as im aware) almost entirley christian ceremonies (the classic wedding both here and the states is in a church and all that jazz)... if its legally equal (although, ofc, it isn't always) i don't see why either side care about what its called.
It's christian in the west because that's where christianity mainly resides. Until recently when there became an argument about gay marriage, the concept of it being a strictly religious thing really didn't come up.

Not to mention, if the government is going to legalize something, it's a legal entity. It has a legal name used in legal documents. And yeah, if its both a legal and a religious thing, then who cares what it's called? If you're religious, you can have a non-gay marriage to your non-gay partner. You don't have have anything with anyone else. And if I want to marry my girlfriend, that has no effect on your marriage. So what does it matter what the word is?

also as far as adoption goes; i'm not sure gay parents should have the same rights... im not sure if it counts as off topic, but basically it is shown that a child needs both a mother an a father. ideally. im not saying gays shouldn't adopt, just that stable hetrosexual homes should be given first choice, as it were.

There's no evidence that a child requires a mother and a father to grow up right. There isn't even any evidence that a child who grows up in a gay family is any worse off than one who grows up in any other family. As long as the child is a loving household they will grow up well adjusted.

Edit: Ok, can we get a mod in here? This thread is just turning into a rehash of every other gay marriage thread.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby cspirou » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:45 am UTC

I think I mucked this up by mentioning my views on this.

What I want to know is that regardless if you are for or against gay marriage I would like to know what are the possible reasons against it? Even if it means they don't have the same rights. Once again the only thing I can think of is the biological difference between a gay and straight couple. Gay couples have to adopt and straight ones can produce their own kids. Yes, it is a weak argument. Is being against gay marriage truly only a religious or prejudiced thing? If the only basis against gay marriage is religious then that's all I want to know.

@Alias

It's true that a heterosexual couple would be preferable. More important is that they have a loving family in the first place. A stable gay family is much better then a dysfunctional straight family. You would probably make the same case but I'm just mentioning it. I've also heard gay couples with kids say they would prefer that their kids are straight so they don't have to go through the crap that they went through.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:02 am UTC

Alias wrote:
Jessica wrote:Argument vs civil union:
a) Civil unions in many places are not actually equal to marriages. I get the "separate but equal" idea in my head every time I hear about civil unions. As has been stated before, in many instances a civil union can be legally treated as different from a marriage, for things like insurance, taxes, adoption, visitation in hospitals etc.

b) In the few places where civil unions are legally mandated to be equivalent to marriages (if that's even truely possible...), why the linguistic hoops? As much as the current meme is "marriage is a religious concept", well... that's just not quite true. It's much more than that. Marriage is just a simple name for a union between two people. Classically a man and a woman. Many religions see marriage as an important religious step (it's a catholic sacriment) but, unlike say, first communion, Religion isn't exclusive to catholism, or christianity. Or the abrahamic religions. It's pretty much a universal concept, and has been since, well, before the concept of separation and church and state. Before people thought that one could rule, or do anything without religion.

So, yes, there is a religious ceremony attached to marriage, and most people think of "By the power vested in me..." but that's just one (christian) ceremony. there are many others. There are Pagan marriages, Buddist, hindu, and athiest marriages. As wikipedia sums up, "Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals". It's not just for the christians, so why do they suddenly get to take the word for themselves?


yeah i phrased that badly... marrige is seen as a religious concept, and in the west it was (as far as im aware) almost entirley christian ceremonies (the classic wedding both here and the states is in a church and all that jazz)... if its legally equal (although, ofc, it isn't always) i don't see why either side care about what its called.

also as far as adoption goes; i'm not sure gay parents should have the same rights... im not sure if it counts as off topic, but basically it is shown that a child needs both a mother an a father. ideally. im not saying gays shouldn't adopt, just that stable hetrosexual homes should be given first choice, as it were.

note: i am in no way anti-gay... in fact i only recently came to the conclusion that i am not, in fact, bisexual


cspirou wrote:I think I mucked this up by mentioning my views on this.

What I want to know is that regardless if you are for or against gay marriage I would like to know what are the possible reasons against it? Even if it means they don't have the same rights. Once again the only thing I can think of is the biological difference between a gay and straight couple. Gay couples have to adopt and straight ones can produce their own kids. Yes, it is a weak argument. Is being against gay marriage truly only a religious or prejudiced thing? If the only basis against gay marriage is religious then that's all I want to know.

@Alias

It's true that a heterosexual couple would be preferable. More important is that they have a loving family in the first place. A stable gay family is much better then a dysfunctional straight family. You would probably make the same case but I'm just mentioning it. I've also heard gay couples with kids say they would prefer that their kids are straight so they don't have to go through the crap that they went through.



Um, what gave you the strange idea that heterosexual couples are more beneficial to a child? If you care to pay a visit to AMA, the studies show that there's no difference whatsoever. In fact, they state that children growing under gay households also tend to develop the advantage of more open minds and absorb an egalitarian ideal for relationships.

If anything, the only argument would be potential prejudice from peers. Then again, that would also rule out racial/ethnic minority parents, and such minorities themselves from having children since their offspring will face prejudice.

No study supports a preferable sex combination. The emphasis lies in a loving, stable, disciplined home.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Alias
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:01 pm UTC
Location: East London, UK

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Alias » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:18 am UTC

assuming that an adoptive couple would provide a loving, stable home by default (perhaps a generalisation, but run with it) a hetrosexual couple would provide a more balanced viewpoint; studies have shown that absent fathers can be linked to a rise in youth crime for instance. A child needs both masculine and feminine role models.

**but i fear this may be deleted soon as i GUESS it is partly off topic...**
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:32 am UTC

Alias wrote:assuming that an adoptive couple would provide a loving, stable home by default (perhaps a generalisation, but run with it) a hetrosexual couple would provide a more balanced viewpoint; studies have shown that absent fathers can be linked to a rise in youth crime for instance. A child needs both masculine and feminine role models.

**but i fear this may be deleted soon as i GUESS it is partly off topic...**


It's not a balanced viewpoint; it's an insidious way of sugarcoating the enforcement of gender roles. Male and female figures are readily available through family, school, and friends.

The study you recalled puts the absence of a parent as a cause, not the raising of a child by a gay couple. Single-parent households =/= gay-parents households.

Again, the American Medical Association and its counterpart association of pediatricians have revealed studies that show no difference whatsoever. The evidence simply does not support the claim that heterosexual households are ideal.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Alias
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:01 pm UTC
Location: East London, UK

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Alias » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:43 am UTC

i'm not sure how to phrase this; i am 100% equal rights for all people, black/white, male/female, straight/gay

however men and women ARE different. After a certain age of course it doesnt matter whether the parents are straight or gay, but gender roles DO have their part to play in the bringing up of a "normal" child. I'm not talking woman in the kitchen, man at work kind of roles, im thinking more basic things. A gay male couple adopt a daughter; how do they teach her about menstruation without having experienced it? They may have many close female friends who can take on this role; if that is the case, groovy. If it isn't, and it won't always be, then there may be an issue there. Can a male child come to a female gay couple with problems revolving around penis size, whether he is developing normally... the parents may be happy to talk about it but the child may not. I went to my dad with puberty stuff, my sister went to my mother. Why? No idea but it was instinctive.

I'm not for one second saying that gays shouldn't adop a child at any age, just that if it were a toss up between two complelty similar sets of parents status/wealth/stability wise, but one was gay and one was straight then the straight couple should adopt the child.

BTW i don't think i'm sugarcoating; i'm being quite honest and open
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
pat dangerous
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:50 am UTC
Location: Omaha. ...No, seriously.
Contact:

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby pat dangerous » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:58 am UTC

One I heard here at school:

We can assume or agree upon the fact that there is a natural order to the universe. This order is clear and apparent. One aspect of the natural order is that man and woman should be together in order to create new life and continue this great race of ours. It is clear that new life cannot be created without both a man and a woman.

If the natural order, then, is that man and woman should be together for this aim, then homosexuality is inherently disordered.
Now, when the person told me this (who happens to be my best friend), he made sure to clarify that he did not mean "disordered" as some sort of slight or insult against homosexuals. He assured me that he meant the word only in the most literal sense: that is, not following the natural order.

If we can also agree that the family is the basic building block of society [which I believe that it is], then it seems to be detrimental that society should allow its basis to be inherently disordered.

What do you think?
Strong Bad wrote:Some people are squirrel-handed.
Gregor is a weird name.

User avatar
Alias
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:01 pm UTC
Location: East London, UK

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Alias » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:02 am UTC

well... that.

except that disorder is preferable to no order at all (if you pardon the poor definitions).

Ie straight parents > gay parents > homes

assuming all environs are loving and stable.
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:05 am UTC

Alias wrote:assuming that an adoptive couple would provide a loving, stable home by default (perhaps a generalisation, but run with it) a hetrosexual couple would provide a more balanced viewpoint; studies have shown that absent fathers can be linked to a rise in youth crime for instance. A child needs both masculine and feminine role models.


That study isn't about male and female role models, it's about how you usually need two people to do all the work that goes into raising a child. A single parent simply can't spend as much time with their kid as two parents can, and eventually that affects the child's life.

Your argument is also an argument against letting gays adopt, by the way. Do you agree with that as well?
Image

User avatar
Alias
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:01 pm UTC
Location: East London, UK

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Alias » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:10 am UTC

Malice wrote:
Your argument is also an argument against letting gays adopt, by the way. Do you agree with that as well?


clearly not.

also, the studies also looked at single father households. Those children also grew up with certain dysfunctions, but they were DIFFERENT to those brought up by single mothers, indicating that there is a difference between a mother and a father.
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Intercept » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:46 am UTC

Men and women are different? You don't say? Point being, the negatives were due to a lack of parent, not parent of a gender. Personal experience means nothing. Hell, I would reckon most boys don't talk to any of their parents at all during puberty, and really if we had better sexual education no children would need to. Other than a girl saying buy me some tampons that is.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Considering that a large part of the LGBTQ movement is that gender is largely a social construct and not directly linked to biological sex, I would expect that a child raised by, say, two gay fathers is probably less likely to receive a skewed influence than a child raised by one straight father.

I don't mean to say that gay men are necessarily effeminate, or that most gay couples have a masculine partner and feminine partner, just that the philosophy behind the social movement is one that is much less restrictive in how a man or a woman should behave.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:04 am UTC

Alias wrote:i'm not sure how to phrase this; i am 100% equal rights for all people, black/white, male/female, straight/gay

however men and women ARE different. After a certain age of course it doesnt matter whether the parents are straight or gay, but gender roles DO have their part to play in the bringing up of a "normal" child. I'm not talking woman in the kitchen, man at work kind of roles, im thinking more basic things. A gay male couple adopt a daughter; how do they teach her about menstruation without having experienced it? They may have many close female friends who can take on this role; if that is the case, groovy. If it isn't, and it won't always be, then there may be an issue there. Can a male child come to a female gay couple with problems revolving around penis size, whether he is developing normally... the parents may be happy to talk about it but the child may not. I went to my dad with puberty stuff, my sister went to my mother. Why? No idea but it was instinctive.

I'm not for one second saying that gays shouldn't adop a child at any age, just that if it were a toss up between two complelty similar sets of parents status/wealth/stability wise, but one was gay and one was straight then the straight couple should adopt the child.

BTW i don't think i'm sugarcoating; i'm being quite honest and open


I do not want you to assume that just because I'm calling you out on something, that I'm assuming you're a bigot, OK?

Men and women are minimally different. A lot of the differences we use to distinguish are socialized. A gay couple can teach a daughter about menstruation by consulting a gynecologist; it's called foresight. Second, the penis size issue....are you aware that most men themselves don't know shit about penis size and normal development, and that they usually need to be educated on the different standards of size, along with the unrealistic expectations that are put on them? All the issues you've pointed out a thinking gay couple can remedy. Unlike some heterosexuals who have children by accident, gay couples need to shell out 25k in adoption, or 100k+ in surrogacy. Do you earnestly believe these folks haven't done their research?

As for the above comment, do you support such restrictions? I'm not talking about cross-dressing children, but about the straight parents who beat the "gay" out of those children who happen to prefer artistic activities as opposed to Smash-Destroy-Dominate activities.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:25 am UTC

cspirou wrote:What is the non-religious case against gay marriage?
Back to this question (which I believe has already been discussed here)(oh good, I wasn't crazy)...

Procreation. A heterosexual couple will usually produce another tax payer. A homosexual couple will not. Problem is, that argument is defeated by a lack of a legal requirement of heterosexual couples to procreate and the ability of homosexual couples to adopt. So, there is no secular argument against it.

Angua wrote:The only non-religious arguement I can think of is that homophobic people don't like the idea, and think that if it is made public it will cause more people to become homosexuals.
Which is the same argument used about interracial couples. And look how far society has fallen since then. And how common those sorts of couples are today, and the continued problems those couples cause.... oh, wait. Outside of a few bigoted morons, there is no problem.

Alias wrote:however men and women ARE different. After a certain age of course it doesnt matter whether the parents are straight or gay, but gender roles DO have their part to play in the bringing up of a "normal" child. I'm not talking woman in the kitchen, man at work kind of roles, im thinking more basic things. A gay male couple adopt a daughter; how do they teach her about menstruation without having experienced it? They may have many close female friends who can take on this role; if that is the case, groovy. If it isn't, and it won't always be, then there may be an issue there. Can a male child come to a female gay couple with problems revolving around penis size, whether he is developing normally... the parents may be happy to talk about it but the child may not. I went to my dad with puberty stuff, my sister went to my mother. Why? No idea but it was instinctive.
.... because every kid's perfectly fine with discussing their genitals with their parents, provided there's a matching gender? Seriously? I can count on one hand the number of people I know who could and can, regardless of how many and what gender their parents are. The rest of them, at best, get out a "Yes, I'm being safe" in regards to conversations so vague they could be talking about their weekend driving or a 50 participant orgy.

So.. I guess what I'm saying here is.. your mileage varies from mine. Also, I just realized I'm bigoted the other way - as I think the homosexual couple should get the kid, as the heterosexual couple might spawn themselves one day, leaving the adopted kid feeling... left out.
Last edited by SecondTalon on Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Herman
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:46 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Herman » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:33 am UTC

The best argument I've heard against gay marriage is this: However you feel about gay marriage as an issue, it's an issue for legislatures, not courts. The primary role of courts is to decide if a certain action violates the law, or if a certain law violates the Constitution. Courts should have some freedom to read beyond the letter of the law, but not unlimited freedom -- they're not the legislature, they can't make laws by themselves. So something like Brown v. Board was okay because the argument can be made that school segregation violates the 14th Amendment. With gay marriage, though, there's no specific Constitutional argument, so the decision should be up to the legislature. So every court decision that made gay marriage legal is not legitimate, and is as much a case of a branch taking too much power as, say, Bush's warantless wiretapping program.

I'm in favor of gay marriage in principle, but this argument kind of gives me pause. What do you think of it?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:36 am UTC

Well, depends on what level and which Constitution you're talking about. ... not to mention your argument seems to be fairly US-centric, but that may be me reading too much in to it with your example. As far as the US is concerned, marriage so far has been a State level partnership, with the Feds having minimal impact in it.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:48 am UTC

I have a feeling that this thread, at least for now, might stay a bit US-centric, even California-centric, since we're voting tomorrow on whether or not to amend the state constitution to expressly forbid gay marriage.

Using this specific case, the California state court ruled that the law banning gay marriage was in violation of a sexual equality clause in the state amendment. I think this is well within their power.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:24 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
cspirou wrote:What is the non-religious case against gay marriage?
Back to this question (which I believe has already been discussed here)...

Procreation. A heterosexual couple will usually produce another tax payer. A homosexual couple will not. Problem is, that argument is defeated by a lack of a legal requirement of heterosexual couples to procreate and the ability of homosexual couples to adopt. So, there is no secular argument against it.

Angua wrote:The only non-religious arguement I can think of is that homophobic people don't like the idea, and think that if it is made public it will cause more people to become homosexuals.
Which is the same argument used about interracial couples. And look how far society has fallen since then. And how common those sorts of couples are today, and the continued problems those couples cause.... oh, wait. Outside of a few bigoted morons, there is no problem.

Alias wrote:however men and women ARE different. After a certain age of course it doesnt matter whether the parents are straight or gay, but gender roles DO have their part to play in the bringing up of a "normal" child. I'm not talking woman in the kitchen, man at work kind of roles, im thinking more basic things. A gay male couple adopt a daughter; how do they teach her about menstruation without having experienced it? They may have many close female friends who can take on this role; if that is the case, groovy. If it isn't, and it won't always be, then there may be an issue there. Can a male child come to a female gay couple with problems revolving around penis size, whether he is developing normally... the parents may be happy to talk about it but the child may not. I went to my dad with puberty stuff, my sister went to my mother. Why? No idea but it was instinctive.
.... because every kid's perfectly fine with discussing their genitals with their parents, provided there's a matching gender? Seriously? I can count on one hand the number of people I know who could and can, regardless of how many and what gender their parents are. The rest of them, at best, get out a "Yes, I'm being safe" in regards to conversations so vague they could be talking about their weekend driving or a 50 participant orgy.

So.. I guess what I'm saying here is.. your mileage varies from mine. Also, I just realized I'm bigoted the other way - as I think the homosexual couple should get the kid, as the heterosexual couple might spawn themselves one day, leaving the adopted kid feeling... left out.


And to add to that. Since he opened the door on the precedence of personal experience, should we favor gay parents for gay children? After all, what can straights parents offer for advise should their child ask them about being gay?

See? It's a faulty approach.

TheAmazingRando wrote:I have a feeling that this thread, at least for now, might stay a bit US-centric, even California-centric, since we're voting tomorrow on whether or not to amend the state constitution to expressly forbid gay marriage.

Using this specific case, the California state court ruled that the law banning gay marriage was in violation of a sexual equality clause in the state amendment. I think this is well within their power.


And of what use is a court, when a bunch of uneducated zealots can impose their twisted logic through amendments like these.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Herman
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:46 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Herman » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:42 am UTC

And of what use is a court, when a bunch of uneducated zealots can impose their twisted logic through amendments like these.


I was arguing that court-ordered gay marriage legalization hurts the political process. It seems like you're saying, "screw the process, we're right." That seems kind of dangerous, if only because the other guys might pick up on it sometime down the road.

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby Mane » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:21 am UTC

Herman wrote:I was arguing that court-ordered gay marriage legalization hurts the political process. It seems like you're saying, "screw the process, we're right." That seems kind of dangerous, if only because the other guys might pick up on it sometime down the road.

Yeah, it is dangerous, but if the laws you're making are illegal then the court has a right to tell you so, and if that law is the only law banning the subject, then it's legalized because it should have never have been made illegal in the first place.

We can assume or agree upon the fact that there is a natural order to the universe.
Is this like the existence of god is self evident?
One aspect of the natural order is that man and woman should be together in order to create new life and continue this great race of ours. It is clear that new life cannot be created without both a man and a woman.
"This great race of ours"? What is this? Human-nationalism?

If the natural order, then, is that man and woman should be together for this aim, then homosexuality is inherently disordered.
Now, when the person told me this (who happens to be my best friend), he made sure to clarify that he did not mean "disordered" as some sort of slight or insult against homosexuals. He assured me that he meant the word only in the most literal sense: that is, not following the natural order.

Ah yes, the old "I don't hate the homosexuals, I has many homosexual friends, but that doesn't mean they're not abominations".

You haven't really shown that sexual reproduction (which is really only one small form of reproduction) is really any sort of natural order.

If we can also agree that the family is the basic building block of society [which I believe that it is], then it seems to be detrimental that society should allow its basis to be inherently disordered.

Yet it's clearly not, in various social animals, homosexuality is the glue that holds the society together, not the other way around. In fact, if you were 100% heterosexual, you would never become friends with any other males, because you'd never form the emotional connections needed to interact with them in a frictionless manner.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Postby ++$_ » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:41 am UTC

pat dangerous wrote:One I heard here at school:

We can assume or agree upon the fact that there is a natural order to the universe. This order is clear and apparent. One aspect of the natural order is that man and woman should be together in order to create new life and continue this great race of ours. It is clear that new life cannot be created without both a man and a woman.

If the natural order, then, is that man and woman should be together for this aim, then homosexuality is inherently disordered.
Now, when the person told me this (who happens to be my best friend), he made sure to clarify that he did not mean "disordered" as some sort of slight or insult against homosexuals. He assured me that he meant the word only in the most literal sense: that is, not following the natural order.

If we can also agree that the family is the basic building block of society [which I believe that it is], then it seems to be detrimental that society should allow its basis to be inherently disordered.

What do you think?
Naturalistic fallacy in its purest form. There's really nothing more to say about this.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests