mooeypoo

Same link you supplied, Jill.. it is now routing to a new page: We are thrilled to announce that the Pennsylvania State Senate passed bill 1828 by a vote of 32 to 17. For all of you who have been following the saga over the city's budget crisis, this is the legislation that was needed for the City of Philadelphia to avoid the "Doomsday" Plan C budget scenario, which would have resulted in the layoff of 3,000 city employees and forced the closing of all libraries.

Agreed. It would suggest that there's no reason NOT to be for gay marriage, but in itself it's not a logical argument for gay marriage, indeed. As for the rest of your claims, im' not ignoring them, I'm just about to leave, so i'll answer those later ~moo

It's still not consistent, though. Reality shows that even when something IS legalized, the argument doesn't stop. Look at abortion and prostitution as examples. Off topic indeed, we'll have to have that discussion somewhere else. On a nutshell, I'll just say I disagree Well, you can't blame me from verifying *and* from making sure others won't attempt to use it as a real cause, yes? yes. Funny, though Besides, you can't blame me. While 99% of the discussion so far on this thread was interesting and serious, there HAVE been some claims made that I would categorize as jokes, while they turned out to be seriously-made. But we're not arguing about opposing ALL marriages, we're arguing about specifically opposing gay marriage, and from the way reality is at the moment, it's quite clear that opposing gay marriage the way things are means that it's one-sided. I do get what you mean (I think), but it seems to be off point here, that's all I'm saying. ~moo

Wow. Alright, I must admit you posted a serious point. I disagree with it, deeply even, since I don't think it's sufficient to decide against gay marriage, but that's not the issue at hand. We're not here to decide on sufficient reasoning, but rather on secular valid reasons. Yours seem to be one. However, when you think about it, it's not quite consistent. By your logic, any other subject that is controversial and legal would stop being controversial. By that logic, legalizing marijuana would stop the debate about marijuana. Do you really expect that to happen? By the same logic, legalizing prostitution would stop the debate about prostitution. Did that happen in the states where it is legal? Heck, did it happen in the countries outside the USA where it is legal? No, siree, it did not. The reason, I suspect, why the debate didn't stop despite legality is because - as was stated before - legality is not the same as morality. Issues of morality will keep being debated, whether they are legal or not. So, despite the fact your claim is, indeed, secular, and SOUNDS logical at first, it's not really valid, because its internally inconsistent. What about gay women? Alright, well, in that case you should eliminate marriage to all people, gay and straight, to prevent such disappointment for heterosexuals as well (euqality, yes?). Seriously, though, this isn't really relevant either, not really -- because the argument here isn't about the METHOD of marriage (living together, commitment, etc) it's about giving the same RIGHTS. That is, the argument you put forth is relevant for an argument about whether or not people should commit to one another for *howeverlong*, but not about whether or not gay couples who already MADE that decision to commit should receive the same rights under the law. That is indeed a valid reason, but it's not one for straight vs. gay marriage, it's about ALL marriage. In which case, it is, indeed a secular valid reason against marriage, but then such argument should be done against all marriage systems. The problem is that REALITY dictates there already *is* marriage under the law; the question is whether or not we should include gay couples under that definition. The argument to eliminate all marriages is interesting, but just like an argument for and against action regarding laws, it's a separate discussion. It's valid, sure, and it's secular, yeah, but ti's not about gay marriage, it's about all marriage... it's not really the purpose of this discussion... You should start a separate thread about it, though. Sounds like an interesting one to have. ~moo

How not? That might not mean we expect everyone to suddenly agree, but if there are no secular relevant logical reasons against something, why isn't the conclusion that this something should not be opposed..? Again, a person may hold a nonsecular reason, or a traditional reason, or a personal reasion, whatever. We have no right to demand or expect a person change whatever reasons he/she has for their opinions but *if* that person claims to be rational and secular, then either he(or she) should admit this specific issue he believes *DESPITE* of rationality, or they need to re-examine their self-classification *or* their opinion.

That's a good point, which was made here before. That's why - for the purposes of this specific thread - legality isn't relevant. The point here is to make people consider the reasoning behind their opinions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I really don't expect to change anyone's opinion in this matter. I know why religious people oppose gay marriage, but why would a rational secularist would? I don't know. I am trying to understand. However, when a person who defines him/herself as rational secularist gives me a religious answer, or one that is inconsistent, then it isn't really a rational secular reason, is it? That doesn't mean he immediately should drop his opinion and switch it (though, granted, if he/she considers themselves rational, they might reconsider). People claim the reasons against gay marriage are not just religious. I, for one, am dying to hear such a reason that also makes sense logically. That's - as far as I'm concerned - the purpose of this thread. It's not about right and wrong. It's about example. I don't think there CAN be a secular rational reason against gay marriage. I am trying to see if anyone can prove me wrong here by giving a valid example. I might reconsider my own stance on the matter, even. If I get a compelling set of reasoning, that is... ~moo

The request for valid reasons and for secular reasons is separate. Religious reason would fail not necessarily on its own (opinions are a matter of choice, still) but it would fail this specific request for SECULAR reasons. And an inconsistent reason would fail even if it's non-religious, because it's not relevant... those are not necessarily connected conditions, so there's nothing really to resent. That would be a completely different discussion. Quite interesting, at that, I agree. Not this one, though BTW, just a side point about that -- opposing the general idea of lawful "marriage" (or whatever other word you'd put in there) is separate from the idea of legality. Opposing marriage-for-all is a separate point than opposing the inclusion of a specific group into a specific set of rights given by the law. ~moo

Oh, c'mon, agentchange. iNow's response to you was the only response detering you from answering, and it was made clear that the style of such response isn't acceptable. My offer to skim through the thread wasn't meant to get you to give up in advance, it was meant to say that your point were dealt with and answered before. We do seem to need a summary-post, though, one that summarizes all points and counter points so far. If you think the subject is stupid, you can avoid wasting your time on the thread. As it goes, judging by the number of posts here, there seem to be a large group of members who disagrees with you. It's a nice tactics, though, agentchange, to blame the "far left" for the discussion. I'm not far left, by far, and I suspect I'm not the only one who sees this subject as important or discussion-worthy. But hey.. as long as you can just dismiss it by attributing it to the fringes, why not. If you think this is a waste of time, don't post in the thread. Otherwise, please don't generalize us all into one lump of political extreme. They are for me and others.. ~moo

agentchange, would YOU turn homosexual if you were given the chance? If yes, perhaps you need to reconsider why you haven't so far, and if no, then why not? I suspect (though am not sure, as I can't be sure until you answer) the second answer is true, and you wouldn't "transform" to homosexuality even if given the legal chance to. If that's the case, then why not? That answer is not going to change with legality. Quite frankly, gays won't turn heterosexual if their marriage isn't legally accepted and heterosexuals wont "turn homosexual" if their marriage is legally accepted because it is a sexual preference. Nature vs. Nurture debate aside, it's quite clear that sexual preferences do not depend on legality. ~moo

Please keep the attitude at check, iNow. Regardless of your personal opinions on tha matter, there's no excuse to being rude to other members. agentchange, many of what you said was already addressed in this thread. Please go over it (skim it, even) and see if you have any example or point that wasn't yet made. ~moo

Actually, allow me to make a point here. If what you're saying is that less homosexuals will feel the urge to hide, and hence their coming-out will make the numbers "rise", then it's equivalent to saying that in the past 20 years the number of autism cases has rised. That's a misrepresentation, though. The actual number of autistic children didn't REALLY rise, but the statistical number rised simply because we have better tools to detect autism, and we redefined some of the minor-cases as types of autism. The rise isn't because their numbers really grew, but rather than our technology is better to detect them. Not that homosexuality is anyone's business as to "detect" anyone, or that it's equivalent (or at all similar) to autism, but the point seems to be moot here. It will not get the actual cases to grow, just the detectable numbers. It will give the APPEARANCE of growing. Moreoever, if anyone thinks that being gay is a choice, I suggest considering what it is like living as one, even in almighty USA. There is lots -and LOTS - of bigotry, lack of rights, and troubles from society. That, I suspect, will not change simply because of including homosexuals into the law (or rather, stop excluding them). It's not like we're talking about winning the lottery here, or having a puppy dog - people will not decide randomly to marry same-sex just because they can. And if they do, it's no different than a loveless couple marrying just for comfort and finances. ~moo

Because that's the subject of this thread.. Opinions aren't facts, but they're not immune to discussion. This discussion is about opinions, trying to see if there are valid reasons to HOLD SUCH OPINIONS. It's a valid argument, and judging by the amount of posts, it's an interesting one to quite a few members. Read up, post #215. And while 2 people can draw 2 different conclusions based on the same facts, there is still the matter of the logic behind it. This discussion is about that logic. These TYPE of discussion allow all of us to learn about different sides of an argument, and maybe adjust our own view of things. ~moo

Because many people claim they hold the opinion that opposes gay marriage but that their opinion is NOT religious. This thread is an attempt to see if this is possible. iNow made the claim (which I agree) that opposing gay marriage (holding an opinion on the matter, that is) basically stems, in its core, from religion or tradition, and/or are inconsistent. That is, if a person defines him/herself as rational secular, they have no VALID reason to oppose gay marriage. This claim was opposed by some, and this thread is an attempt to see if the people who opposed this can find any such reasoning in which a person can hold a valid secular opinion against gay marriage and still claim it to be reasonable and rational. ~moo

Fair enough. Switch "them" with "blacks" and see if your question still holds. If it does, see if you can answer that question. Other than the sexual acts, the relationship is actually similar in every way to a heterosexual couple, and I would further argue that in our day and age of sex games, gadgets, gizmos and a variety of positions, even the sex isn't all that different. The name "Civil Union" is wrong because it doesn't hold the same rights by law that marriage does. It's also wrong because it suggests that couples that cannot get married are inferior. Again, would you support excluding blacks from the definition of marriage? How about couples that are a-sexual (dislike sex, those exist, you'd be surprised) or that are married out of social obligation rather than love. Would you support taking away the word "marriage" from these couples and giving them a separate wording as well? Unequal wording is inequality. To support the use of unequal wording, you must support this inequality. I'm not suggesting it can't be shown to have its merits, at times, to separate definitions in varous groups, but we're talking about specifically gay couples and specifically the word "marriage" and it's up to you to give us the REASON - a secular, valid one, at that - of why gay couples should be excluded from the general word and be given their own. And this reasoning needs to be a relevant secular reason to apply to this thread. Judging from the previous 200+ posts, I must wish you good luck with that. If you'd have taken the time to actually read the thread you decided to post in, you'd see that's not the case. We've dealt with the merit (or lack thereof) of the definitions and the fact the definition is IRRELEVANT *as a reasoning* (and explained why, multiple times) for at least 20+ posts. Go over it a bit before you make such blunt assertions as to our shallowness, will you? ~moo

The fact you seem to agree, now, with the topic, does not mean everyone agree with the topic. We're obviously debating here and the only erason this went off-topic is because we let it go off topic. If we get BACK to topic, we can continue listening to the sides that still seem to claim the topic is not true. Are everyone in agreement that this discussion is done? No one thinks there's a secular valid reason to oppose gay marriage? If that's the case (which I doubt), we can close the thread. Nothing stops you from starting up a new thread about whatever claim you want, but the fact of the matter is that people use these off topic diversions to later say that the topic at hand was shown to be wrong, when, in fact, that is absolutely false. ~moo

Syntho-sis, you seem to be admitting yourself that this is irrelevant to the discussion, so why do you continue presenting us this red herring? I wasn't arguing with your point, I was arguing that your point is irrelevant for this current discussion, which you seem to agree. Can we please move on to the actual subject at hand?

But it's not addressing the relevancy of the actual opinion, just the relevancy of a potential action against the current law. The only aspect where this is relevant is whether or not anyone should actively come out against a law. Saying that a law exists does NOT mean that people immediately must not disagree with it, and we are searching for the reasons why the would disagree or agree with such law. We're stuck here on a very big red herring that deters us from the actual question at hand. We're looking for the reasons behind people's opinion. This isn't a valid reason behind anyone's opinion, unless you suggest people should be conformists and never disagree with the majority. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sorry, Jill, but that's not the question, and it might show the source of confusion about the humongous red herring we've been discussing for the last 2 pages. The question isn't about reasons to disallow same sex marriage, but rather reasons to oppose it. Disallow suggests actions, dependency on laws and majority and democracy. Oppose it is a manner of opinion; a person can oppose something without actively doing anything to change it, or they can support something illegal without actively breaking the law. The question of actions (disallow/allow as a form of law) comes AFTER a person makes the decision of whether or not to support or oppose a certain view. The question raised is an interesting one, but is not the question asked here. We're looking for the motives behind people's opposition to gay marriage. The claim is that those opposition views stem from religious concepts OR are inconsistent, and we are trying to see if there's any such position that is secular and rational. It has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing, but with opposing and supporting. The allowing and disallowing aspect can come later, after we figure out if there's any reason to oppose such an idea, we cna talk about whether or not we should keep disallowing it despite of majority (or rather apparent majority).

Really? You would? That makes no sense, Severian, unless you would oppose EVERYTHING the majority decides. And then when that happens, you cannot try to convince the majority (even introduce subjects that the majority might not be familiar with, hindering their decision), because if the majority disaproves. It makes no sense, Severian. On top of that, we're not arguing whether or not anyone should make gay marriage legal despite majority rule, we're asking about reasons people have to oppose it. The idea that we shouldn't ACT against majority rule doesn't mean we can't DISAGREE with it. We are tackling the reasons why anyone would disagree, not why anyone wouldn't act. While this reason might be relevant for considering actions (or lack thereof), it's simply irrelevant for forming an opinion. In fact, this idea stands in direct opposition to the principle of a Democracy, because it will prevent our society (regardless of where we are and which type of democracy we're in) to present new information that might *sway* the majority rule. That's the point of democracy, it change because it allows its citizens to have an opinion and to VOICE it. The question at hand is about the reasons behind such opinion, and the idea that it may oppose majority rule is irrelevant for this aspect. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Now that's a different point altogether, but I'm not sure I understand what you're claiming here.. can you expand on that? Why would it not be a step towards equality to *not* exclude part of the population in the eyes of the law? I'm not sure I understood what you're saying, so I don't want to answer without fully understanding your point. Can you clarify?

It's irrelevant because this might be a reason to follow the decision, but it's not a reason support it. The question of this thread is about valid secular reasons to oppose gay marriage -- hence, to support the opposition. It's not about valid reasons to follow the democratic process. The reason is invalid for the purpose of the thread. ~moo

So would you say that you don't need to try and change things because the majority (or the majority who voted) opposes it? You won't try to change the situation? If the majority voted to eliminate women's right to vote, would you state the same thing? The point I'm trying to make here is that we're trying to find relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. So, if you bring up majority vote as a reason to *oppose* gay marriage, it means that you also need to oppose everything else the majority decided upon. There's a difference between conforming to majority vote and between AGREEING with it. We all live in a democratic country (at least I think all of us do), and we all follow the majority vote. That doesn't mean we always agree with the majority vote. The question here isn't whether or not we have reasons to follow the majority decisions, it's whether or not there's a valid reason to agree with it. That's totally different. Besides, Democracy isn't quite tyranny of the majority, democracy is the decision of the majority *WHILE* respecting minorities. That is, would you not agree that freedom of speech is PART of Democracy? Even if it doesn't conform with the majority? Laws might be formed by the majority, but the reasons you have to agree or oppose something are PERSONAL. The fact majority made a decision does not mean you have to agree with it. In fact, in a democracy, you should work towards convincing a majority to your side so things can change. Unlike many other forms of government, Democracy allows for changes. That's the point, isn't it? ~moo

That said, sufficient definition isn't even relevant, as I said in my earlier post. Reminder:

<putting her nerd cap on> Actually, Star Trek: TNG dealt with that possibility in the Episode "Second Chances", where Commander Riker found a copy of himself left behind on the surface of a planet after a transporter malfunction. </nerd cap off> Realistically? Who knows. Definitely not yet. Far far far not yet.

Another MAJOR point to make here, jackson33, is that your research comes from narth. Narth, according to the site, is "Natl Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals". Note the "OF" in there. It is a biased organization bent on "curing" homosexuality, and promoting quite bizzar set of claims about pedophilia being related to homosexuality, etc. It is, also, a religious organization.

These are absolutely irrelevant. Same sex parents are not equivalent to single parents. You are giving here an anecdotal comparison (out of your PERSONAL, SUBJECTIVE experience) that is SHOWN to be false in the multiple peer reviewed researches I and bascule posted. The peer reviewed studies that show absolutely no difference between children growing up to heterosexual or gay couples. Absolutely besides the point, jackson33, and serves nothing to support your position for a relevant secular reason. ~moo

Mr Skeptic, stop twisting the subject please. "Wrong" has nothing to do with it. We're dealing with a VERY simple straight forward question at hand here: Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. The question isn't "who's right and who's wrong", the question is are there any relevant secular reasons against gay marriage. We are not suppose to show these people are wrong, all that "we" need to show is that their reasons are inconsistent or non secular. Which we have so far. We are not keeping up with your goalpost because you moved it from the question at hand. I don't quite see that claim in what was said, but regardless, laws are changed all the time in a society. If they wouldn't have been, you'd still have slavery laws. Laws change as societies evolve. Giving the rigidity of laws as a reason is simple false; it has never stopped society from actually changing laws before. By the way - this stands firm for religious laws, as well, as much as many religious folk may protest, they have been (and are) changing their laws quite a lot, and theirs are supposedly much more rigid than laws of a country, let alone one that's SUPPOSED to have separation of religion and state. If you find a SEPARATE, logical reason for this, then the fact it also exists in religion isn't relevant. But if the SOLE support for a certain claim is that it stems from religion or tradition, then it is religious by definition. Laws against murder exist in religion, but they have quite a lot of merit outside of religion, on their own. YOu can find many claims to oppose murder without invoking religious claims. Such term, though definitly used by religion, is not religious. I am still waiting to see a claim opposing gay marriage that can stand on its own without invoking religion. I agree, but since they do, should we not have equality? I would disagree with Jill here and say that it's not just insufficient, it's unreasonable. The claim for the definition stems strictly from reasons of tradition - one that directly originates from religion, and a PARTICULAR religion at that. Hence, not only is this argument about definition changes insufficient, it's not secular. ~moo