Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[iNow]

I agree with you -- disagreement is not bullying. And this is not a place for soapboxing. It's not a place for soapboxing by members who oppose gay marriage because all gays are aliens with tentacles and purple skin, but it's also not a place for soapboxing by members who feel that anybody who opposes gay marriage is a homophobe.

 

People who oppose gay marriage ARE bigots or homophobes, since they have no relevant secular reasons for their opposition. Sorry... Just couldn't let that one slide. It's equivalent to being opposed to a black man marrying a white woman, as there's no good reason for the opposition other than hatred and/or ignorance.

 

 

 

 

NOTE: This post was taken from here. Thanks for splitting it, Pangloss.

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow
Added link to original thread

[Mr Skeptic]

People who oppose gay marriage ARE bigots or homophobes, since they have no relevant secular reasons for their opposition.

 

Not only were you completely unable to support that, but I disproved that ages ago.

[ydoaPs]

Not only were you completely unable to support that, but I disproved that ages ago.

 

Link?

[Mr Skeptic]

Link?

 

There were many many posts, don't feel like looking them up. Also, iNow has repeated his assertion about 3 dozen times by now, and has yet to prove it despite being called on it repeatedly.

 

However, only one counter-example is enough to disprove it. One such is that people may define marriage as between a man and a woman, so gay marriage simply wouldn't be marriage. Such people may even be in favor of gay rights but just don't think they should be called marriage.

[iNow]

There were many many posts, don't feel like looking them up.

If there were so many, then it shouldn't be too hard. Either you're copping out and failing to support your claim, or you've realized that it's rather difficult to supply a URL to an event which only occurred in your mind.

 

 

Also, iNow has repeated his assertion about 3 dozen times by now, and has yet to prove it despite being called on it repeatedly.

How does one prove there are no relevant secular reasons for being against gay marriage? I can immediately grasp how one could DISPROVE such a statement (which you claim to have done previously, but for which you've offered no actual links in support).

 

 

 

One such is that people may define marriage as between a man and a woman, so gay marriage simply wouldn't be marriage. Such people may even be in favor of gay rights but just don't think they should be called marriage.

Right, but why? What is their relevant secular reason for the differential use/application of the word?

 

Finally, why in your posts do you call it a "marriage" (simply adding the adjective "gay" in front of it) if it's NOT a marriage? Can you clarify that for me?

 

 

We're waiting for your reply (or, an answer from someone else who shares your perspective).

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow

[abskebabs]

I think part of the reasons gay marriage may be opposed, is as a consequence of the state and legal priveliges associated with marriage in general. Indeed, it is questionable as to why the state should have ANYTHING to do with a personal union between 2 individuals.

 

So, self stlyled "conservatives" may have objections towards ultimately subsidizing or having to by mandate legally address something they disagree with. This objection only has any meaning however with the peculiar situation we face today whereby the State is the determinant of marital relations, and not some religious authority.

[iNow]

...it is questionable as to why the state should have ANYTHING to do with a personal union between 2 individuals.

 

<...>

 

This objection only has any meaning however with the peculiar situation we face today whereby the State is the determinant of marital relations, and not some religious authority.

 

Right, but your logic here is not specific to gay marriage, so doesn't really get us anywhere. Your idea about concerns with state involvement would apply to ALL marriage, including heterosexual marriages, so IMO doesn't address the question in the least.

 

If we take as given that heterosexual marriages are recognized by the state, what relevant secular reason is there for opposing the rights of gay couples be recognized as well?

[Pangloss]

iNow, regarding your statement in the first post of this thread, that anyone who espouses a position against gay marriage is a homophobe or bigot, is that a statement of objective fact, or an opinion?

[iNow]

It is a fact, barring evidence to the contrary... Evidence to the contrary would be relevant secular reasons for the opposition... The words "relevant" and "secular" being the key factors.

[Pangloss]

I see.

 

What evidence supports this fact? How do we know that all opponents to gay marriage are bigots or homophobes?

[iNow]

How do we know that all opponents to gay marriage are bigots or homophobes?

 

Because they are unable to cite one single, solitary reason (which is both relevant and secular) as to why they stand in opposition to marriage between two same sex partners when they do not equally stand in opposition to marriage between two opposite sex partners.

 

 

What I see happening here is this, Pangloss... People KNOW that the word "bigot" and "homophobe" are bad, and cause them to be reflected in a negative light in society (and, also in their own minds... we don't generally like to think of ourselves as bad people), so don't wish to be described with those words. For that reason, they say "I may oppose same sex marriage, but I am not a bigot and I am not a homophobe." Yet, when asked to support their reasoning for this opposition, the answer more or less boils down to "I'm just against it, that's why."

 

This is not based on logic. It is not based on any relevant or secular reasons, it's just a sense that "THEY" are somehow not good enough to share the term or institution of marriage.

 

Despite their desire not to be referred to as bigots or homophobes, the objective truth is that this is PRECISELY what they are, and they will remain to be so until they can cite a single relevant secular reason in support of their opposition.

 

 

I hope this has clarified my stance. I'd really prefer not to have this thread derailed on some tangential discussion about who is a bigot or homophobe and who is not. The intention of this thread is to find ANY relevant secular reasons for the opposition. If none exist, then I believe we have no choice other than to be authentic with ourselves and realize that all that informs the opposition is bigotry, homophobia, or plain ignorance.

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow

[abskebabs]

Right, but your logic here is not specific to gay marriage, so doesn't really get us anywhere. Your idea about concerns with state involvement would apply to ALL marriage, including heterosexual marriages, so IMO doesn't address the question in the least.

 

If we take as given that heterosexual marriages are recognized by the state, what relevant secular reason is there for opposing the rights of gay couples be recognized as well?

 

You're right, my point is much more general but it is really to highlight the difference between a right and a privelige, 2 things that are unfortunately confused.

 

I may have the right to engage in my own affairs with my own property or with other willing individuals.

 

However it is not a right for me to demand and expect subsidization or enforce mandatory recognition using coercion via the legal apparatus from other individuals for my personal habits(like the NHS paying for sex change operations).

 

I am perfectly entitled to a bizarre sexual relationship with my couch and call it my wife, but this does not mean I am entitled to state granted benefits or recognition from the rest of society.

 

My main point is that even though people are hypocritical about the use of "public funds", like conservatives in America wanting to impose "Intelligent Design" through state funded education on the kids of parents who don't buy that crap; they reveal their true resistance to statist imposition and policy on personal affairs when it is disagreeable to them, e.g. recognising and having to give legal priveliges to gay marriages by law.

 

My solution: Get the state out of the affairs of the people...PERIOD.

 

If that means dismantling the state, so be it. I would recommend a reading of Hans Hoppe on private defense, for people here with uninformed views on anarchy.

[iNow]

I understand, but that does not address the question if we take state recognition of marriage as a given.

[A Tripolation]

iNow, I think that the fact that marriage has always referred to a man and a woman for so long is a decent reason. I truly don't understand why they want a marriage and not a civil union.

 

And to anticipate a probable question with regards to that statement, yes, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union, provided I get to marry the woman I love, and that none of my rights were violated. I may be a theist, but I am actually in support of abolishing marriage's legality as it ISN'T fair that a legal procedure be tied up with religious entities. Everyone should have to get a civil union. And a marriage could be the ceremonial after party of sorts.

 

 

If that means dismantling the state, so be it. I would recommend a reading of Hans Hoppe on private defense, for people here with uninformed views on anarchy.

 

As a quick aside (as it is fairly far off topic):

Anarchy would never work, it's practically guranteed to devolve into a tribal society where the people with the biggest guns control the people with no and/or smaller guns. There are no examples of a country in anarchy living in relative peace.

[iNow]

So, your argument is that a relevant secular reason to oppose gay marriage is tradition? If so, I'd challenge that in terms of relevance.

 

 

 

EDIT - To clarify, "traditions" was an argument used to support slavery and discrimination against blacks in our country, but that reason was neither relevant nor secular, and was not a valid reason to oppose equal rights. Traditions change, and for good reason. They should not be used to argue for the continuation of discrimination... at least, not in our laws.

 

 

This quote came from California Justice Richard Kramer, who is a Catholic Republican sitting on the California state supreme court. He said this in his ruling on Prop 22 (a ballot initiative in 2000 intended to prevent the state from recognizing same sex marriages):

The State's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional.

 

I happen to agree.

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow

[JillSwift]

I think the question needs to be a bit more specific. abskebabs argument against the government being involved in marriage at all is strong, but kind-of beside the point.

 

This is the question, as I see it.

Given that government offers benefits to couples choosing to live in a committed relationship,

Given that the conditions of those benefits are conferred without much definition of purpose,

Given that same-sex couples are choosing essentially the same committed relationship,

What reason outside religious or biased discrimination is there to prevent conferring those benefits to same-sex couples?

 

I don't accept the argument that marriages "traditionally" about one man and one woman, because tradition changes, and it's not a valid excuse for continuing practices in itself - for instance it's tradition in some parts of the world to mutilate the genitalia of girls to prevent them from being able to have sex until marriage and prevent sex from being pleasurable to them. Tradition is insufficient to defend such barbarity. Similarly but at a far less drastic scale, tradition is insufficient to defend bias against homosexuality. Also, the tradition itself is based on an irrational bias against homosexuality at its root.

 

I reject the argument that marriage is for and about the production of children, as straight couples who are infertile or have no intent of producing children still get the benefits of marriage.

 

What secular and relevant reason is there to disallow same sex marriage with above givens in mind?

[abskebabs]

As a quick aside (as it is fairly far off topic):

Anarchy would never work, it's practically guranteed to devolve into a tribal society where the people with the biggest guns control the people with no and/or smaller guns. There are no examples of a country in anarchy living in relative peace.

 

Let us agree to disagree, I used to share your point of view, and the debate on the subject is not for here. In any case, as I said earlier I'd recommend reading the following author:

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

[jackson33]

iNow quotes;

Because they are unable to cite one single, solitary reason (which is both relevant and secular) as to why they stand in opposition to marriage between two same sex partners when they do not equally stand in opposition to marriage between two opposite sex partners.[/Quote]

 

First; What's relevant to you or the next person are going to be different. In the US, many folks today still believe Homosexual Sex, can be harmful to health, for a variety of reason, not always AIDS. Others, though you'll try to link to Religion, is the natural desire for their kids to marry, have their grandchildren, maybe even to carry on their blood line. Maybe THEY desire their offspring's to be considered respectable members of the society with in the norm as THEY perceive it. Others may feel the sexual attraction is a choice, whether it be red heads of the opposite sex or thin members of their own sex. Since Boys or Girls are segregated naturally into groups of each almost from birth, this attraction may or could be an unintended causal effect.

 

Second; All Law, everyplace on this planet that exist, are made up, judged and enforce by people. You can't expect a society, who is charged with these duties to ignore their moral and religious foundation, whether it's SSM, or any other issue you'll rail against for in ANY manner being based on religion.

 

Third; Most important to this discussion and a couple others ongoing here or recently on ANOTHER FORUM, is this notion, your opinions are NOT BIGOTED, you opinions are pure, unbiased and your advocacy for atheism is simply coincidental. Russia, China and several other governments and their law, are in fact PRIMARILY from a secular society, each of which, not only do not tolerate 'Homosexuality', but have few laws to protect those that may be truly attracted by the same sex.

 

This is not based on logic. It is not based on any relevant or secular reasons, it's just a sense that "THEY" are somehow not good enough to share the term or institution of marriage. [/Quote]

 

This is pure nonsense; Americans have gone out of their way, for centuries to equalize all humans into their National Culture. Blacks, Native Indians, each migration of legal immigrants, Women, and all people with other than their traditional family values, into their culture as best possible. Many cultures, in fact would rather this had not be so effective, believing they have lost some of their traditional culture in the process. Sure religious people are for good reason concerned about what they feel is the Sanctity or institution of their term for marriage, but they are for the most part more helpful to these folks than most any other segment of society, well maybe other than atheist. Go to one of these Church's, profess your atheism, claim to BE Gay (not an advocate) and you'll probably be the honor quest of the day.

 

There is no need to reply to this post; I've been around long enough to write your response or already know exactly how you would respond. It's just so disheartening for me to see yet another couple Moderator's (whom put up with this for free) try to soften your blows to the average poster and get blasted into submission. UNLESS you care to challenge me...

 

"Not only were you completely unable to support that, but I disproved that ages ago."

 

and give permission to bring up quotes from other forums, as well as this one.

[A Tripolation]

This is the question, as I see it.

Given that government offers benefits to couples choosing to live in a committed relationship,

Given that the conditions of those benefits are conferred without much definition of purpose,

Given that same-sex couples are choosing essentially the same committed relationship,

What reason outside religious or biased discrimination is there to prevent conferring those benefits to same-sex couples?

 

What secular and relevant reason is there to disallow same sex marriage with above givens in mind?

 

Yes, you all are right about tradition being a not-so-great reason.

And no, they should have the rights that everyone else has.

But I just see it as them wanting the TERM and NOT the actual benefits. Why ELSE wouldn't they be satisfied with civil unions? I would. And Im sure most other people that are in love would as well.

 

And also, what about the whole "slippery slope" thing? Going by the logic of pro-SSM, then polygamy should be legal as well. And so should incest, provided all the people are willing and consentful and of legal age. What right do you have to deny them "marriage" as well?

 

And Jackson33 makes some damn good points.

[JillSwift]

Yes, you all are right about tradition being a not-so-great reason.

And no, they should have the rights that everyone else has.

But I just see it as them wanting the TERM and NOT the actual benefits. Why ELSE wouldn't they be satisfied with civil unions? I would. And Im sure most other people that are in love would as well.

Seperate-but-equal didn't work with the african-americans, why should it work with us homosexuals? If you're going to offer a government institution, it must be offered equally.

 

And also, what about the whole "slippery slope" thing? Going by the logic of pro-SSM, then polygamy should be legal as well. And so should incest, provided all the people are willing and consentful and of legal age. What right do you have to deny them "marriage" as well?

This is why abskebabs's argument that government should have never gotten involved in the first place is so strong. Really, even in the case of incest, unless tangible harm to others can be proven to a reasonable degree, why not poly marriage and incestuous marriage?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First; What's relevant to you or the next person are going to be different. In the US, many folks today still believe Homosexual Sex, can be harmful to health, for a variety of reason, not always AIDS.

And what secular, rational reasons might those be?

 

Others, though you'll try to link to Religion, is the natural desire for their kids to marry, have their grandchildren, maybe even to carry on their blood line. Maybe THEY desire their offspring's to be considered respectable members of the society with in the norm as THEY perceive it.

And why do their desires trump the desires of their adult children?

 

Others may feel the sexual attraction is a choice, whether it be red heads of the opposite sex or thin members of their own sex. Since Boys or Girls are segregated naturally into groups of each almost from birth, this attraction may or could be an unintended causal effect.

Even if so, how is this a reason to prevent these relationships culminating in marriage?

 

Second; All Law, everyplace on this planet that exist, are made up, judged and enforce by people. You can't expect a society, who is charged with these duties to ignore their moral and religious foundation, whether it's SSM, or any other issue you'll rail against for in ANY manner being based on religion.

As such, laws also change. Prior unjust law is not basis for current unjust law.

 

Third; Most important to this discussion and a couple others ongoing here or recently on ANOTHER FORUM, is this notion, your opinions are NOT BIGOTED, you opinions are pure, unbiased and your advocacy for atheism is simply coincidental. Russia, China and several other governments and their law, are in fact PRIMARILY from a secular society, each of which, not only do not tolerate 'Homosexuality', but have few laws to protect those that may be truly attracted by the same sex.

Other's biases are not a defense of our own biases. Other's unjust laws are not an excuse for our own unjust laws.

 

This is pure nonsense; Americans have gone out of their way, for centuries to equalize all humans into their National Culture. Blacks, Native Indians, each migration of legal immigrants, Women, and all people with other than their traditional family values, into their culture as best possible.

Wow. That really glosses over some major stuff. Like massacring of whole tribes of Indians, slavery of both Indians and blacks, segregation, no sufferage, limited rights for women... integration and equality has always been something that has had to be fought for, it was never granted.

 

Many cultures, in fact would rather this had not be so effective, believing they have lost some of their traditional culture in the process. Sure religious people are for good reason concerned about what they feel is the Sanctity or institution of their term for marriage, but they are for the most part more helpful to these folks than most any other segment of society, well maybe other than atheist. Go to one of these Church's, profess your atheism, claim to BE Gay (not an advocate) and you'll probably be the honor quest of the day.

Yes. So?

[A Tripolation]

Seperate-but-equal didn't work with the african-americans, why should it work with us homosexuals? If you're going to offer a government institution, it must be offered equally.

 

And I already addressed this by suggesting that EVERYONE be civil-unioned instead of married. I just think marriage is between one man and one woman. That's just how I will always see it. So no, I can't seem to think of a reason to deny them this right. But then my right to carry a non-concealed weapon in public has been violated...so how are my civil rights less valuable than theirs?

[iNow]

What's relevant to you or the next person are going to be different.

A fair point, but since we are in a discussion forum, we can debate what is and what is not relevant. As you can see above, I have already made challenges to relevance, and the individuals presenting the points have conceded that the challenge was valid.

 

 

You have still failed to address the root question of the thread, and have provided no relevant reasons to oppose it (as described above, having misconceptions about homosexuality, its appropriateness, or its origin are not relevant).

 

 

 

Most important to this discussion and a couple others ongoing here or recently on ANOTHER FORUM, is this notion, your opinions are NOT BIGOTED, you opinions are pure, unbiased and your advocacy for atheism is simply coincidental.

A few things here. First, WTF does my being an atheist have anything to do with people being unable to present relevant secular reasons for opposing gay marriage? That's a rather blatant red herring, and has zero to do with the discussion.

 

Second, you are equating my intolerance for hatred and bigotry as itself being some sort of bigotry. That is a conflation of the terms, and is disingenuous at best. Bigotry is more about people being different from yourself, and about casting them with all sorts of negative connotations and false attributes without good reason. Usually, bigotry applies to people who are hateful, xenophobic, and jingoistic... as those emotions they feel are not grounded in any solid reasoning nor rationality.

 

The point is the subject of the intolerance, and what is motivating it.

 

 

By example, being intolerant of lies is a good thing, and has a recognizable and practical purpose underlying it.

Being intolerant of violence or rape is a good thing, as that too has a recognizable and practical purpose underlying it.

 

It is these recognizable and practical purposes informing the intolerance which prevent it from being called bigotry.

 

Bigotry is when one is intolerant for no practical reason... usually just something like "they" are "different." Bigotry is most often felt toward foreigners and immigrants, like people are so often intolerant of the Mexicans here in the US for example. It was (and sometimes still is) found in the feelings whites had toward blacks. Today, it is often found among heterosexuals and the feelings they hold toward homosexuals.

 

It's about the fact that these folks are being intolerant for no real practical purpose. They are being intolerant because "they" are "different." It's bigotry because it tends to be informed by jingoism and xenophobia, or some religiously motivated worldview, and has no real rational purpose underlying it.

 

But... intolerance which has a practical and justifiable purpose is NOT bigotry... not by any means. Just because I'm intolerant of lies, hate speech, and ignorance does not make me a bigot, since that intolerance has a justifiable and practical purpose informing it.

 

In sum, I've presented relevant secular reasons for my intolerance, ergo the term bigot does not apply to me in this context.

 

 

Third, you are now trying to make this some sort of personal issue with me, instead choosing to focus on me and my character instead of the issue at hand.

 

Fourth, my successful debates on this subject at other forums has no relevance here in this one, so that is yet another red herring, bordering on non-sequitur.

 

 

 

This is pure nonsense; Americans have gone out of their way, for centuries to equalize all humans into their National Culture. Blacks, Native Indians, each migration of legal immigrants, Women, and all people with other than their traditional family values, into their culture as best possible. Many cultures, in fact would rather this had not be so effective, believing they have lost some of their traditional culture in the process.

Indeed, but you have still ignored the central question and issue of this thread. People ARE opposed to gay marriage, and I'm asking what relevant secular reasons support their opposition. Untli that question gets answered, the fact remains that the people who DO stand in opposition are being either bigoted, homophobic, or ignorant.

 

 

 

There is no need to reply to this post; I've been around long enough to write your response or already know exactly how you would respond. It's just so disheartening for me to see yet another couple Moderator's (whom put up with this for free) try to soften your blows to the average poster and get blasted into submission. UNLESS you care to challenge me...

Again, please stop making your response some sort of personal attack against me, and focus on the central question. Your post only diverts the subject, and by focusing on me as a person instead of the issue at hand you harm your debating position.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just think marriage is between one man and one woman. That's just how I will always see it.

 

And this gets to the root of this discussion. Why? Second, why are your thoughts on this subject more relevant or valid than those who see marriage as the union of two people in love, regardless of which genitalia they have?

 

 

But then my right to carry a non-concealed weapon in public has been violated...so how are my civil rights less valuable than theirs?

This is a false comparison. There is measurable harm which can be caused with a gun, and having a gun pointed at us is usually done without our consent. Two same sex partners who wish to be married does not cause measurable harm to others, nor are their issues of consent (since the two partners are adults who consent to be in the relationship with one another).

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[JillSwift]

And I already addressed this by suggesting that EVERYONE be civil-unioned instead of married.

Sorry. I was woefully unclear.

Your argument meets my criteria for proper, just treatment. But, as these civil contracts are currently called "marriage licenses", this same institution should be available to all without bias no matter the name it is given.

 

I just think marriage is between one man and one woman. That's just how I will always see it. So no, I can't seem to think of a reason to deny them this right.

I posit this is because there is no secular, rational reason to deny us the privileges available to straight couples.

 

But then my right to carry a non-concealed weapon in public has been violated...so how are my civil rights less valuable than theirs?

That's a very wiggly red herring you have there.

Edited September 13, 2009 by JillSwift
Correct attributions. Yikes! Sorry.

[A Tripolation]

That's a very wiggly red herring you have there.

 

It was not a red herring. It was meant to show that EVERYONE has their civil rights violated at some point. I wasn't trying to make a point on gun control. I probably should have elaborated on that point a bit more.

[iNow]

Jill - In your post above, you've mistakenly attributed quotes to Jackson when they were, in fact, shared by A Tripolation. Cheers.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It was not a red herring. It was meant to show that EVERYONE has their civil rights violated at some point. I wasn't trying to make a point on gun control. I probably should have elaborated on that point a bit more.

 

But, as I described above, it's a false comparison anyway. Same sex marriage does not cause measurable harm to others, nor are there issues with consent.

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.