Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[padren]

It looks like there are two topics that are getting overly intertwined:

 

1) Are there any rational secular reasons to oppose gay marriage and, if so, what are they?

- we haven't heard any yet.

 

2) Does opposing gay marriage for non-rational or non-secular reasons automatically cause one to be bigoted?

- We seem to be going around in circles on this, while trying to answer #1.

 

As it was mentioned "We are all entitled to our beliefs, and we don't have to defend them to hold them" is true and a genuinely good thing.... no one should be capable of forcing someone else to change their mind simply because that person can't logically defend their belief at that time.

 

But Mr Skeptic, here's the problem:

 

Yes, you can hold the belief that marriage should be between a man and woman only. Fair enough. No one can take that from you - but, it's a belief that interferes with the lives of other people. If you said "I believe marriage should be between a man and woman, but others believe in SSM so they should be allowed to act on and call their unions that too." then your belief would no longer be one that interferes with the lives of others.

 

But, if you feel your belief should allow you to define the limits in other people's lives and yet not feel you should have to explain how your belief can be defended as a rational and necessary then it is very fair to examine whether your belief is bigoted. No one is asking you to dismiss your belief - but you can't define both it's content and it's nature. If examined you can clarify and state a case and you don't have to say "yeah I guess I have to accept it's bigotry" but you can't just say "I don't have to explain it and you must accept my word that it is not bigotry."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Side note: I do believe it's possible to irrationally be against gay marriage and not be a bigot. Theoretically, you could believe that aliens are among us and are bigots - and will wipe out all gay people on the Earth if they are allowed to marry. Since no one can hear there transmissions other than you (thanks to the old school fillings in your teeth) you can't just go around and say "I oppose your right to marry because otherwise aliens will kill you!" and it may break your heart, but you have to oppose equal rights to protect them.

 

It's exceptionally irrational, but it's not bigoted. Insane yes, and out of the scope of any argument here, but since the question was posed I thought I'd take a shot at it.

[iNow]

Side note: I do believe it's possible to irrationally be against gay marriage and not be a bigot. Theoretically, you could believe that aliens are among us and are bigots - and will wipe out all gay people on the Earth if they are allowed to marry. Since no one can hear there transmissions other than you (thanks to the old school fillings in your teeth) you can't just go around and say "I oppose your right to marry because otherwise aliens will kill you!" and it may break your heart, but you have to oppose equal rights to protect them.

 

It's exceptionally irrational, but it's not bigoted. Insane yes, and out of the scope of any argument here, but since the question was posed I thought I'd take a shot at it.

Nice. Let's just say that the charge of bigotry, homophobia, and ignorance is like throwing down a rhetorical gauntlet. I have seen zero relevant secular reasons for the opposition. Without those reasons, I'm inclined to believe that the only thing feeding the opposition is bigotry, homophobia, or ignorance. If you think otherwise, then supply some relevant secular reasons for the opposition and we can move past those charges, and I will apologize for my misattribution of the labels.

 

It's a challenge. You don't want to be described as a bigot, or an ignorant homophobe? Answer the question presented in the thread title, and be willing to defend the relevance of your reason.

[JillSwift]

Interjection: Not having a rational reason for holding an opinion does not default to meaning the opinion is bigoted. A learned behavior is often unquestioned, and in that sense is nothing more than a default position. This is where folks will say "I don't like it, but I don't know why."

 

Definition as defense or basis of arguments against SSM: Using the term to represent the secular social contract does not alter the use of the term to represent the sacrament. If this is were not so, then engineers could not use the term to describe bringing two major parts of a complex system together as "marriage". Words have always had multiple definitions and which is in use depends on context.

 

A similar argument about the definition of the word was used to back the argument that whites and non-whites could not marry. The claim being that marriage happened only within the races as part of the definition. This was obviously proven to be irrelevant (or untrue).

Edited September 14, 2009 by JillSwift
Little bit of clarity

[jackson33]

Jill, in offering this Wiki, article, it does not reflect my personal opinion or do I necessarily agree. Secular, is simply the absence of religion in the formulation or expression of an opinion, which this is and 'rational' depends entirely on your own definition of the word.

 

And what secular, rational reasons might those be?[/Quote]

 

 

Health risks

 

Anal sex exposes participants to two principal dangers: infections, due to the high number of infectious microorganisms not found elsewhere on the body, and physical damage to the anus and the rectum due to their vulnerability. Penetration can be initially somewhat painful if the bottom partner's anus is not properly lubricated.[citation needed]

 

HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases

Among these are: amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; human papillomavirus; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8)[30]; lymphogranuloma venereum; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis.[31][32][33]

 

Increased risk of anal cancer due to HPV

Most cases of anal cancer are related to infection with the human papilloma virus. The incidence of the disease has jumped 160% in men and 78% in women in the last thirty years,

Physical damage

Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, hemorrhoids, anal fissures,[31] and rectal prolapse.

 

Anal incontinence

Loss of control over the bowels, though rare according to some, is thought to be a valid concern[39] and is reported to be caused by repeated injury, or by the insertion of large objects,[40] or simply by regular anal sex, which "leads to internal sphincter dilation and soiling."[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex [/Quote]

 

And why do their desires trump the desires of their adult children? [/Quote]

 

Depending on your version of why folks choose a particular lifestyle, genetics/ first trimester washing/nurturing/ home environment or whatever, it's generally in their younger years. Even if late in their teens or at any age, the desire to run home, all excited and telling them you and your girl friend are getting married

 

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

 

No, it's not a good reason, under laws today. If that were your only concern, what's the big deal if it's called marriage, union, getting hitched or tied down. I happen to think humans are NOT basically/inherently monogamist or if you would rather go here, what turns on a person sexually changes over the years, for both men and women. That doesn't give me some right to insist or teach that divorce or multiple marriages should be given any particular status in the society, than being frowned on...

 

As such, laws also change. Prior unjust law is not basis for current unjust law.[/Quote]

 

Of course laws change, but the society and the law have keep up with each other. Aside from that, at what point do you think acceptance laws to a minority should be imposed or better yet, what determines what's just or unjust???

 

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

 

That's my argument with iNow; I happen to respect this poster for his consistency on issues, they don't change. While he opposes religious influence, he uses his personal belief's, opposition to all things religious, to argue any point that may be founded on religious principles, at least in my opinion.

 

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

 

Each issue you list is deserving a thread of itself; First American's, started in the late 18th Century and the British controlled 'Indian Affairs', Indians fought each other and many massacres where Indians on white Settlers. My first wife, 100% Cherokee, literate and I discussed this many times, in the 1950's. He family had long left the reservation security, had done well in the American Culture and I have a different take on the issue. On Slavery, actually many Black and especially Indians also owned Slaves and most slavery itself was what we call indentured today, working off moneys owed for getting to the new world, not always black. The point is, it was the American People (the system for change, never before practiced), who changed these things, not the Indian's, Black's, Women or the impoverished but the American People which has always included some of each group.

 

Yes. So?[/Quote]

 

Hardly a reason, to confirm condemnation...

 

 

 

iNow; Your entire argument for years on different issues, has been the intent and meanings of a secular Government and Constitution. IMO; You refuse to believe, that a religious group of folks, could actually debate, form and practice a program for governance, not permitting any PARTICULAR religion to influence or dominate that government.

 

You then argue your cases, based on all other things being free from any religious consideration, from the perspective of YOUR religious viewpoint, actually known as agnostic. You already know I am as well, but in your case it's the foundation for your reasoning, thought, opinions and presentations. THIS is bigotry, not the fact your agnostic or atheist. For this thread, not all things for this society can or will be determined in a secular manner, probably as long as the US and it's institutions can stand. Right, wrong or making no difference, Americans are going to vote, judge and determine all things from the perspective of their personal morality or religious viewpoints, which you wish to deny as their right.

 

As for this consistent notion, folks make you the issue; Your the person making the assertions in a manner many disagree with, not the actual topic or any single point of the issue. We all believe, including US LAW, that rights extended to individuals are Universal, to all people but always with in specifications/qualification.

[iNow]

iNow; Your entire argument for years on different issues, has been the intent and meanings of a secular Government and Constitution. IMO; You refuse to believe, that a religious group of folks, could actually debate, form and practice a program for governance, not permitting any PARTICULAR religion to influence or dominate that government.

 

You then argue your cases, based on all other things being free from any religious consideration, from the perspective of YOUR religious viewpoint, actually known as agnostic. You already know I am as well, but in your case it's the foundation for your reasoning, thought, opinions and presentations. THIS is bigotry, not the fact your agnostic or atheist. For this thread, not all things for this society can or will be determined in a secular manner, probably as long as the US and it's institutions can stand. Right, wrong or making no difference, Americans are going to vote, judge and determine all things from the perspective of their personal morality or religious viewpoints, which you wish to deny as their right.

I will say this yet again, in hopes that this time it will sink in. Please stop making your posts about me as a person, my skills, my character, or my motivations. It harms your debating position, has zero relevance to the question, and deflects the thread topic.

 

All I am asking for is a response to the thread question. Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, and if so, what are they?

 

Please... again... I humbly request you focus on the topic, answer the question which has been put forth, and resist your urge to continue commenting about what you think about me, my thoughts, my intentions, or my skills. Thanks so much.

[A Tripolation]

Interjection: Not having a rational reason for holding an opinion does not default to meaning the opinion is bigoted. A learned behavior is often unquestioned, and in that sense is nothing more than a default position. This is where folks will say "I don't like it, but I don't know why."

 

Agreed JillSwift, thanks.

iNow, just because I (and others) hold that belief does NOT make me bigoted, as I wish no harm against them, nor do I actively seek ways to hurt them. It does NOT make me homophobic, because I do not fear them (heck, I share a dorm with a gay person, and we have had many talks on this matter). And I think many people share my thoughts on this. Couldn't your statements be considered a fallacy? I think they fall under the category of Ad Hominem. By saying that those views are bigoted and irrational and homophobic IMPLIES that we are those things as well. I think the part about "defaulting" would fall under the errors of a "false dichotomy", but I'm not quite sure. Anyway, I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

[JillSwift]

Jill, in offering this Wiki, article, it does not reflect my personal opinion or do I necessarily agree. Secular, is simply the absence of religion in the formulation or expression of an opinion, which this is and 'rational' depends entirely on your own definition of the word.

Oh, there's a pretty specific definition of "rational^{[definition #1]}" in use here.

 

Health risks

A little apocrypha there. Generally irrelevant, however. What risks folks choose to take with their own bodies is their own responsibility.

 

Depending on your version of why folks choose a particular lifestyle, genetics/ first trimester washing/nurturing/ home environment or whatever, it's generally in their younger years. Even if late in their teens or at any age, the desire to run home, all excited and telling them you and your girl friend are getting married

I can not make sense of this. What are you trying to convey here?

 

No, it's not a good reason, under laws today. If that were your only concern, what's the big deal if it's called marriage, union, getting hitched or tied down. I happen to think humans are NOT basically/inherently monogamist or if you would rather go here, what turns on a person sexually changes over the years, for both men and women. That doesn't give me some right to insist or teach that divorce or multiple marriages should be given any particular status in the society, than being frowned on...

As I've said, what it's called is a quibble. However, since the state is presently calling that set of conveyed privileges "marriage", then that's what it's called.

 

 

Of course laws change, but the society and the law have keep up with each other. Aside from that, at what point do you think acceptance laws to a minority should be imposed or better yet, what determines what's just or unjust???

Are you suggesting we can just redefine words to make this problem a non-problem? That was done to keep killing the Native Americans, keep Africans enslaved and treated as chattel, and deny rights to women. All of which have since been disposed of as unjust.

 

 

 

That's my argument with iNow; I happen to respect this poster for his consistency on issues, they don't change. While he opposes religious influence, he uses his personal belief's, opposition to all things religious, to argue any point that may be founded on religious principles, at least in my opinion.

"at least in my opinion" is an escape clause. In this thread, on this question, it's all about the secular.

 

 

 

Each issue you list is deserving a thread of itself; First American's, started in the late 18th Century and the British controlled 'Indian Affairs', Indians fought each other and many massacres where Indians on white Settlers. My first wife, 100% Cherokee, literate and I discussed this many times, in the 1950's. He family had long left the reservation security, had done well in the American Culture and I have a different take on the issue. On Slavery, actually many Black and especially Indians also owned Slaves and most slavery itself was what we call indentured today, working off moneys owed for getting to the new world, not always black. The point is, it was the American People (the system for change, never before practiced), who changed these things, not the Indian's, Black's, Women or the impoverished but the American People which has always included some of each group.

Are you saying that the fight for rights in each case was not won, but those in power were just gracious enough to let them have their rights? Are you excusing atrocity "because others did it as well"? It seems like you are here.

 

Hardly a reason, to confirm condemnation...

Again, this answer makes no sense to me.

[iNow]

Interjection: Not having a rational reason for holding an opinion does not default to meaning the opinion is bigoted. A learned behavior is often unquestioned, and in that sense is nothing more than a default position. This is where folks will say "I don't like it, but I don't know why."

Let me say that the fact that something is a learned behavior does not negate the possibility that this learned behavior can itself be bigoted.

 

The issue here is that, upon reflection, if the person who holds that belief (engages in that behavior) cannot find a relevant secular reason for holding it... they do not challenge themselves to find good reasons to support that opposition... and despite the fact that they have no relevant/secular reasons they maintain their opposition, then the belief itself is without question bigoted, despite the fact that it had been learned/taught.

[JillSwift]

Let me say that the fact that something is a learned behavior does not negate the possibility that this learned behavior can itself be bigoted.

 

The issue here is that, upon reflection, if the person who holds that belief (engages in that behavior) cannot find a relevant secular reason for holding it... they do not challenge themselves to find good reasons... and despite the fact that they have no relevant/secular reasons are maintain their opposition, then the belief itself is without question bigoted, despite the fact that it had been learned/taught.

And therein lies the rub, eh?

 

When we are children we are essentially hardwired to accept what our parents do and say uncritically. So long as it hasn't been questioned, it can't be bigoted, as it's not yet intolerance any more than it's intolerance not to eat the vegetables as an adult your parents never served you.

 

However, once you have given it a look, and you choose to maintain that outlook but without rational cause... well, then we may well be looking at bigotry.

[A Tripolation]

Oh, I most certainly see the fault in my beliefs. But what gives you the right to claim that my way is wrong? My belief harms no one, as I do not support the anti-SSM movements and such. Its just something I believe personally. If they were to pass SSM tomorrow, I would go "meh" and get on with my day.

 

So to say that a quietly-held opinion is bigotry (which is an awful harsh term) just because that one opinion is proven to have faults, seems to fit the bill of bigotry much more than the aforementioned opinion.

 

I'm minoring in Computer Science. I know Windows is a crap OS compared to Apple's. Ive seen the architecture of both, and I can adamantly say Apple's version is better written. But I still love and use Windows, and that won't change. Does that make me a bigot? I would think not, so why is this belief in SSM any different? Because it is a "hot-topic"? That wouldn't be a very good reason.

[Pangloss]

This is the thing about politics, interpretation gets awfully muddy.

 

Yup!

 

 

I can't see iNow making a claim that it's impossible to disagree, rather that the disagreements are not rational, evidence supported disagreements.

 

I agree with you (and him). I am not entirely convinced that there are no rational arguments, but I do think there's a strong argument that most opponents who are also normally very reasonable people just haven't fully thought this through. iNow included an exception for this in his original post, using the word "ignorance", which is a word that has some negative connotations to it, but it seems accurate to me. Ignorance isn't necessarily a bad thing, as we all start somewhere.

 

 

I find myself agnostic about any rational stance against homosexuality in general, and same sex marriage in particular. I have seen no evidence to support it, but I also see no contrary evidence. So, I just stand that, like anything claimed but unsupported, it's something I don't worry about until there is reason to. The question I asked is just and invitation to those who think there are rational reasons to stand against SSM to present their evidence, and is not a claim that there is none.

 

Meanwhile, we're left with religious, faith-based, and flatly irrational reasons to stand against SSM. I reject that these reasons should be enshrined in law for the same reasons Muslims don't want Christians to dictate who they worship, and for the same reasons artists don't want to be told what they can create, etc.

 

Which is to say, so long as an activity does not have any real negative impact on others, freedom reigns supreme.

 

That was nicely put.

 

I think one reason I'm somewhat reluctant to accept that there are no possible well-reasoned objections is that my wife is opposed on the grounds of tradition/naming (she would see it called something other than marriage). But she's no bigot and many of her friends are gay or lesbian; some where guests at our wedding and we had a priest from an alternate-Catholic church that serves the gay and lesbian community. Many of her friends know her position and respect it, even though they disagree. Not that she talks about politics much, that being more of her husband's thing. (grin)

 

So basically: Smart girl, college degrees, CPA, rejects religion and the religious right, cares about the world, etc, but here she is taking the position that it should be called something other than marriage. And I know a lot of moderate conservatives (and liberals) who hold that position, so like I say I'm somewhat reluctant to cast aspersions.

 

On the other hand, I've also seen some of them 'come around' on this and other issues over time, and I think this comes back to the question of how you convince people to change their minds, with a carrot or a stick. The reason we no longer have segregation in this country isn't Kent State and Malcom X, it's Selma and Dr. King. Winning hearts and minds is a gradual (and frustrating) process.

 

Anyway, nice post.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

I'm minoring in Computer Science. I know Windows is a crap OS compared to Apple's. Ive seen the architecture of both, and I can adamantly say Apple's version is better written. But I still love and use Windows, and that won't change. Does that make me a bigot? I would think not, so why is this belief in SSM any different?

Because you have relevant secular reasons for knowing that Windows sucks, and also for liking parts of its functionality despite that... I bet you could name the parts you like and dislike, and it wouldn't take you more than a few moments to name several.

 

Now... Ask yourself... What are your relevant secular reasons for being opposed to same sex marriages? If you have none, then as much as you might dislike admitting it, and be uncomfortable with how it sounds, you are being bigoted.

 

However, let me pause and state for the record that... after having interacted with you on numerous occasions here at SFN... I'm quite confident that you are not a bigoted person. I think you are quite kind and thoughtful, and I've enjoyed your contributions here. However, if you continue to hold your opposition to same sex marriage for no good reason, then you have to concede you are being either bigoted or ignorant on this particular topic.

 

My sincere hope is that you will offer a good reason to be opposed to same sex marriage, or... if you are unable... that you will change your position and stop being opposed to it.

[JillSwift]

Oh, I most certainly see the fault in my beliefs. But what gives you the right to claim that my way is wrong? My belief harms no one, as I do not support the anti-SSM movements and such. Its just something I believe personally. If they were to pass SSM tomorrow, I would go "meh" and get on with my day.

If you were cast your vote against same sex marriage, I'd have to call it bigotry, because it's using what power you have to stand in the way of others (in fact, it would be you claiming others are wrong in the most active legal way available to you.)

 

If you simply "don't agree" but don't use your political power to stand against it, it's not bigotry because you've tolerated what you don't agree with.

 

That's the real litmus test of anything involving tolerance. Real tolerance is ignoring that which does not directly affect you when you otherwise disagree.

 

 

So to say that a quietly-held opinion is bigotry (which is an awful harsh term) just because that one opinion is proven to have faults, seems to fit the bill of bigotry much more than the aforementioned opinion.

Not if it's actual bigotry, it is not. Then it would be an observation. Does disagreement alone constitute bigotry? Nopers, because the core of the definition is intolerance. Intolerance is an active position.

 

I'm minoring in Computer Science. I know Windows is a crap OS compared to Apple's. Ive seen the architecture of both, and I can adamantly say Apple's version is better written. But I still love and use Windows, and that won't change. Does that make me a bigot? I would think not, so why is this belief in SSM any different? Because it is a "hot-topic"? That wouldn't be a very good reason.

As I said, and bears repeating: It's not the disagreement that makes a bigot, it's the active intolerance.

 

You would never marry another man. This does not make you homophobic or a bigot, this just makes you "straight". Believing marriage has a particular definition doesn't make you a bigot. Disliking the use of the term marriage when the couple are of the same gender doesn't make you a bigot.

 

However, disallowing a man to marry another man would make you a bigot. Disallowing the use of the term "marriage" for same sex couples when the term is in use for the exact same social contract between different sex couples is still bigotry - it would be active intolerance of equal treatment under the law.

[StringJunky]

iNOW and JiillSwift: I think the reason why the people here can't give a definitive secular reason against your stance is because there is no historical precedent anywhere for gay marriages as a norm, or meaningful statistical data yet to refer to......it is too new. Nobody knows what the consequences will be on our society and in this unknown, lies the fear or concern alluded to by some here. Society is moving into new territory.

 

Because there is currently, insufficient, statistically meaningful data or experience at the societal level, across any decent timeline, nobody can factually argue either way...., without any data about long-term behaviour patterns and social costs. it's all opinion here and the most convincing one wins the argument...this doesn't necessarily make it right. I think we might need a couple of generations to observe and understand the real outcome for society.

 

I have no strong opinion on this matter but just wanted to point this out in the interest of some balance.

[JillSwift]

iNOW and JiillSwift: I think the reason why the people here can't give a definitive secular reason against your stance is because there is no historical precedent anywhere for gay marriages as a norm, or meaningful statistical data yet to refer to......it is too new. Nobody knows what the consequences will be on our society and in this unknown, lies the fear or concern alluded to by some here. Society is moving into new territory.

 

Because there is currently, insufficient, statistically meaningful data or experience at the societal level, across any decent timeline, nobody can factually argue either way...., without any data about long-term behaviour patterns and social costs. it's all opinion here and the most convincing one wins the argument...this doesn't necessarily make it right. I think we might need a couple of generations to observe and understand the real outcome for society.

 

I have no strong opinion on this matter but just wanted to point this out in the interest of some balance.

That's the best argument in favor of allowing same sex marriage I have ever read. Thank you!

[A Tripolation]

If you simply "don't agree" but don't use your political power to stand against it, it's not bigotry because you've tolerated what you don't agree with.

 

That's the real litmus test of anything involving tolerance. Real tolerance is ignoring that which does not directly affect you when you otherwise disagree.

 

And this is precisely the case. I oppose it, but I'm not going to tell two adults that are in love that they can't get married. That's just wrong. I don't know why I oppose it, I just know I do, and I feel I always will. (lol, and people said I would become socially liberal in college)

 

I guess one of the last things I'll add to this is that some people that are anti-same-sex-marriage is because they see marriage as between one man and one woman, as it has been for ages. That's my reason anyhow.

[jackson33]

Jill quotes;

Oh, there's a pretty specific definition of "rational[definition #1]" in use here.[/Quote]

 

OK, lets go from there; I believe it's reasonable to allow the majority, to ration the limits of where human rights start and end (NOT THE RIGHT). Your arguing the opposite, so should I assume your irrational. I certainly don't, understanding your particular vested interest on this topic and accept your arguments as more than rational. In this case what would be irrational, would be you arguing against GL rights for recognition...

 

A little apocrypha there. Generally irrelevant, however. What risks folks choose to take with their own bodies is their own responsibility.[/Quote]

 

That's precisely why I prefaced the article. I also believe the individual has rights to indulge in any legal activity, drinking/eating too much, participation in dangerous activity or profession to sexual activity. NOW here's the problem, why do I think you and/or iNow favor Universal Government Health Care in the USA, which makes responsibility of the consequences, my shared responsibility. iNow calls this 2+2=7 and what I see this thread taken from another thread, as hypocrisy.

 

Are you suggesting we can just redefine words to make this problem a non-problem? That was done to keep killing the Native Americans, keep Africans enslaved and treated as chattel, and deny rights to women. All of which have since been disposed of as unjust.[/Quote]

 

Yes; In my mind there was never anything derogatory about the word Negro, but we changed the word to Black's and then to 'African Americans' which makes no sense what so ever, but apparently acceptable by the majority of folks that are Black, Where I've spent my life, I was always a gringo, but never once thought it was a bad word or insisted I be called an English/German American. If the religious folks wish to maintain what has always been a word used for their unions, why does any group really need to use that particular word. It certainly won't gain respectability and frankly most responsibilities and benefits favor two individuals over a married couple, to start with....

 

Your trying to equate mid evil times to the current US or using some period in the change to demonstrate what you perceive evil today. I'd prefer you to use what's around today, or explain to me how evil the US is compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran, most of Africa, even China, Russia or India.

 

"at least in my opinion" is an escape clause. In this thread, on this question, it's all about the secular. [/Quote]

 

I agree, but on these public forums it's best to use the term, when definitive proof is not available. Secular and your original question has been addressed, as was iNow's. You can remove the religious connotations from any statement, becoming secular, but you can't take the person and make him/her a secular spoke person.

 

Are you saying that the fight for rights in each case was not won, but those in power were just gracious enough to let them have their rights? Are you excusing atrocity "because others did it as well"? It seems like you are here.[/Quote]

 

I am saying the American System, was the instrumental reason these rights have progressed to the points they have and those people that made that system work, which includes all peoples and generations since the Constitution and in many cases long before in the Colonies who had abandoned rule by force, born surf/nobility and all the rest...

 

Note; "Are you saying" is also an "escape clause" or an attempt to draw a particular response, much as relevance or irrelevance.

 

iNOW and JiillSwift: I think the reason why the people here can't give a definitive secular reason against your stance is because there is no historical precedent anywhere for gay marriages as a norm, or meaningful statistical data yet to refer to......it is too new. Nobody knows what the consequences will be on our society and in this unknown, lies the fear or concern alluded to by some here. Society is moving into new territory.[/Quote]

 

StingJumgle; Historically, people have not run down to some Court House, received a license, go through a ceremony and be classified married. THAT'S NEW. What's not new and has a distinct History in more than a few societies are sexual relationships of the same sex, generally all destructive to their particular society. Aside from this;

 

Nothing would happen to this society as known today, or for hundreds of years if GL are permitted to marry and under the term marriage, Federally condoned or not, with benefits or not and to what degree it develops in the society. We could probably use 30-40 or maybe 50% of a non-reproducing world society (Population Control) and be better off for it, in the long run. What is important are or is the society that exist today, in this case the US, the rights of those that favor or do not and some definition of what they have been doing, what it represents to each NOW or may in the near future.

[iNow]

If the religious folks wish to maintain what has always been a word used for their unions, why does any group really need to use that particular word.

First, nobody is asking religious folks to change a thing. They can choose to marry or not marry anybody they wish. We are talking about the state, and state recognition of marriage.

 

Second, marriage (as recognized by the state) is NOT a religious activity, as atheists and non-religious people have been getting married for decades, and potentially centuries.

 

 

What's not new and has a distinct History in more than a few societies are sexual relationships of the same sex, generally all destructive to their particular society.

This is perhaps the single best evidence that the opposition is based on ignorance and/or homophobia. I really can't believe you just let yourself type those words as if they were accurate and representative of reality, Jackson. It's comments such as those which make people so frustrated with the opposition. What you've said there really has no basis in reality, and I shouldn't have to explain that with it being almost the year 2010, not 1010.

 

 

Now, I have read your several posts to this thread, and notice you have still not addressed the central question. Please note that.

[JillSwift]

If the religious folks wish to maintain what has always been a word used for their unions, why does any group really need to use that particular word. It certainly won't gain respectability and frankly most responsibilities and benefits favor two individuals over a married couple, to start with....

No one is demanding changes from religions or the religious. Words have always carried multiple definitions depending on thier context, and using "marriage" in a secular context has no effect on its use in a religious context. By the way, "marriage" has not always meant what it means now, even in the religious sense.

 

Your trying to equate mid evil times to the current US or using some period in the change to demonstrate what you perceive evil today. I'd prefer you to use what's around today, or explain to me how evil the US is compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran, most of Africa, even China, Russia or India.

Your preferences for what sorts of examples I use isn't relevant, sorry. Unjust is unjust, hon. Whether it was 1,000 years ago or last week, whether it was supported by almost all the population or just the folks in power.

 

Note; "Are you saying" is also an "escape clause" or an attempt to draw a particular response, much as relevance or irrelevance.

"Are you saying..." is clearly a call for clarification. Can we leave these gambits out of the discussion? I prefer looking at the issues at hand in a rational way, rather than bickering.

[Saryctos]

The only difference between a heterosexual and homosexual union is the objective fact that there will be either no man, or no woman.

It is easier to see it in this light as the other way 'round is what brings the homosexual problem from so many(2 men, 2 women). If we view the opposite(lack of man, or lack of woman) we can get to the heart of the differences without flaming up the homophobic aspects of the discussion.

 

Could someone make the case that a marriage without a man in the house would be counter to the purpose of marriage? Could they also make a case for lacking a female? It would be neigh impossible to prove either of these claims, and you could certainly find subjective distinctions throughout with which someone could use to argue for or against it.

 

There also exists a difference with respect to producing children. The creation of a child requires both a male and a female. It would be physically impossible without one of the two.

My opinion is that marriage is the legal establishment of an intent to produce children(there is nothing in the laws that say this, it is my opinion/feeling on the intent of its creation). However, there is no check for fertility when signing a marriage license, 'nor any intent to procreate clause.(but contextually given the time of its creation was there a full understanding of fertility? How many marriages didn't attempt to produce children? Up until now, what would prompt bothering to draw the distinction?)

As it stands however, there is nothing in the laws about the creation of children, it is simply a non-factor in the letter of the law as it now stands.

 

There is also the point that since children cannot be born of the marriage, that there can be no union to the family trees(from the wed). The importance of this comes from the historical implications of marriage. Regardless of how much importance one places on this difference(probably very little if at all for many people), it is there.

 

 

As I see it the issues worth speculating about revolve around:

Absence of male/female as part of the family unit

Inability to produce children born from both the wed

 

 

My stance after all considerations is that all rights afforded heterosexual unions should be given to homosexual couples. However, I do believe that there are distinct differences between the two, and this can easily be acknowledged in using a term other than marriage.

[iNow]

...this can easily be acknowledged in using a term other than marriage.

Yes, it can... But, why should we use a term other than marriage (since the term seems to apply to the relationship, not the gender of the participants in that relationship)?

 

What relevant secular reason is there for having a different term, and is it worth it to relegate homosexuals to an underclass... as different in an "us/them" sense... prevented from joining your treehouse or country club of "marriage?"

[Saryctos]

Yes, it can... But, why should we use a term other than marriage (since the term seems to apply to the relationship, not the gender of the participants in that relationship)?

 

What relevant secular reason is there for having a different term, and is it worth it to relegate homosexuals to an underclass... as different in an "us/them" sense... prevented from joining your treehouse or country club of "marriage?"

The lack of gender changes the implications of the relationship as listed in the above post. What about having a different term applied to a different situation creates an "underclass"? What reasons do you have for believing that an orange not being called an apple makes it somehow inferior?

 

 

EDIT: sorry replyed too fast the first time =P (thrice)

Edited September 15, 2009 by Saryctos

[iNow]

Is it worth it to call them by a different term? The composition of the relationship between a black man and a white woman is different than the composition of the relationship between two partners of the same color. Should that also have a different term? What about when an older man marries a younger woman? That has a different composition from the marriage between two comparably aged partners. Should that have a different term? What about people who are married for the third or fourth time. That has a different composition than people who are marrying for the first time. Should that have a different term? What about people who marry and are infertile. The composition of that relationship is different than those who are fertile/want children. Should that have it's own term?

 

I know you are okay with granting homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual couples, but I'm making a point here.

 

What relevant secular difference is so profound as to require a different term, and why don't you ALSO have a different term for all of the other countless relationships of different composition? If we simply accept that the term "marriage" describes the fact that there are partners in a relationship recognized by the state, we can do away with all of the other "let's keep them out of my country club" discussion of alternate terms.

 

 

 

 

All of that aside, you've basically just said that they should be called something different, and you haven't given a relevant reason why. The inability to have children doesn't factor in since we call infertile couples, the elderly, and people with no desire to have kids "married." If you use that criterion to prevent same sex couples from being called "married," then you are applying a double standard.

[The Bear's Key]

My opinion is that marriage is the legal establishment of an intent to produce children...

I'll have to disagree. If you're filthy rich and didn't get a prenup from your spouse but then want a divorce, you'll know what I mean

 

How many marriages didn't attempt to produce children? Up until now, what would prompt bothering to draw the distinction?)

See above.

 

Don't forget too, marriage had once primarily been a tool for business arrangements, at least in Europe. Not between just a man and a woman, but their families who likely benefitted the most.

 

Tradition kept the concept from dying, until widespread it evolved into a contract between lovers forever.

[Saryctos]

Is it worth it to call them by a different term? The composition of the relationship between a black man and a white woman is different than the composition of the relationship between two partners of the same color. Should that also have a different term? What about when an older man marries a younger woman? That has a different composition from the marriage between two comparably aged partners. Should that have a different term? What about people who are married for the third or fourth time. That has a different composition than people who are marrying for the first time. Should that have a different term? What about people who marry and are infertile. The composition of that relationship is different than those who are fertile/want children. Should that have it's own term?

All of those examples have the same composition with respect to expected physical ability to produce children. Currently, how can we tell whether an infertile couple is being married? Right now we can't, it simply isn't asked. Any couple not able to produce children can be seen as physically disadvantaged(part of them isn't working correctly, either due to illness age, or what have you) Where as a XX, or YY couple could be functioning perfectly and still unable to produce children.

 

I know you are okay with granting homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual couples, but I'm making a point here.

 

What relevant secular difference is so profound as to require a different term, and why don't you ALSO have a different term for all of the other countless relationships of different composition? If we simply accept that the term "marriage" describes the fact that there are partners in a relationship recognized by the state, we can do away with all of the other "let's keep them out of my country club" discussion of alternate terms.

 

 

 

 

All of that aside, you've basically just said that they should be called something different, and you haven't given a relevant reason why. The inability to have children doesn't factor in since we call infertile couples, the elderly, and people with no desire to have kids "married." If you use that criterion to prevent same sex couples from being called "married," then you are applying a double standard.

The difference in my mind lies in that with respect to infertile couples it is the exception to the rule that they are unable to procreate, while with any homogeneous couple it is impossible for procreation outright with no exceptions.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Saryctos