Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[JillSwift]

Is this a statement of opinion, or of fact? I imagine you might have studied this issue more thoroughly than I have.

As I understand it: The so-called "marriage license" (the actual social contracts) contain no definitions what-so-ever, nor do the laws and ordinances making them legal documentation.

 

We agree on the aspects I said we did. While I remain unconvinced as to the historical and current legal definitions, I do also agree with you that it would be for the better if it were to include same sex couples.

 

But again, the government also has the option of complying with equal treatment by using a different word. In the case of marriage this may also be the better option, since "marriage" has so many religious connotations and in any case, the legal aspects of marriage are almost completely different than the religious ones.

Which opens another refutation: If the definition being utilized is religious in nature, then it is unconstitutional.

 

Frankly, I see the definitional argument as a far greater argument in favor of abolishing marriage altogether than any sort of reasonable argument in favor of restricting privileges based on sexual orientation.

 

In the end, the definitional argument requires that there be a resistance to a specific class of people being included from a government offering. Tradition, dislike of change, people's delicate sensibilities, homophobia, whatever the root for any given group or individual, fair treatment under the law and therefore freedom is the paramount question.

 

So:

 

P1: The social contract and its associated privileges have long since been given the name "marriage".

P2: The same social contract was denied mixed-race couples on definitional grounds, later to be overturned as an irrelevancy.

P3: A separate but equal status has been established as insufficient to equal treatment under the law.

P4: Enshrinement of of religious doctrine in law has been established as unconstitutional.

P5: No tangible harm will befall those who wish to retain what they believe is the traditional definition of marriage should the secular social contract be expanded to cover all citizens fairly and equitably.

P6: If the definition of marriage has its roots in religion, then it is not a secular argument.

C1: Resistance to definition changes in the context of same sex marriage is insufficient cause to allow the continued denial of the social contract and its privileges to same-sex couples.

C2: The definitional argument fails to answer the posed question.

Edited September 17, 2009 by JillSwift

[mooeypoo]

Which opens another refutation: If the definition being utilized is religious in nature, then it is unconstitutional.

It's also not secular.

[JillSwift]

It's also not secular.

Oh yes. I missed that, thankies.

[Syntho-sis]

Quick question:

 

I was wondering. If the couple decides to have children. Say they adopted, and the child's previous family had be a heterosexual one. Is there any evidence that the psychological health of the children may be affected? Even if the child was at a young age?

 

Has any studies been done in that regard?

 

Thanks

[bascule]

Quick question:

 

I was wondering. If the couple decides to have children. Say they adopted, and the child's previous family had be a heterosexual one. Is there any evidence that the psychological health of the children may be affected? Even if the child was at a young age?

 

Has any studies been done in that regard?

 

Thanks

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+gay+couples+raise+gay+children%3F

 

reveals:

 

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

 

Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.

 

"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

[mooeypoo]

Quick question:

 

I was wondering. If the couple decides to have children. Say they adopted, and the child's previous family had be a heterosexual one. Is there any evidence that the psychological health of the children may be affected? Even if the child was at a young age?

 

Has any studies been done in that regard?

 

Thanks

Research was done, research showed no effect of the sexuality of the parents or the fact that they were same sex or not same sex.

 

• "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents", by Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health
  PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344
  http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341
  
• "Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children", Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives, July 2004
  Includes research summary.
  http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parentschildren.pdf
  
• "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal" by Susan Golombok, Ann Spencer, and Michael Rutter
  1983. Journal of Child Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 551-572.
  Showing no differences between children of straight parents to children of same-sex parents.
  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119540781/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
  
• "Psychosocial Adjustment among Children Conceived via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers" by Raymond W. Chan, Barbara Raboy, and Charlotte Patterson
  Child Development, Vol. 69, No. 2, pages 443-457.
  http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132177
  

The APA (American Psychological Association) fully supports "SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS"

 

Also, more information (and a bunch of other research material from various years and different aspects) can be found here: http://gbge.aclu.org/parenting/summaries-leading-research-gay-parents

 

And I recommend people read this quite excellent article summarizing the vast majority of the claims that were raised in the thread so far: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

 

quick excerpt:

The results of this and other studies suggest that denying same sex couples marriage rights not only prevents them from reaping the psychological and health benefits of marriage, but the process of codifying the elimination of these rights has negative psychological impacts on LGBT people.

 

...

 

Given the scientific evidence of the positive effects of same sex marriage on couples, the lack of negative effects on children reared in the context of these relationships, and the harm caused by preventing or eliminating marriage equality it doesn't seem that there is a solid foundation to stand on when arguing against allowing same sex couples to wed. From my perspective, it comes down to common sense. If it helps some people and it doesn't hurt anyone, why not let in happen. I think the comedian Wanda Sykes put it best, "It's real simple. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." In other words, why not allow gay marriage?

 

 

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

That's a mighty big "if" in your sentence there, and I would challenge you to support your contention that there ever existed a previous definition in our laws which was exclusive. I contend that this "previous definition" you assert only existed in peoples minds, and hence is not itself a relevant nor compelling reason to maintain your current opposition.

 

Contend that all you like: if you cannot show that these people are wrong, then your claim falls to the status of an opinion.

 

Further, you suggest a previously existing exclusional definition, yet the very fact that DOMA was required at all shows unequivocally that your assertion about the previous existence of an exclusional definition is a complete fabrication.

 

You falsely claim that a new law must say something new. This is neither a requirement nor a custom, as much sense as it would make if it were.

 

This is logically fallacious. You imply that they will become equal if called by unequal words.

 

False. I said that the equal word does not have to be the word "marriage".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Which opens another refutation: If the definition being utilized is religious in nature, then it is unconstitutional.

 

How so? Just because a word's origins may have been from religious people, or the word was used frequently by a religion, or even if a religion lays claim to the word, doesn't necessarily make the word religious. Now if the argument was that the word shouldn't be changed because god said so, then it would be a religious argument.

 

Frankly, I see the definitional argument as a far greater argument in favor of abolishing marriage altogether than any sort of reasonable argument in favor of restricting privileges based on sexual orientation.

 

Why yes, I think that the government doesn't really need to have anything to do with marriage.

 

C1: Resistance to definition changes in the context of same sex marriage is insufficient cause to allow the continued denial of the social contract and its privileges to same-sex couples.

C2: The definitional argument fails to answer the posed question.

 

Please note that I'm not arguing that it is sufficient, only relevant and secular as par the thread's question.

[JillSwift]

Please note that I'm not arguing that it is sufficient, only relevant and secular as par the thread's question.

Oh come on. If it isn't sufficient as a reason, it fails to answer the question looking for a secular and rational reason to deny same sex marriage.

[The Bear's Key]

This is one of the things I was trying to get across, that there are relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, but they don't have to be good ones to invalidate iNow's claim.

But anthing that's not a good reason is just a poor excuse then, not a vaild reason.

 

JillSwift's correct, I erred in post #132 that she quoted.

 

The error we've made so far is point-of-view (or at least I did). Seems it has to be relevant to "us" and the discussion, not to the person who mistakenly thinks it relevant.

 

Huge difference.

 

And if now I'm under the correct assumption, it'd help explain why iNow seemed to keep dismissing the reasons as not good enough -- because they actually weren't, for purposes of this discussion.

 

You see, we're not concerned if the "anti" person is deluded (or secular in a mistaken way), just if their reason is valid. In fact, we don't even need the opposing person in the discussion, just the reason itself...were it vaild.

[mooeypoo]

Contend that all you like: if you cannot show that these people are wrong, then your claim falls to the status of an opinion.

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.

 

You falsely claim that a new law must say something new. This is neither a requirement nor a custom, as much sense as it would make if it were.

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.

 

 

False. I said that the equal word does not have to be the word "marriage".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So what do you propose? And this new word, would it be used for everyone (eliminating "Marriage" altogether, and creating an all-inclusive definition instead of it)? Or will it only encompass gays, while heterosexual couples will still have "marriage" ?

 

I'll wait for you to clarify that point before I continue examining your line of thought in the matter.

 

How so? Just because a word's origins may have been from religious people, or the word was used frequently by a religion, or even if a religion lays claim to the word, doesn't necessarily make the word religious. Now if the argument was that the word shouldn't be changed because god said so, then it would be a religious argument.

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.

 

Why yes, I think that the government doesn't really need to have anything to do with marriage.

I agree, but since they do, should we not have equality?

 

Please note that I'm not arguing that it is sufficient, only relevant and secular as par the thread's question.

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

[jackson33]

In my years, it's always been interesting in talking with people the influence claimed by these folks of their Dad or a male figure in their life. To this day, years after my own Dads passing, I think of him every day and the comment I've heard most from others. In my mind, there could be no better end result for a child, with both the male and female roll in their nurturing and for what should be obvious reasons. There are all kinds of studies, relating to single parent raising and the problems the children develop. Is it the single parent is one sex or the other or the possibility the other gender is missing?

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=problems+in+single+parent+homes&aq=0&oq=problems+in+single+&aqi=g1

 

Only to let you know studies or there stated conclusions do not always agree, here is a study of the studies;

 

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

 

"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families." [/Quote]

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

[mooeypoo]

In my years, it's always been interesting in talking with people the influence claimed by these folks of their Dad or a male figure in their life. To this day, years after my own Dads passing, I think of him every day and the comment I've heard most from others. In my mind, there could be no better end result for a child, with both the male and female roll in their nurturing and for what should be obvious reasons. There are all kinds of studies, relating to single parent raising and the problems the children develop. Is it the single parent is one sex or the other or the possibility the other gender is missing?

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=problems+in+single+parent+homes&aq=0&oq=problems+in+single+&aqi=g1

 

Only to let you know studies or there stated conclusions do not always agree, here is a study of the studies;

 

 

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

 

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

[JillSwift]

what should be obvious reasons

This is the catchphrase of pseudoscience. If you can't demonstrate the evidence easily yourself, then it's not at all obvious, and is probably wrong.

 

I won't belabor the points mooeypoo already made, suffice to say this is an example of the "obvious" being untrue.

[mooeypoo]

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.

[Dudde]

I would also like to point out that if we really were thinking strictly about the children, which is already a lie, then I'd think it would make sufficient sense to stop convicted child molesters and murders, etc. from getting married. It doesn't necessarily seem the safest place for children. As far as I know, they're free to marry as long as they're not in prison.

 

I know we said the point was irrelevant, but I thought I would throw my two cents anyway

 

/backontopic

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh come on. If it isn't sufficient as a reason, it fails to answer the question looking for a secular and rational reason to deny same sex marriage.

 

Sorry, I phrased that badly. Suppose someone offers you $10 or $10,000, and you can accept one of the two. Clearly the better option is the $10,000 (or is it?). However, the existence of that option does not mean that the $10 option wasn't also available to you. Now then the existence of a valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage is likewise not canceled out by the existence of a better reason not to. Doing so would be moving the goalposts (from existence to superiority).

[bascule]

In my years, it's always been interesting in talking with people the influence claimed by these folks of their Dad or a male figure in their life. To this day, years after my own Dads passing, I think of him every day and the comment I've heard most from others.

 

I lost my father as well. I think of him almost every day, and wish I could still spend time with him. The thought he is gone forever brings tears to my eyes.

 

However, that particular personal anecdote is completely irrelevant to this converation. The fact my father is male is not why I love him, or what made him a great person.

 

In my mind, there could be no better end result for a child, with both the male and female roll in their nurturing and for what should be obvious reasons. There are all kinds of studies, relating to single parent raising and the problems the children develop. Is it the single parent is one sex or the other or the possibility the other gender is missing?

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=problems+in+single+parent+homes&aq=0&oq=problems+in+single+&aqi=g1

 

Only to let you know studies or there stated conclusions do not always agree, here is a study of the studies;

 

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

 

My reaction to NARTH is: are you f*cking kidding me? You may as well be linking Answers In Genesis in an evolution debate.

 

That organization is not putting out peer reviewed research, instead they're completely contradicting the medical and psychological establishment. They are not credible, far from it. They're an outgrowth of Focus on the Family. Their foregone conclusion is that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says its wrong. Their "scientific research" is completely tainted by confirmation bias.

 

Furthermore, they're advocates of "conversion therapy", the idea that you can condition homosexuals to be straight. This idea is outright bonkers, and thoroughly rejected by every major medical and psychological organization:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Mainstream_medical_view_on_changing_sexual_orientation

 

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers has stated: "Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as “reparative therapy.” No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. Moreover, because homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, national mental health organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Therefore, all major national mental health organizations have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. The statement of the American Psychiatric Association cautions that “[t]he potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.”"[37] Major organizations that reject therapy to change sexual orientation include the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Education Association.[38]

 

Please do not cite NARTH as a source on this matter. Thank you.

[The Bear's Key]

Sorry, I phrased that badly. Suppose someone offers you $10 or $10,000, and you can accept one of the two. Clearly the better option is the $10,000 (or is it?). However, the existence of that option does not mean that the $10 option wasn't also available to you. Now then the existence of a valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage is likewise not canceled out by the existence of a better reason not to. Doing so would be moving the goalposts (from existence to superiority).

mooey already highlighted consistency as the other determining factor. Secular and consistent: do the reasons given fit both criteria?

 

Nothing to do with superiority.

[iNow]

But anything that's not a good reason is just a poor excuse then, not a vaild reason.

 

JillSwift's correct, I erred in post #132 that she quoted.

 

The error we've made so far is point-of-view (or at least I did). Seems it has to be relevant to "us" and the discussion, not to the person who mistakenly thinks it relevant.

 

Huge difference.

 

And if now I'm under the correct assumption, it'd help explain why iNow seemed to keep dismissing the reasons as not good enough -- because they actually weren't, for purposes of this discussion.

 

You see, we're not concerned if the "anti" person is deluded (or secular in a mistaken way), just if their reason is valid. In fact, we don't even need the opposing person in the discussion, just the reason itself...were it vaild.

 

Correct.

[JillSwift]

Sorry, I phrased that badly. Suppose someone offers you $10 or $10,000, and you can accept one of the two. Clearly the better option is the $10,000 (or is it?). However, the existence of that option does not mean that the $10 option wasn't also available to you. Now then the existence of a valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage is likewise not canceled out by the existence of a better reason not to. Doing so would be moving the goalposts (from existence to superiority).

Semantics is so annoying.

 

Common usage of "reason" suggests sufficiency. If X is insufficient to generate the action, X is not reason enough to generate action. For example: "I have no reason to risk breaking my neck to get that dollar bill off the ledge."

 

Is definition preservation sufficient, thus a rational and secular reason, to prevent same sex marriage? No.

[mooeypoo]

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

 

Reminder:

....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.

[Severian]

Surely the best secular reason to oppose gay marriage is if the democratic majority don't want it. Isn't that the point of democracy? Their individual personal reasons are immaterial.

[bascule]

Surely the best secular reason to oppose gay marriage is if the democratic majority don't want it. Isn't that the point of democracy? Their individual personal reasons are immaterial.

 

Opposing something because the majority doesn't want it? That makes about as much sense as voting for a candidate because they're ahead in the polls.

[Severian]

Opposing something because the majority doesn't want it? That makes about as much sense as voting for a candidate because they're ahead in the polls.

 

As an individual, I agree, but as a community, no. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and if you don't like that, go find a desert island.

[mooeypoo]

As an individual, I agree, but as a community, no. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and if you don't like that, go find a desert island.

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