Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[StringJunky]

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.

 

This was a reason I used in post 114,:

 

"Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now."

 

This is similar to yours but iNow shot it down with (post 115):

 

"We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is not relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971])."

 

I would contend that our thought is relevant , because it is the reality, but the present state of affairs in the US is not justified A definition:

 

Relevant....having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue;

 

Justified... To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:

 

The Pro Rights camp are using a word with the wrong definition in mind...an important

semantic error, since it can only confuse any opposition who may be working on the correct definition and is a principal word used in the original post.

 

Let's make sure we have the same meanings in mind.

Edited September 18, 2009 by StringJunky

[bascule]

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.

 

I'm not sure why your response is relevant to my point. You seemed to suggest that people support what the majority supports for no other reason than the majority supports it. I think this is a very bad idea. People should support something because they have reasons. Don't like gay marriage because your religion says it's bad? Fine, that's your opinion. Don't like gay marriage because the majority of people don't like gay marriage? In that case you don't have an opinion, you're just blindly following everyone else. This is bad.

 

If you don't have an opinion on the matter, you shouldn't just be a sheep and do what the crowd says is right.

[mooeypoo]

This was a reason I used in post 114,:

 

"Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now."

 

This is similar to yours but iNow shot it down with (post 115):

 

"We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is not relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971])."

 

I would contend that our thought is relevant , because it is the reality, but the present state of affairs in the US is not justified A definition:

 

Relevant....having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue;

 

Justified... To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:

 

The Pro Rights camp are using a word with the wrong definition in mind...an important

semantic error, since it can only confuse any opposition who may be working on the correct definition and is a principal word used in the original post.

 

Let's make sure we have the same meanings in mind.

It's irrelevant because this might be a reason to follow the decision, but it's not a reason support it.

 

The question of this thread is about valid secular reasons to oppose gay marriage -- hence, to support the opposition. It's not about valid reasons to follow the democratic process. The reason is invalid for the purpose of the thread.

 

~moo

[Severian]

Let me clarify. I don't oppose gay marriage on a personal level (well, actually I do, but not any more than heterosexual marriage), and the majority opposing gay marriage is not a good reason for me to start opposing gay marriage.

 

However, as part of the community, I would oppose anyone making gay marriage legal because it would be a perversion of democracy. iNow's point that "we are a constitutional republic...we are not a direct democracy" (incidentally, this is wrong; we are not a constitutional republic, since I am not American) is not a good argument, because representative democracies are really only representative for administrative reasons. They are still built on the principle of majority rule, so passing a law that the majority do not want is an abuse of democratic principles.

 

Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I would oppose gay marriage on personal grounds, since I think it is a false step to include the recognition of gay relationships without recognising non-sexual relationships on similar footing. In other words, I think it would be a strategic error if trying to accomplish the end goal of equality for all.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Severian

[mooeypoo]

However, as part of the community, I would oppose anyone making gay marriage legal because it would be a perversion of democracy. iNow's point that "we are a constitutional republic...we are not a direct democracy" (incidentally, this is wrong; we are not a constitutional republic, since I am not American) is not a good argument, because representative democracies are really only representative for administrative reasons. They are still built on the principle of majority rule, so passing a law that the majority do not want is an abuse of democratic principles.

Really? You would? That makes no sense, Severian, unless you would oppose EVERYTHING the majority decides.

 

And then when that happens, you cannot try to convince the majority (even introduce subjects that the majority might not be familiar with, hindering their decision), because if the majority disaproves.

 

It makes no sense, Severian.

 

On top of that, we're not arguing whether or not anyone should make gay marriage legal despite majority rule, we're asking about reasons people have to oppose it. The idea that we shouldn't ACT against majority rule doesn't mean we can't DISAGREE with it. We are tackling the reasons why anyone would disagree, not why anyone wouldn't act.

 

While this reason might be relevant for considering actions (or lack thereof), it's simply irrelevant for forming an opinion. In fact, this idea stands in direct opposition to the principle of a Democracy, because it will prevent our society (regardless of where we are and which type of democracy we're in) to present new information that might *sway* the majority rule.

 

That's the point of democracy, it change because it allows its citizens to have an opinion and to VOICE it. The question at hand is about the reasons behind such opinion, and the idea that it may oppose majority rule is irrelevant for this aspect.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I would oppose gay marriage on personal grounds, since I think it is a false step to include the recognition of gay relationships without recognising non-sexual relationships on similar footing. In other words, I think it would be a strategic error if trying to accomplish the end goal of equality for all.

Now that's a different point altogether, but I'm not sure I understand what you're claiming here.. can you expand on that? Why would it not be a step towards equality to *not* exclude part of the population in the eyes of the law?

 

I'm not sure I understood what you're saying, so I don't want to answer without fully understanding your point. Can you clarify?

[JillSwift]

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.

There is a vast difference between having a reason to do something, and making use of the mechanisms in place to enforce the decisions based on that reason.

 

However, even is we were to fall for the equivocation, it has already been established that this particular republic requires equal treatment under the law. The majority has been told to go stuff it on many occasions, with minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Let me clarify. I don't oppose gay marriage on a personal level (well, actually I do, but not any more than heterosexual marriage), and the majority opposing gay marriage is not a good reason for me to start opposing gay marriage.

 

However, as part of the community, I would oppose anyone making gay marriage legal because it would be a perversion of democracy. iNow's point that "we are a constitutional republic...we are not a direct democracy" (incidentally, this is wrong; we are not a constitutional republic, since I am not American) is not a good argument, because representative democracies are really only representative for administrative reasons. They are still built on the principle of majority rule, so passing a law that the majority do not want is an abuse of democratic principles.

 

Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I would oppose gay marriage on personal grounds, since I think it is a false step to include the recognition of gay relationships without recognising non-sexual relationships on similar footing. In other words, I think it would be a strategic error if trying to accomplish the end goal of equality for all.

This thread is addressing a specific question. You're headed out and dealing with a far broader question here. Could perhaps this be made another thread?

[StringJunky]

Mooeypoo: I hope it is clear from my earlier posts my personal opinion on this matter but I am just highlighting one or two realities...I am minded to take the position of Devil's Advocate sometimes to see how an opposing view may stand up. I hope it helps to ultimately strengthen the case not weaken it.

[Sisyphus]

"Majority will" is a default guiding principle but not the only one. We (and I'm talking specifically about the United States, but it applies in most countries) wouldn't need a Constitution if we went by simple majority rule all the time. (The Constitution itself needs quite a bit more than a simple national referendum to be altered.)

[Syntho-sis]

There is a vast difference between having a reason to do something, and making use of the mechanisms in place to enforce the decisions based on that reason.

 

However, even is we were to fall for the equivocation, it has already been established that this particular republic requires equal treatment under the law. The majority has been told to go stuff it on many occasions, with minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

 

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

[JillSwift]

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

It isn't, but so what? This is the natural function of the three major branches: Precedent, law, and executive power.

 

Again, this is puttering off the topic.

[Severian]

On top of that, we're not arguing whether or not anyone should make gay marriage legal despite majority rule, we're asking about reasons people have to oppose it.

 

Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but I thought it was asking for reasons we would oppose a legislature making gay marriage legal. I believe in free speech, so I have no reason to oppose anyone who simply thinks gay marriage would be great (their opinion has nothing to do with me).

 

I'm not sure I understood what you're saying, so I don't want to answer without fully understanding your point. Can you clarify?

 

I meant this on slightly mercenary cynical grounds. My prefered outcome would be for the state to wash its hands of marriage and say that it recognises no unions whatsoever. If gay marriage is made legal, the whole question on marriage leaves public debate and I will have no chance of seeing my vision win through. If the furore continues maybe the state will get fed up enough to do something radical. (On the other hand, maybe the anti-gay marriage crowd could kick up a bigger stink.... hmmm.)

[A Tripolation]

It isn't, but so what? This is the natural function of the three major branches: Precedent, law, and executive power.

 

Again, this is puttering off the topic.

 

Well you are the one that brought it up. This is completely irrelevant, JillSwift.

[Syntho-sis]

It isn't, but so what? This is the natural function of the three major branches: Precedent, law, and executive power.

Again, this is puttering off the topic.

 

Hmmm...Then why use it as a claim to refute another claim?

 

I believe that is a fallacy (can't pin the exact one down.)

 

Your own claims about how the three major branches operate..What evidence do you have to support those claims?

[JillSwift]

Well you are the one that brought it up. This is completely irrelevant, JillSwift.

 

Hmmm...Then why use it as a claim to refute another claim?

 

I believe that is a fallacy (can't pin the exact one down.)

 

Your own claims about how the three major branches operate..What evidence do you have to support those claims?

It's the constitutionality of equity that's off topic. It's nitpicking a side issue. (red herring)

 

That intervention on behalf of minorities has happened is a matter of historical fact (example: Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS). This precedence is entirely relevant.

 

If you don't understand how the three major branches operate, feel free to read up.

[A Tripolation]

Yes, I am quite aware of precedents within the Judicial Branches and how they shape our society. I just failed to see how they applied to this thread whatsoever, but I guess you were responding to Syntho-sis?

[Syntho-sis]

It's the constitutionality of equity that's off topic. It's nitpicking a side issue. (red herring)

 

That intervention on behalf of minorities has happened is a matter of historical fact (example: Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS). This precedence is entirely relevant.

 

If you don't understand how the three major branches operate, feel free to read up.

 

Let me quote you again..

 

The majority has been told to go stuff it on many occasions, with minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

 

It isn't, but so what? This is the natural function of the three major branches: Precedent, law, and executive power.

 

That intervention on behalf of minorities has happened is a matter of historical fact (example: Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS). This precedence is entirely relevant.

 

That last claim is totally irrelevant to the constitution and the statement made:

 

minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

 

Wouldn't a change in the constitution be required in order for homosexual couples to be allowed to marry? (To enforce in all states that is)

 

Would that change be based off of protection of minorities or will of majority?

 

The issue is irrelevant to the decision made when it is impeded by the majority vote. To the exclusion of vetoes.

 

Point being, that a piece of legislation requires at least some support from the majority in order to exist for any significant amount of time (Let's say ten years.)

 

It may be passed to begin with, but if the people decide they do not like a specific law they can vote in new representatives and members of congress. They can then petition the law, and have it reversed.

 

This also gets into the issue of states rights.

 

This is a function of argument, you can't call out every supposed red herring if you are not prepared to back up your statements with reliable evidence.

 

Nothing about our legislation is absolute...

[bascule]

Wouldn't a change in the constitution be required in order for homosexual couples to be allowed to marry? (To enforce in all states that is)

 

No, the Full Faith and Credit clause means that all states should have to honor a marriage from another state. I mean, IANACL, but that'd be my interpretation.

[iNow]

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.

 

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.

 

I know there a lot of posts in this thread, but I already addressed that particular point back in post #115.

 

 

We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is

not

relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971]).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This was a reason I used in post 114,:

 

"Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now."

 

This is similar to yours but iNow shot it down with (post 115):

 

"We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is not relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971])."

I should have kept reading prior to responding. Thanks, StringJunky.

[Syntho-sis]

No, the Full Faith and Credit clause means that all states should have to honor a marriage from another state. I mean, IANACL, but that'd be my interpretation.

 

Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which define marriage as consisting solely of opposite-sex couples. As well, most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, either legislatively or by state supreme court judgment.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause#Same-sex_marriage

[JillSwift]

<snip>

 

The question, again:

Is there a relevant, secular, and rational reason to disallow oppose same sex marriage?

 

You're headed into structure of enforcement of a decision to prevent or allow same sex marriages. An interesting topic itself, certainly, but it doesn't seem to me to address the question.

 

I refute some arguments with "equitable treatment under law", as equity of treatment under the law is an established idea as an historical precedent, as opposed to being part of government or legal structure. To put it another way: Refusing equal treatment of citizens under the law is established as anathema to freedom - no excuse to be inequitable can be considered relevant or rational if it does not fit accepted principles. If you start talking about changing those basic principles, which I admit can happen, you are also moving the goalposts for answering the question.

Edited September 18, 2009 by JillSwift
Fixed misstatement. Thanks to mooeypoo for slapping me about for it. :P

[Syntho-sis]

The question, again:

Is there a relevant, secular, and rational reason to disallow same sex marriage?

 

You're headed into structure of enforcement of a decision to prevent or allow same sex marriages. An interesting topic itself, certainly, but it doesn't seem to me to address the question.

 

I refute some arguments with "equitable treatment under law", as equity of treatment under the law is an established idea as an historical precedent, as opposed to being part of government or legal structure. To put it another way: Refusing equal treatment of citizens under the law is established as anathema to freedom - no excuse to be inequitable can be considered relevant or rational if it does not fit accepted principles. If you start talking about changing those basic principles, which I admit can happen, you are also moving the goalposts for answering the question.

 

No, but it is a foundational concept to be considered when answering the question.

 

It is a fundamental center piece our honorable officials in legislation would need to consider if enacting an amendment which would allow for all SS couples to receive proper recognition (within all states).

 

It's one of the major impediments of SSM as of right now. With the real hedge being the beliefs of a majority of Americans that SS couples should not be allowed to marry (thus influencing all three branches of government to enact and enforce certain laws).

 

On to other topics then...Boy didn't I go out on a limb? haha

[mooeypoo]

No, but it is a foundational concept to be considered when answering the question.

But it's not addressing the relevancy of the actual opinion, just the relevancy of a potential action against the current law.

 

The only aspect where this is relevant is whether or not anyone should actively come out against a law. Saying that a law exists does NOT mean that people immediately must not disagree with it, and we are searching for the reasons why the would disagree or agree with such law.

 

We're stuck here on a very big red herring that deters us from the actual question at hand.

 

We're looking for the reasons behind people's opinion. This isn't a valid reason behind anyone's opinion, unless you suggest people should be conformists and never disagree with the majority.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The question, again:

Is there a relevant, secular, and rational reason to disallow same sex marriage?

 

Sorry, Jill, but that's not the question, and it might show the source of confusion about the humongous red herring we've been discussing for the last 2 pages.

 

The question isn't about reasons to disallow same sex marriage, but rather reasons to oppose it.

 

Disallow suggests actions, dependency on laws and majority and democracy. Oppose it is a manner of opinion; a person can oppose something without actively doing anything to change it, or they can support something illegal without actively breaking the law. The question of actions (disallow/allow as a form of law) comes AFTER a person makes the decision of whether or not to support or oppose a certain view.

 

The question raised is an interesting one, but is not the question asked here.

 

We're looking for the motives behind people's opposition to gay marriage. The claim is that those opposition views stem from religious concepts OR are inconsistent, and we are trying to see if there's any such position that is secular and rational.

 

It has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing, but with opposing and supporting. The allowing and disallowing aspect can come later, after we figure out if there's any reason to oppose such an idea, we cna talk about whether or not we should keep disallowing it despite of majority (or rather apparent majority).

Edited September 18, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[john5746]

The question, again:

Is there a relevant, secular, and rational reason to disallow same sex marriage?

 

Well, I think we need to establish the benefit of marriage or the effects of marriage on a society. To me, marriage provides a stable foundation for the next generation - both the creation and rearing of children.

 

IF sexuality was just a simple choice and IF this might lead to much greater homosexual coupling, then this could result in a large decline of children, which would be a bad result in our society, but a good one in an overpopulated area such as China. Should individual liberties be sacrificed for possible aggregate problems of society? We do it all the time. But this is just hypothetical, just for discussion.

 

Same sex marriage may also lead to same sex hetero marriages as well. If two single moms marry to share resources, will that be good or bad? Seems like it would be good in the immediate sense, but will men start thinking women should get together and take care of the babies(and work of course) or would men see gay fathers as yet another reason to be responsible for their children?

[JillSwift]

Well, I think we need to establish the benefit of marriage or the effects of marriage on a society. To me, marriage provides a stable foundation for the next generation - both the creation and rearing of children.

Ok. Of course, people who aren't raising children but are still married aren't interfering with those who are, either.

 

IF sexuality was just a simple choice and IF this might lead to much greater homosexual coupling, then this could result in a large decline of children, which would be a bad result in our society, but a good one in an overpopulated area such as China. Should individual liberties be sacrificed for possible aggregate problems of society? We do it all the time. But this is just hypothetical, just for discussion.

Choice or not (and I assure you it is not) the same number of people not having children because they are homosexual will not change, married or not.

 

Same sex marriage may also lead to same sex hetero marriages as well. If two single moms marry to share resources, will that be good or bad? Seems like it would be good in the immediate sense, but will men start thinking women should get together and take care of the babies(and work of course) or would men see gay fathers as yet another reason to be responsible for their children?

As stated, this is an "argument from consequence" fallacy. Yes, changes may be brought about by same sex marriage. To make it rational cause to oppose, you need to demonstrate that any changes brought about are likely and in some manner detrimental or otherwise harmful.

Edited September 18, 2009 by JillSwift

[Syntho-sis]

 

We're looking for the reasons behind people's opinion. This isn't a valid reason behind anyone's opinion, unless you suggest people should be conformists and never disagree with the majority.

 

~moo

 

 

Not what I suggested. I was simply pointing out how the current system operates and attempting to resolve what action would be necessary for such a law to survive. I was also attempting to explain why such a law is impeded on the basis of majority rule.

 

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Who gets to vote and a definition of inalienable rights which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act[5], by charter or constitution.

 

Thus a change would need to be made in the constitution in order to guarantee SS couples right to marry because there currently is not a guarantee of that right. Legislation on this issue is left to the state's governing bodies.

 

The only aspect where this is relevant is whether or not anyone should actively come out against a law. Saying that a law exists does NOT mean that people immediately must not disagree with it, and we are searching for the reasons why the would disagree or agree with such law.

 

It may be relevant to have secular reasons to appeal laws in a scientific community, but that is not how legislation in this country operates.

 

Bills can find their way into obscurity simply by a group of individuals deciding they are not comfortable with the proposal.

 

If there was any "relevant, secular" reason behind the impairment of such a law's creation so far, then we would be able to talk about that reason.

 

But there isn't one.

 

It is simply... Majority will..Which is based, more oft than not, on religious beliefs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#Public_Choice_Theory

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule