Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[mooeypoo]

Syntho-sis, you seem to be admitting yourself that this is irrelevant to the discussion, so why do you continue presenting us this red herring?

 

I wasn't arguing with your point, I was arguing that your point is irrelevant for this current discussion, which you seem to agree.

 

Can we please move on to the actual subject at hand?

[Syntho-sis]

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).

 

Haven't all the reasons been ruled out? Several times by now?

 

Why not discuss the more interesting topic anyway?

 

No secular reasoning exists for opposing SSM. IMHO

[insane_alien]

just because the topic isn't interesting to you does not meanit isn't interesting to anyone else.

 

if you want to discuss something you're interested in then you are welcome to start your own thread.

[Dudde]

Wow, this is an annoying argument that's come up before. Smart fellows, the founding fathers - they knew stuff would come up that they didn't know about, so they had some tricky wording.

 

Here, read this article from Democracy web, or from lexrex for differences between Democracies and Republics. In fact, you could just run a quick Google search and find out that majority rule being oppressive has already been thought about.

 

Just because the consitution doesn't say "only heterosexuals may marry" doesn't mean we should automagically infer that they're to be forbidden. In fact, California actually needed to modify it's constitution to take them away.

 

I'll elaborate further if needed, I also want to say that I highly doubt any of you are worried that the human race is in danger of underpopulating ourselves. Besides being beside the point, having children and bearing families is a ridiculous beside the point argument in regards to marriage - otherwise you'd have a contract to sign with your marriage license that says you'll have kids and bear a family.

 

Haven't all the reasons been ruled out? Several times by now?

Thanks

 

no statements above are an attack on anyone...

[iNow]

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

14th Amendment - Equal Protections Clause.

 

 

 

Sorry, Severian. I recognize this thread has become very US-centric during the last barrage of posts. That was not the intent, but I also feel the need to rebut false information or assertions is important... even if those assertions are specific to US law.

 

This is part of the reason we all keep trying to return to the central question which I have posed.

 

 

Are there any relevant (justifiable, compelling, rational, etc.) secular reasons to oppose gay marriage? We're now more than 200 posts in, and we're still waiting.

[Syntho-sis]

just because the topic isn't interesting to you does not meanit isn't interesting to anyone else.

 

if you want to discuss something you're interested in then you are welcome to start your own thread.

 

It's only an interesting discussion in that it's relevant to the question asked by the OP, so far no one has been able to answer that question.

 

Otherwise we're just going off topic, which is what we've been doing for the last several posts.

[mooeypoo]

It's only an interesting discussion in that it's relevant to the question asked by the OP, so far no one has been able to answer that question.

 

Otherwise we're just going off topic, which is what we've been doing for the last several posts.

The fact you seem to agree, now, with the topic, does not mean everyone agree with the topic. We're obviously debating here and the only erason this went off-topic is because we let it go off topic.

 

If we get BACK to topic, we can continue listening to the sides that still seem to claim the topic is not true.

 

Are everyone in agreement that this discussion is done? No one thinks there's a secular valid reason to oppose gay marriage? If that's the case (which I doubt), we can close the thread.

 

Nothing stops you from starting up a new thread about whatever claim you want, but the fact of the matter is that people use these off topic diversions to later say that the topic at hand was shown to be wrong, when, in fact, that is absolutely false.

 

~moo

[JillSwift]

Are there any relevant (justifiable, compelling, rational, etc.) secular reasons to oppose gay marriage? We're now more than 200 posts in, and we're still waiting.

 

To be frank, I'm willing to call it. There are none to be had.

 

All we are left with are the religious, irrational, and unquestioned learned reasons.

[Syntho-sis]

To be frank, I'm willing to call it. There are none to be had.

 

All we are left with are the religious, irrational, and unquestioned learned reasons.

 

Agreed.

[insane_alien]

the only reason i have been able to come up with for disallowing gay marriage(well the benefits that come from marriage) is that they are unable to further the species.

 

but there are some holes with this, those heterosexual partners who cannot/will not reproduce shouldn't be able to get those benefits either and those homosexual couples who decide to adopt should (in my opinion) get those benefits.

 

but that just seems messy. because you can't see the future on whether a couple will have a child(adopted or concieved).

 

perhaps this is so difficult for us because most of us are pro equal marriage rights for homosexuals. thats the best i can come up with if i really try to be anti-gay marriage.

 

although to be honest, i think they should scrap the whole benefits for married couples and turn it into benefits for families instead. eliminates all the debate about civil partnerships and gay couples and all this crap, give them whatever title the want but they only get the financial perks if they have a kid. but there would probably be people moaning about that too.

[A Tripolation]

the only reason i have been able to come up with for disallowing gay marriage(well the benefits that come from marriage) is that they are unable to further the species.

 

Well see, that is what is inherently wrong with this thread. People assume that since we are opposed to SSM, it means we want to deny them the benefits that come from marriage. This is simply not true, yet, many in this thread act as if that is what is going on.

 

I just want it called something different from marriage. Give them all the rights, as those rights belong to everyone that is in a COMMITTED relationship. But why must the name be the same?

And I don't get how this is "seperate but equal" as homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships in almost every way. What is wrong with the name "Civil Union"? I wouldn't be opposed to any future marriage I might have being labeled as a "Civil Union", so long as I got all the rights that were mine, and I was with the person I love.

 

That's what leads me to believe that this is all about the name and not the content. It seems shallow to me.

[iNow]

I just want it called something different from marriage. Give them all the rights, as those rights belong to everyone that is in a COMMITTED relationship. But why must the name be the same?

 

Since YOU are the one who wishes to call it by a different name, isn't the onus on YOU to tell US why we should do that?

What is your reason to call them something different?

Convince us that this is a good idea, and necessary.

 

I don't think it's necessary in the least. I don't think it has any value or merit whatsoever, and I think it's actually quite detrimental in the context of equality.

 

 

 

And I don't get how this is "seperate but equal" as homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships in almost every way.

 

Actually, I couldn't disagree with you more. They are the SAME in almost every way. The ONLY difference is genitals.

[mooeypoo]

I just want it called something different from marriage. Give them all the rights, as those rights belong to everyone that is in a COMMITTED relationship. But why must the name be the same?

Fair enough. Switch "them" with "blacks" and see if your question still holds. If it does, see if you can answer that question.

 

And I don't get how this is "seperate but equal" as homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships in almost every way. What is wrong with the name "Civil Union"? I wouldn't be opposed to any future marriage I might have being labeled as a "Civil Union", so long as I got all the rights that were mine, and I was with the person I love.

Other than the sexual acts, the relationship is actually similar in every way to a heterosexual couple, and I would further argue that in our day and age of sex games, gadgets, gizmos and a variety of positions, even the sex isn't all that different.

 

The name "Civil Union" is wrong because it doesn't hold the same rights by law that marriage does. It's also wrong because it suggests that couples that cannot get married are inferior.

 

Again, would you support excluding blacks from the definition of marriage? How about couples that are a-sexual (dislike sex, those exist, you'd be surprised) or that are married out of social obligation rather than love. Would you support taking away the word "marriage" from these couples and giving them a separate wording as well?

 

Unequal wording is inequality. To support the use of unequal wording, you must support this inequality. I'm not suggesting it can't be shown to have its merits, at times, to separate definitions in varous groups, but we're talking about specifically gay couples and specifically the word "marriage" and it's up to you to give us the REASON - a secular, valid one, at that - of why gay couples should be excluded from the general word and be given their own.

 

And this reasoning needs to be a relevant secular reason to apply to this thread.

 

Judging from the previous 200+ posts, I must wish you good luck with that.

 

That's what leads me to believe that this is all about the name and not the content. It seems shallow to me.

If you'd have taken the time to actually read the thread you decided to post in, you'd see that's not the case.

 

We've dealt with the merit (or lack thereof) of the definitions and the fact the definition is IRRELEVANT *as a reasoning* (and explained why, multiple times) for at least 20+ posts. Go over it a bit before you make such blunt assertions as to our shallowness, will you?

 

~moo

[Severian]

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

 

But why would you need a 'relevant secular reason' to 'oppose' same sex marriage, if opposition is just a statement of opinion?

[mooeypoo]

But why would you need a 'relevant secular reason' to 'oppose' same sex marriage, if opposition is just a statement of opinion?

Because many people claim they hold the opinion that opposes gay marriage but that their opinion is NOT religious. This thread is an attempt to see if this is possible.

 

iNow made the claim (which I agree) that opposing gay marriage (holding an opinion on the matter, that is) basically stems, in its core, from religion or tradition, and/or are inconsistent. That is, if a person defines him/herself as rational secular, they have no VALID reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

This claim was opposed by some, and this thread is an attempt to see if the people who opposed this can find any such reasoning in which a person can hold a valid secular opinion against gay marriage and still claim it to be reasonable and rational.

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

But why would you need a 'relevant secular reason' to 'oppose' same sex marriage, if opposition is just a statement of opinion?

 

Interesting point.

 

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

 

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

[mooeypoo]

Because that's the subject of this thread..

 

Opinions aren't facts, but they're not immune to discussion. This discussion is about opinions, trying to see if there are valid reasons to HOLD SUCH OPINIONS. It's a valid argument, and judging by the amount of posts, it's an interesting one to quite a few members.

 

Read up, post #215.

 

And while 2 people can draw 2 different conclusions based on the same facts, there is still the matter of the logic behind it. This discussion is about that logic. These TYPE of discussion allow all of us to learn about different sides of an argument, and maybe adjust our own view of things.

 

~moo

[john5746]

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.

 

Actually, if same sex marriage was adopted and society became more accepting of homosexuals, I would be surprised if the % of homosexuals did not increase. I would think there would be some population, however small who can choose either way, some who would stop pretending and some who would naturally fall that way without the intense social pressure against.

 

So I would expect homosexuals to increase overall, but I would also expect the number of children raised by homosexuals to increase as well. I would also expect this to increase tolerance and acceptance in society. It will change society, but for the better, IMO.

[mooeypoo]

So I would expect homosexuals to increase overall, but I would also expect the number of children raised by homosexuals to increase as well. I would also expect this to increase tolerance and acceptance in society. It will change society, but for the better, IMO.

 

Actually, allow me to make a point here. If what you're saying is that less homosexuals will feel the urge to hide, and hence their coming-out will make the numbers "rise", then it's equivalent to saying that in the past 20 years the number of autism cases has rised.

 

That's a misrepresentation, though. The actual number of autistic children didn't REALLY rise, but the statistical number rised simply because we have better tools to detect autism, and we redefined some of the minor-cases as types of autism. The rise isn't because their numbers really grew, but rather than our technology is better to detect them.

 

Not that homosexuality is anyone's business as to "detect" anyone, or that it's equivalent (or at all similar) to autism, but the point seems to be moot here. It will not get the actual cases to grow, just the detectable numbers.

 

It will give the APPEARANCE of growing.

 

Moreoever, if anyone thinks that being gay is a choice, I suggest considering what it is like living as one, even in almighty USA. There is lots -and LOTS - of bigotry, lack of rights, and troubles from society. That, I suspect, will not change simply because of including homosexuals into the law (or rather, stop excluding them).

 

It's not like we're talking about winning the lottery here, or having a puppy dog - people will not decide randomly to marry same-sex just because they can. And if they do, it's no different than a loveless couple marrying just for comfort and finances.

 

 

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

with minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch' date=' justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.[/quote']

 

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

 

In the Bill of Rights. And I'm not sure how everyone else seems to have missed that.

 

The purpose of that addition to the Constitution is to specify what rights you cannot have taken away from you by the will of the majority or the representative actions of the majority through governance. They're not listed there for educational purposes. They're listed there so that they can't be taken away.

[Realitycheck]

People ARE opposed to gay marriage, and I'm asking what relevant secular reasons support their opposition. Untli that question gets answered, the fact remains that the people who DO stand in opposition are being either bigoted, homophobic, or ignorant.

.

 

What made you acknowledge that people are opposed?

 

Its simply a product of the predominantly JudaoChristian culture that we evolved from. Even if all these religious people converted to atheism today, they would stil have the same values instilled in them from their upbringing and so forth.

 

It's kind of like this. I think we have pretty much established that becoming homosexual is a combination of choice, environmental and genetic factors. If the environment changed to one that was more favorable to homosexuals, there would be more.

 

Somewhere, there is this single mother who drives her 5 year old to school every day past this billboard for this gay chatline, every day, that says in bold letters, 'BE GAY!', every day. Depending on how the mother handles his upbringing and given the correct set of factors, without a father figure, whats to keep him from becoming homosexual, especially if the world is full of married homosexuals already? Just how much choice would he have in the matter?

 

Secondly, since the dawn of time, procreation has only occured between male and female and since most marriages result in this, it is only natural to associate it with marriage. Parenting is associated with hardship and there is a valid need for us to procreate, so it is rewarded, something which you would just give away to anybody because 'they love each other'.

 

Thirdly, it is about preserving our culture. I happen to like our culture the way it is. Throwing all caution to the wind with complete disregard for sensibility is not the way that you run a nation.

 

I agree that 'fixing' homosexuals is a fool's mission and that tolerance is the only way but as I said, I like my culture the way it is, If they want to get married, they can move to where they allow that.

[iNow]

A very enlightened post, agentchange... as per usual. Now, can you address the root question, or are you content to continue looking ignorant and foolish?

 

All of your criticisms above have already been heartily addressed.

 

Now, just for context:

Your incessant ignorance continues to make you blind. Just when will you begin to know the first thing about anything? Just what is your post-count going to do for you, you ignorant little ****? Huh? It seems all that you are ignorant is of the facts when it comes to homosexuality. Defending the rights of the few is all fine and good, but when you continue to be ignorant of what is affected and how it affects the morality and values of

the majority

, you continue to insist on being ignorant. Who cares if this particular morality and values is primarily espoused by the religious right, so what? I happen to find the idea of a man sticking his thing in another man absolutely disgusting. THOSE ARE MY VALUES, and that is supposed to be ignorant? HELLO! WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND WE DON'T WANT THEM AND THEIR VALUES AFFECTING US, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Now, do you understand you ignorant little ****, or do you want to continue starting **** with me by calling me ignorant when you have not considered 1 millionth of the facts?

[mooeypoo]

Please keep the attitude at check, iNow. Regardless of your personal opinions on tha matter, there's no excuse to being rude to other members.

 

agentchange, many of what you said was already addressed in this thread. Please go over it (skim it, even) and see if you have any example or point that wasn't yet made.

 

~moo

[The Bear's Key]

Woah agentchange, the tone of your post's changed a lot in a year's time. I like it much better. Kudos.

 

(even if we completely disagree on the topic )

[Dudde]

We actually haven't covered this part yet:

 

Somewhere, there is this single mother who drives her 5 year old to school every day past this billboard for this gay chatline, every day, that says in bold letters, 'BE GAY!'

 

...but it's slightly ridiculous, I haven't seen any signs around saying 'be heterosexual' to be honest, I doubt we're going to put up billboards saying it once gay marriage is legalized. If you're seeing billboards around for sex chatlines, maybe we have a different issue to address at that point.

 

whats to keep him from becoming homosexual, especially if the world is full of married homosexuals already? Just how much choice would he have in the matter?

???

what does it matter? Specifically the part about what choice he has in the matter - kind of sounds like you're denoting that others have a say in what sexuality they choose - that part has been covered, but I thought I'd point it out anyway,