Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[Pangloss]

Yeah, but we're discussing the motives behind the opinions. Wehther or not this will change people's opinion is doubtful, true, but we're still trying to dig up the true reasoning behind them.

 

 

Laws usually (and GENERALLY speaking) reflect the overall sense of morality of the society. Before laws can be formed or changed or enacted, the people need to know what they believe in. Beliefs can be challenged, and beliefs do change as we grow in age and in experience. The goal here is to see the reasons behind these beliefs. Maybe people won't change their minds about it, but they might at least understand others (and themselves) better.

 

 

Okay, and I agree, but you said earlier that anyone who follows reason has to choose gay marriage or they aren't being reasonable. I'm wondering if we can really expect people to operate on purely logical grounds when it comes to matters of opinion. And I have not been comfortable with telling people that they're not being reasonable, either -- it feels like an insult being that's been levied solely because of a difference in opinion. (And even if it's not opinion, aren't we saying that perceptions are what's important here, e.g. the perceptions of gays who are asked to accept equal "civil unions"? Is it really superior to use a pejorative against one group ("you're not being logical!"), instead of using one against another group ("a civil union is the same thing!")?)

 

What strikes me as a more reasonable approach is to explain why we don't think civil unions are truly equal even when they have the same legal features and benefits, absolutely enforced by law. As opposed to saying "you're not being logical", and then passing the law over their objections without them fully understanding why we're doing it. (Which I think is what some would like and even prefer that we do.)

 

If that is insufficient to change the law, then we either (A) wait and try again later (current practice), or (B) give them a civil union, then rinse, towel off, and restart the debate.

 

 

 

(Also, I'm not sure I can agree that that's what this thread is about, and I don't think our thread-starter does either (e.g. post #264).)

[mooeypoo]

Okay, and I agree, but you said earlier that anyone who follows reason has to choose gay marriage or they aren't being reasonable.

No no, I said that if they can't find a reasonable reason, then they either have to admit they're believing it depite reason or reconsider the matter. It doesn't necessarily mean they're unreasonable in general. People have unreasonable beliefs while still being generally reasonable.

 

I'm wondering if we can really expect people to operate on purely logical grounds when it comes to matters of opinion. And I have not been comfortable with telling people that they're not being reasonable, either -- it feels like an insult being that's been levied solely because of a difference in opinion.

Right, which is why I again repeat that we need to remember this isn't the whole picture.

 

First off, a person is allowed to have unreasonable beliefs. They just shouldn't expect to get away with claiming those beliefs are reasonable when they're not.

 

Second, the mere debate - on its own - is, in my opinion, more important than whatever conclusion is drawn out of it. When we debate, we reconsider our own stances on things, and examine our way of thinking. We become better thinkers and we improve our own set of beliefs -- whatever they may be. The discussion here is what matters, imho.

 

Third, we're tackling reason specifically in this thread, so obviously we will discuss reason. If this was a general debate about gay marriage or rights for marriage we might've had a discussion about sufficient reasoning or emotional experiences. But we're not. This thread deals SPECIFICALLY with logical reasons. Specifically.

 

That's why we insist on reason and rationality. It's the topic.

 

(And even if it's not opinion, aren't we saying that perceptions are what's important here, e.g. the perceptions of gays who are asked to accept equal "civil unions"? Is it really superior to use a pejorative against one group ("you're not being logical!"), instead of using one against another group ("a civil union is the same thing!")?)

I'm not sure I understood what you mean.

In any case, I didn't talk about perceptions, I talked about inconsistency. The claim was inconsistent, regardless of perception.

 

But maybe you can clarify what you mean? Not sure I understood.

[Realitycheck]

Thank you Severian for finally making this thread interesting.

 

inow, why do you continually ignore the impact that this measure would have on this nation and chalk it up as irrellevant, responsible, and righteous? Are you that shortsighted? Please describe your future with gay marriage since you ignored that rational and secular portion of my argument.

 

I can tell you one thing for sure. If some form of this were to pass, i doubt there will be any financial benefit to it subsidized by the government. How does the nation benefit from a wasted couple? How does the species benefit from a wasted couple? Waste should be rewarded?

Edited September 20, 2009 by agentchange

[insane_alien]

I can tell you one thing for sure. If some form of this were to pass, i doubt there will be any financial benefit to it subsidized by the government. How does the nation benefit from a wasted couple? How does the species benefit from a wasted couple? Waste should be rewarded?

 

what about the heterosexual married couples who cannot or choose to not reproduce or adopt but still get the financial benefits?

 

if they get the benefits then shouldn't a homosexual married couple still get the benefits as the situations are identical.

[JillSwift]

inow, why do you continually ignore the impact that this measure would have on this nation and chalk it up as irrellevant, responsible, and righteous? Are you that shortsighted? Please describe your future with gay marriage since you ignored that rational and secular portion of my argument.

 

A future with same sex marriage would be essentially identical to now, except that gay couples are granted the same privileges for a committed relationship as straight couples are.

 

I can tell you one thing for sure. If some form of this were to pass, i doubt there will be any financial benefit to it subsidized by the government. How does the nation benefit from a wasted couple? How does the species benefit from a wasted couple? Waste should be rewarded?

 

Is there finincial benefit to subsidizing straight couples?

 

Given that homosexuals exist and establish committed relationships now, just without being treated equally under the law for doing so, granting those privileges wouldn't change anything so far as "wasted" couples go.

 

Just as granting those privileges to infertile or child-free by choice heterosexual couples changes nothing.

[iNow]

Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why is that is the only logical conclusion?

Primarily, because NONE of you have been able to provide a reasonable argument that it must be named differently. The union is the same in every way except genitals.

 

Different genitalia has been demonstrated to be irrelevant since children and conception are peripheral to marriage (marriage is not contingent on the ability to produce offspring as evidenced by our allowance of infertile and elderly couples to marry).

 

So, here's the issue. I'll make it plain.

 

People who wish to call it something else need to give a good reason for doing so. If they cannot, then they are being irrational, ignorant, and should STFU.

 

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to censor opinion or ideas here. I'm simply saying that if you cannot come up with even a single relevant reason to name them differently, then you cannot escape the fact that your argument is weak, baseless, and not convincing anyone.

 

Give us a reason why. If you can't, then shut up about it already. This is no different than the kid this morning in another thread who claimed that light speed was instantaneous. He couldn't say why, he couldn't provide reasons, he couldn't provide evidence.

 

Why is it that you expect us to treat your claim about different naming any differently? After all, it was that kids "opinion" that light speed was instantaneous, but that didn't make it right, and he was told to shut up until he could supply evidence or simply support his contention.

 

Now, it's your turn. Answer the question, support your contention logically, or shut up. I'd wager money that you can't answer with anything relevant or logical, but I truly hope you will prove me wrong. Now, go for it.

[Severian]

Let me ask a related question. Do those in support of gay marriage have any relevant secular reason for opposing marriage between a brother and sister, or (adult) child and parent?

[mooeypoo]

Let me ask a related question. Do those in support of gay marriage have any relevant secular reason for opposing marriage between a brother and sister, or (adult) child and parent?

Great question. I can't answer for anyone other than myself. My answer would be that I can't think of any SECULAR RELEVANT reasons that are consistent to oppose these marriages besides a single condition (which is dependent on my not-opposing them) that they do not involve abuse - either mental or physical.

 

The child and parent one I would oppose if "child" means under 18, for the same reason as above -- reducing the risk of abuse. If both parties are grown adults, are not being abused (again, mental abuse is also abuse) and are consenting to it, then though I wouldn't fully support it, or promote it, I see no logical reason to oppose it.

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

no, no problem with a marriage between them (as long as they are consenting adults at the time of marriage)

 

although, if they intend to have children then there is a higher chance of genetic problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding and i'd take issue there. but as to them merely getting married? nope, no problem.

[iNow]

Let me ask a related question. Do those in support of gay marriage have any relevant secular reason for opposing marriage between a brother and sister, or (adult) child and parent?

 

Significant issues of consent.

Measurable harm to others (both mentally and often physically).

 

Homosexual marriage does NOT suffer from issues of consent, nor does it suffer from issues of measurable harm.

 

I'm not sure if it was your intent to compare gay marriage to incestuous or pedophiliac marriage, but if it was, your comparison is invalid for the reasons specified above.

 

Either way, it doesn't impact me, so why should I care?

 

 

 

 

Could we maybe try not to explore YET ANOTHER red herring, though? This thread is about gay marriage, not marrying couches or toaster ovens or any other ridiculous thing.

[Pangloss]

Right' date=' which is why I again repeat that we need to remember this isn't the whole picture.

[/quote']

 

Exactly.

 

 

But maybe you can clarify what you mean? Not sure I understood.

 

It was just a not-very-well-put reflection on the earlier point about badgering people for not being logical with their opinions, but I think you addressed that point very well with this:

 

First off, a person is allowed to have unreasonable beliefs. They just shouldn't expect to get away with claiming those beliefs are reasonable when they're not.

 

Second, the mere debate - on its own - is, in my opinion, more important than whatever conclusion is drawn out of it. When we debate, we reconsider our own stances on things, and examine our way of thinking. We become better thinkers and we improve our own set of beliefs -- whatever they may be. The discussion here is what matters, imho.

 

Third, we're tackling reason specifically in this thread, so obviously we will discuss reason. If this was a general debate about gay marriage or rights for marriage we might've had a discussion about sufficient reasoning or emotional experiences. But we're not. This thread deals SPECIFICALLY with logical reasons. Specifically.

 

That was nicely put.

 

 

Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why is that is the only logical conclusion?[/quote']Primarily' date=' because NONE of you have been able to provide a reasonable argument that it must be named differently. The union is the same in every way except genitals.[/quote']

 

I didn't say that it must be named differently. I asked you if there was a secular relevant reason why it cannot be named differently. Thus far there appears to be only a difference of opinion on the matter (perception of fairness in separation), not a difference of pure reason.

 

I won't tell you to "STFU", though, because I don't feel it necessary for people who disagree with me to "shut up".

 

I do believe, however, that I need a soft-serve chocolate cone from 7-11.

[iNow]

I didn't say that it must be named differently. I asked you if there was a secular relevant reason why it cannot be named differently.

 

And I've answered that like seven times already.

 

As it turns out, I should have wagered that money, as you've now presented YET ANOTHER post where you FAILED to address the question put to you.

 

 

 

I won't tell you to "STFU", though, because I don't feel it necessary for people who disagree with me to "shut up".

Much more likely, you know better than to tell me to STFU, because I've repeatedly demonstrated my ability to defend my stance logically and consistently, whereas all you have demonstrated is your ability to repeat yourself and evade clear/direct questions put to you.

 

Seriously, if you can't answer the question, then it truly is in your best interest to STFU. You have brought nothing to support your contention that the relationship of same sex partners should be differently named, and you look like a f**king idiot everytime you avoid the question and try to deflect by instead making this about me.

[mooeypoo]

Guys, take a breather, double read your posts, and be civil. This is a delicate subject, let's stay focused.

 

Do not make this a personal subject. Stay civil.

[iNow]

This is insane. On ANY OTHER TOPIC, Pangloss and others would have been banned by now for failure to support their contentions.

 

I'm exasperated, frustrated, and dismayed at the progression of this thread.

Edited September 20, 2009 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

This is insane. On ANY OTHER TOPIC, Pangloss and others would have been banned by now for failure to support their contentions.

They're not making claims about factual contentions, they're presenting valid questions about ours. And we're answering them. It's part of the discussion, iNow, as it has been for the rest of the thread.

 

I do agree that SO FAR, the question of the thread seems to be a quite certain "NO". We might do well by putting up a summarizing post with the general claims-counterclaims that we've seen so far.

 

Then, we can expect people to only post new claims and not repeat themselves. As it is now, the thread is very long and tiring, and it's not surprising some repeat claims.

 

Also, let's not forget we're arguing about opinions and principles here. While I agree that we are taking the angle of looking at how *rational* those claims are, they are still opinions. This isn't a science debate. We don't have a clear-cut evidence for either way.

 

That point of this thread is made. We need to summarize it and see if anyone else manages to find a counter claim that proves it wrong.

 

~moo

[padren]

If the recipients receive the exact same access to resources and legal benefits, then the constitutional requirement of legal equality would seem to be satisfied. This isn't like segregation, where blacks could not access the same physical resources -- even if they had other equal facilities it wasn't equal, because literally could not walk into the same buildings, schools, etc. No matter what, one side or the other might (and probably would) have some kind of edge. Equality wasn't even theoretically possible.

 

I really feel I want an answer to one counter-argument to your question above:

 

Is it really the duty of the state to limit a legal term such as marriage to appease a single demographic?

 

Is there any difference between the state getting involved to limit whom may be married as them getting involved to block a church from calling themselves a Christian Church? You could argue that Mormonism was not a Christian religion when this country as founded, is not "approved" by any traditional Christian faith, and that any Mormon who checked "Christian, other" in a form was committing fraud because they didn't check "Non-Christian, other."

 

The state (wisely, in my opinion) decided the term was large enough to encompass both Mormons and those who felt Mormonism was unchristian. The stance was "you don't have to consider them Christians, but you have to let them to consider themselves Christians."

 

 

Now, same sex couples have come to the table, and argued a well enough case that we do agree (mostly here) that they do deserve all the benefits of marriage - yet some groups and individuals oppose to themselves being called married because their type of marriage was not recognized when the country was founded. (Some groups oppose even benefits of course, but with regards to your comment we are talking about providing all the benefits without the name)

 

How is preventing "same sex unions" from being called "marriages" any different than allowing a single demographic from bullying the Mormon Church into being a church "with all the same benefits" that just isn't allowed to call themselves a "Christian" faith? They would get all the same benefits of any other religious group - just they would be denied that title.

 

 

1) Do you feel the state has the right to tell Mormons they can't call themselves a Christian faith, because some other established Christian faiths consider the term "sacred" to them alone?

2) Do you feel that is in keeping with our nation's philosophy of diversity?

3) Can you offer any reason why that is different from SSM?

 

To me, this gets to the heart of why the term is so important, at least in my mind.

[JillSwift]

I didn't say that it must be named differently. I asked you if there was a secular relevant reason why it cannot be named differently. Thus far there appears to be only a difference of opinion on the matter (perception of fairness in separation), not a difference of pure reason.

I'm not sure why that "perception" of fairness isn't enough - given that there is precedence against "separate but equal" in history, but there are other reasons, so here's one:

 

Efficiency and stability. Duplicating all the laws and other structures in place is an expensive project, and one that includes many opportunity for "transcription errors" which could render the two systems unequal. Also, maintaining two sets of the same laws adds expense, time, and again provides many opportunity for a system drift that could make the two institutions become unequal over time.

 

Contrast the addition of a single inclusive definition.

[Severian]

Significant issues of consent.

Measurable harm to others (both mentally and often physically).

 

Homosexual marriage does NOT suffer from issues of consent, nor does it suffer from issues of measurable harm.

 

How did the relationships I presented have any issues of consent or harm? (I did specify that they were adults.)

 

My question is relevant, because it demonstrates a precedence. There are other examples of marriage to which the same arguments you are using in favour of gay marriage apply. If you oppose these yourself, then the same arguments should be usable to oppose gay marriage. insane_alien appears to not oppose them, so his views are logical (although I would take issue with the reproduction thing, unless he also opposes people with genetic predispositions for fatal conditions from reproducing as well).

[Realitycheck]

This is truly insane. Since the dawn of time marriage has been DEFINED as between MATES. How simpler can you get ? No amount of logical backflips will change that. Simply being in a relationshio does not warrant changing the meaning of a word to satisfy your warped, limited view of how the world should be, and then changing the law to accomodate your own semantic of the word, at that. As Arnold pointed out, gay marriage is still between a man and a woman. Everything else is just a relationship. Nobody is going to rewrite all of those dictionaries just because a gay couple wants a free meal tax break. Why should it be about, 'Because they got a deduction'? How has being homosexual benefitted the country?

 

Also, since when has WTF, STFU, and generally disrepecting people just because they don't agree with you not been counted as flaming? Everybody knows what STFU stands for. Am I right or am I right? So WTF! Does WTF make me sound any more convincing? Please, from now on, just spell it out so our E(nglishasa)S(econdL(anguage) people can read it.

[iNow]

Also, since when has WTF, STFU, and generally disrepecting people just because they don't agree with you not been counted as flaming?

You seem to have missed my larger point. This has nothing to do with people not agreeing with me. The idea was that people need to support their contentions, and if people cannot answer a simple and direct question, they should choose not to participate or should, in fact, keep their opinions to themselves. However, if they share their opinions openly, they need to address criticisms and questions of them, and if they are unwilling, they should just STFU.

 

Pangloss argues in favor of a different name for same sex couples, despite the fact that those couples are equivalent in every way except genitals. I asked for a relevant secular reason to use the different name, and he has failed to address that request. Hence, he shouldn't post again until he is ready to support the opinions he puts forth, and explain his reasoning when asked to do so. This is not (by any means) an unreasonable request.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How did the relationships I presented have any issues of consent or harm? (I did specify that they were adults.)

 

My question is relevant, because it demonstrates a precedence. There are other examples of marriage to which the same arguments you are using in favour of gay marriage apply. If you oppose these yourself, then the same arguments should be usable to oppose gay marriage. insane_alien appears to not oppose them, so his views are logical (although I would take issue with the reproduction thing, unless he also opposes people with genetic predispositions for fatal conditions from reproducing as well).

 

Open a new thread. I'll address it there. I will also share with you the psychological studies discussing issues of consent among family members, and how the social contract of marriage is secondary to familial pressures, instinctive subservience, the Westermarck effect, and dominance hierarchies. Having a father who wants to marry you is not the same as having a stranger with whom you fell in love agreeing to spend the rest of their life with you, and this seems rather obvious to me. If it's not obvious to you, then open a new thread and we can engage on that topic.

 

 

EDIT: Please note, above in post #285 I commented, "It doesn't impact me, so why should I care?" That seems to take some of the wind out of these particular sails you're using to drive your argument on this subject... In short, it shows your claim that I am being illogical on this issue is simply baseless and unwarranted.

Edited September 20, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[The Bear's Key]

How is preventing "same sex unions" from being called "marriages" any different than allowing a single demographic from bullying the Mormon Church into being a church "with all the same benefits" that just isn't allowed to call themselves a "Christian" faith? They would get all the same benefits of any other religious group - just they would be denied that title.

 

 

1) Do you feel the state has the right to tell Mormons they can't call themselves a Christian faith, because some other established Christian faiths consider the term "sacred" to them alone?

2) Do you feel that is in keeping with our nation's philosophy of diversity?

3) Can you offer any reason why that is different from SSM?

 

To me, this gets to the heart of why the term is so important, at least in my mind.

Holy freakin crap. The kind of argument I like, that in one fell swoop can undo the weaker reasonings, no matter how strongly perpetuated and believed.

 

Let's see what happens

[JillSwift]

This is truly insane. Since the dawn of time marriage has been DEFINED as between MATES. How simpler can you get ? No amount of logical backflips will change that. Simply being in a relationshio does not warrant changing the meaning of a word to satisfy your warped, limited view of how the world should be, and then changing the law to accomodate your own semantic of the word, at that.

 

True, to a certain degree. Marriage has also been a matter of arrangement, often by nobles over their peasantry, certainly between noble families as matters of union and guaranteeing noble heirs, and also between families outside nobility as matters of business and union as the nobility faded. Marriages have been arranged in other cultures traditionally for much the same reasons. Marriage has only within the past 150 years or so become a matter of love. That change didn't come about as a matter of logical back-flips, either. So you're also correct on that.

 

Things do change, though. Marriage among them.

 

 

As Arnold pointed out, gay marriage is still between a man and a woman. Everything else is just a relationship. Nobody is going to rewrite all of those dictionaries just because a gay couple wants a free meal tax break. Why should it be about, 'Because they got a deduction'? How has being homosexual benefitted the country?

What benefit do married heterosexual couples bring to the country?

 

Perpetuation of the species doesn't require marriage, so I don't think that counts.

 

Also, since when has WTF, STFU, and generally disrepecting people just because they don't agree with you not been counted as flaming? Everybody knows what STFU stands for. Am I right or am I right? So WTF! Does WTF make me sound any more convincing? Please, from now on, just spell it out so our E(nglishasa)S(econdL(anguage) people can read it.

Well, we all aught do our best not to respond in kind when folks get emotional in their postings. People are human and make mistakes, that's inevitable. it's how we handle those mistakes that is the test of our worth, don't you think?

[padren]

This is truly insane. Since the dawn of time marriage has been DEFINED as between MATES. How simpler can you get ?

It was modified to include divorce. It was modified to be an act between two consenting adults and not a form of property transfer. Those with the authority to perform a marriage has changed over time.

 

Definitions change to reflect the societies in which they exist. That's about as simple as you can get.

No amount of logical backflips will change that.

No one is trying to change how marriage was defined at the beginning of time. Declaring something "logical backflips" is not the same as demonstrating such logical antics are taking place. If you wish to stand by that assertion then please cite and give examples.

Simply being in a relationshio does not warrant changing the meaning of a word to satisfy your warped, limited view of how the world should be, and then changing the law to accomodate your own semantic of the word, at that.

As Arnold pointed out, gay marriage is still between a man and a woman. Everything else is just a relationship.

No one is trying to change the definition of heterosexual marriage within the legal definition of the term Marriage. The question is if we should also include homosexual marriage within the legal term of Marriage.

 

Just because a gay man can marry a woman doesn't mean he has equal rights - he can't marry the person he loves. If that person was a six year old then there would be rational reasonable cause to prevent it, but if it's another consenting adult of the same gender no such reason has yet been presented. Considering that is the point of this thread, I'd like to ask if you have any such rational reasonable arguments against gay marriage, since so far your post has consisted entirely of indigence at the mere idea of such "logical back flips."

 

Regarding everything else being "a relationship" I am curious where you get this idea from. While I have never verified it for myself, I am willing to take the word of homosexual couples that it appears, based on their experiences there is no meaningful difference between what they experience and any heterosexual couple experiences.

Nobody is going to rewrite all of those dictionaries just because a gay couple wants a free meal tax break. Why should it be about, 'Because they got a deduction'? How has being homosexual benefitted the country?

Many dictionaries already include same sex definitions. Your comment about "gay couple wants a free meal tax break" implies a rather derogatory motivation for proponents of gay marriage. You may have said that in a heated moment but I hope you don't believe such a sweeping generalization.

 

As far as "How has being homosexual benefitted the country?" since when do we measure benefit to the country in relation to rights? The only reason I won't debate that is because it's wholly irrelevant. If we recognize committed long term relationships legally as something we call marriage and have decided that two such individuals constitute a union that requires distinct tax laws so as to treat fairly.... why should the gender of those two in that union be relevant?

 

Our recognition of marriages has nothing to do with benefit to the country. It has to do with our decision that certain relationships require slightly different tax laws.

[Pangloss]

No, folks. No.

 

Several posts have been soft-deleted, some of which MAY be restored and/or moved after review. Meanwhile you're all instructed to re-read what Mooeypoo tried to explain to you over the last couple of pages. This thread is closed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe you meant to say "Are there any relevant secular reason to keep this thread open?"