walkntune Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Well I am not for the state being involved in marriage and feel it's unfair for single people who have a tough time surviving so it's just more complicated from my point of view!
mooeypoo Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Well I am not for the state being involved in marriage and feel it's unfair for single people who have a tough time surviving so it's just more complicated from my point of view! Then they should be uninvolved for all marriages, gay and heterosexual. That might be, but that's a completely different debate (also touched upon in this thread). The issue is equality. Either no for all or yes for all, the key words here are "for all". ~moo
iNow Posted December 9, 2009 Author Posted December 9, 2009 Well I am not for the state being involved in marriage and feel it's unfair for single people who have a tough time surviving so it's just more complicated from my point of view! And yet, the state IS involved in marriage, and they confer 1138 different benefits and privileges to heterosexual couples which they are denying from homosexual couples. This is not a discussion about state involvement in marriage. The state's involvement in marriage is taken as a given, since that's precisely the way it works in our society, and how it has worked for several decades. With that accurate representation of reality as your baseline, you have been asked what relevant secular reasons there are for allowing the state to confer those 1138 benefits and privileges to heterosexual couples, but to deny those same benefits and privileges to homosexual couples. You have failed thus far to address that root question. State involvement is given. The state allows heterosexual marriage. The state confers 1138 benefits and privileges to heterosexual couples. What relevant secular reason does the state have to deny those same benefits and privileges from homosexual couples?
padren Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I can't form an opinion with women because I don't know if their are health risks involved which is my biggest concern.So if you ask an opinion on marriage I really could care less either way and find no value in it and not sure of any benefits for society. Like I said I find the value of sex as a way to reproduce so it may be possible that other uses are a little detrimental to humanity instead of helpful but if there is value than please share! 1) Health risks: People are free to choose all manner of risky lifestyles. People can have premarital sex at their own discretion despite the health risks of STDs. People are free to have open relationships while married and expose themselves to many risks. Heterosexual couples can engage in anal sex as well - all of this is legal. While not all of society engages in it, society generally accepts that if others choose to they can at their own risk. Do you really want to tell someone else how they must live, when "the mob" could easily decide to turn on risks you take in your life? Maybe you smoke cigarettes or like to go mountain climbing. 2) Benefit to society: We don't require a proven benefit to allow someone freedom to pursue their interests in life. We require proof of severe determent to withhold freedoms from people. Drive through Vegas weddings probably don't provide a huge benefit to society, but unless they are proven to be harmful, they'll stay. Besides this - people in stable relationships tend to be more stable and productive, and thus a greater benefit to society. While there is no burden to prove the societal benefits of gay marriage, they exist and aren't hard to see. Lastly these benefits can be achieved without detracting from anyone else's lifestyles. I may not understand "the church" and the whole deal with women not being allowed to be priests and all that, but I see no reason why I should meddle in their affairs. Likewise, I see no reason they should meddle in the affairs of people who aren't meddling in theirs.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 health risks involved which is my biggest concern. Who has bigger health risks? A married couple who have sex or an unmarried couple who have sex?
A Tripolation Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I may not understand "the church" and the whole deal with women not being allowed to be priests and all that, but I see no reason why I should meddle in their affairs. Likewise, I see no reason they should meddle in the affairs of people who aren't meddling in theirs. This is really it walkntune...as a theist like you, I don't support gay marriage, as I don't understand it, but I see how wrong it is for me to actively oppose it, which is why I won't vote for or against it. Why can't two (or heck, even more) consenting adults be with the person they love? 1
walkntune Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 This is really it walkntune...as a theist like you, I don't support gay marriage, as I don't understand it, but I see how wrong it is for me to actively oppose it, which is why I won't vote for or against it.Why can't two (or heck, even more) consenting adults be with the person they love? Well i am like you I don't actively oppose it and actually never think about it too much. I definitely don't understand or relate to it. You always assume as a kid that certain pieces of a puzzle fit together for the purpose of the continuation of nature so when you first here about gays it makes you scratch your head and ponder. I can understand wanting certain rights that could be beneficial. 1
Zolar V Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I would think that one of the main reasons as to why gay marriage is such a large issue would have to stem from a biological stand point and mans ability to suppress natural instinct. For millions of years mans natural instinct dictated to him that he should have sex with a/multiple woman and produce offspring. eventually in man's history he began to question his existence and formed religion. religion eventually condoned multiple females mated with one male, and sanctioned a 1:1 ratio. and thus marriage came about. after countless years mans ability to suppress his natural instincts has lead to gay marriages. However this gay marriage goes against the formed religion and goes against natural instincts.
bascule Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I would think that one of the main reasons as to why gay marriage is such a large issue would have to stem from a biological stand point and mans ability to suppress natural instinct. For millions of years mans natural instinct dictated to him that he should have sex with a/multiple woman and produce offspring. eventually in man's history he began to question his existence and formed religion. religion eventually condoned multiple females mated with one male, and sanctioned a 1:1 ratio. and thus marriage came about. after countless years mans ability to suppress his natural instincts has lead to gay marriages. However this gay marriage goes against the formed religion and goes against natural instincts. WTF? As if all people are born with the same set of "natural instincts"? Ever thought some of these characteristics might vary from individual to individual?
iNow Posted December 9, 2009 Author Posted December 9, 2009 Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage? [ANSWERED: NO]
Severian Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?[ANSWERED: NO] As I said before, but will say again, it is a bit of a 'fixed' question though. Any reason that we could possibly come up with, you will brand as either not relevant or religious, so it seems a bit of a pointless exercise. Also, we do we need a 'relevant secular' reason for opposing it? Isn't the point of a democracy that our opinions should have weight (the weight of one vote each) irrespective of what they are and irrespective of how well we may be able to justify them to you? There are plenty of things I object to even though I don't have a 'relevant secular' reason. For example, I object to masturbation in public, but I honestly can't think of a 'relevant secular' reason to oppose it. It would simply make me, and others, uncomfortable. Similarly, while I don't really care myself, I can understand that legalising gay marriage will make lots of people uncomfortable. I think the difference in our position is that you dislike these people so much that you don't care that they are uncomfortable with gay marriage, and instead value the opinion of the gay couple more. I actually think that is a fair enough position (even though it is intrinsically undemocratic), but it is wrong to declare that it is the only valid position.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?[ANSWERED: NO] And yet again, you repeat this without having ever proven it.
toastywombel Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?[ANSWERED: NO] Secular- separate from religion Relevant- importance pertaining to the matter at hand, affording evidence to prove or disprove the matter at hand. As far as reasons outside of religion to oppose gay marriage there are several, I am sure. However, are they valid? Probably not. Here is are some secular reasons to oppose gay marriage that I have pulled off the top of my head and that a common person might site. "Its unnatural" "Gay couples can't reproduce" "I just don't like gays" "It opens the door for further marriage revisions such as multiple partner marriages" However, iNow did add relevant as an adjective to describe the noun "reasons" so that does make all the difference since as you can see for something to be relevant it must be proved or disproved through evidence and pertaining to the matter at hand. From the above reasons I listed the only one that could be supported by evidence is "Gay couples can't reproduce". But, even that argument could be countered with the idea that there are many children in need of adoption, resources are already strained by population, doctors can impregnate lesbians with donor sperm, Doctors can use donor sperm from a gay couple to impregnate a host. As far as gay marriage opening the door for multiple partner marriages is not secular, but it is also not necessarily relevant. There is no evidence to support that this would happen nor does it pertain to the topic immediately at hand, but it does raise an interesting point that could be discussed. The counter argument to that would be that marriage should be limited as a union between two people. Allowing multiple people to partake in marriages would also be a legal nightmare for judges and politicians, plus it would open the door for many scams and marriage schemes so it most likely would never gain broad support. In conclusion as far as finding reasons to oppose gay marriage that are non-religious, that are pertaining to the matter at hand, and can be supported by evidence, I cannot think of any. I am open to hearing other reasons but as of now I think iNow has it right. Answer: No
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?[ANSWERED: NO] Danth's law?
mooeypoo Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Severian, the point of "relevant secular" reason is simple: people claim they oppose gay marriage without having anything to do with religion - and the point is to find a non-religious reason. Obviously you have a right to oppose or support whatever you want, but if people oppose something because of religion, they should admit it - or at least be aware that the reasons are religious. It would also mean that there's no reason for the STATE to oppose gay marriage, if the reason is religious, for separation of church and state. So, for the state to continue excluding gays from marriage, there MUST be a non-religious reason - otherwise there's a problem with church/state separation. Most people who oppose gay marriage seem to claim that the reason is valid for the state as well.. most claim the reason is non religious. If that's the case, then where is such relevant secular reason for the state to use to exclude a group from rights given to all others. Quite frankly, the discomfort people have with it is irrelevant. People were (and some still are) discomfort with interracial marriages as well - that doesn't mean that excluding blacks from marrying whites shouild continue, or that the unequal treatment should just be accepted. ~moo 1
A Tripolation Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So, for the state to continue excluding gays from marriage, there MUST be a non-religious reason - otherwise there's a problem with church/state separation. I know this is "shifting the question", but I want to ask you about it. If we completely removed marriage's legality and made it for ceremonial purposes only, and EVERYONE had to get a civil union, then, going by your logic, gays would have no reason to object to churches denying them to be "married", correct? With the acknowledgement that the marriage performed by the church would hold no legal water whatsoever, of course.
Severian Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 It would also mean that there's no reason for the STATE to oppose gay marriage, if the reason is religious, for separation of church and state. So, for the state to continue excluding gays from marriage, there MUST be a non-religious reason - otherwise there's a problem with church/state separation. I think that is completely wrong. The state should reflect the views of the population, entirely independently of how (or why) the population comes to their opinion. If their view is religiously motivated, it is just as valid as a secular view. Indeed the "separation of church and state" should be guaranteeing this because it doesn't ask its voters to specify whether or not their views are based on religion. The worry about a system of government which was not separate would be that it makes a judgement call on their worthiness, depending on how it conforms with the government's view. So your statement that the government should only regard secular viewpoints as valid, is in fact a violation of the separation of church and state, since you seem to believe that the government should only listen to the practitioners of your own church (secularism).
iNow Posted December 9, 2009 Author Posted December 9, 2009 Also, we do we need a 'relevant secular' reason for opposing it? I know you do not live in the US, but here... Yes, we need a relevant secular reason to differentially apply our laws. Since this discussion involves the application of our laws, a relevant secular reason IS required. Isn't the point of a democracy that our opinions should have weight (the weight of one vote each) irrespective of what they are and irrespective of how well we may be able to justify them to you? Perhaps in a direct democracy, but we are not a direct democracy. We are a constitutional republic, with express protections for minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and with explicit provisions for equal treatment under the law for all citizens. you dislike these people so much that you don't care that they are uncomfortable with gay marriage There is more to my position than just that, but yes... that is accurate.
npts2020 Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I think that is completely wrong. The state should reflect the views of the population, entirely independently of how (or why) the population comes to their opinion. If their view is religiously motivated, it is just as valid as a secular view. Indeed the "separation of church and state" should be guaranteeing this because it doesn't ask its voters to specify whether or not their views are based on religion. The worry about a system of government which was not separate would be that it makes a judgement call on their worthiness, depending on how it conforms with the government's view. So your statement that the government should only regard secular viewpoints as valid, is in fact a violation of the separation of church and state, since you seem to believe that the government should only listen to the practitioners of your own church (secularism). What about equal rights for all citizens under law? Can 50% + 1 vote take away the rights of the 50% - 1 vote? IMO outside of those religious fanatics wishing to impose their values on the rest of us, the main opposition to the whole idea is business interests who make money from being able to deny everyone the same benefits (which is the real secular reason for opposing gay marriages).
mooeypoo Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I think that is completely wrong. The state should reflect the views of the population, entirely independently of how (or why) the population comes to their opinion. If their view is religiously motivated, it is just as valid as a secular view. Not when the state is built on the principles of separation of religion and state, which the United States is supposed to be, according to its constitution. Also (and we have been through this before in this thread), if you go strictly by majority decision, then in states where racism still prevails, there should be no reason to oppose it. The majority used to be against equal rights for women (seeing as the majority was *defined* as white males) - should we have just accepted that fact without opposition as well because that is the majority will? Indeed the "separation of church and state" should be guaranteeing this because it doesn't ask its voters to specify whether or not their views are based on religion. The worry about a system of government which was not separate would be that it makes a judgement call on their worthiness, depending on how it conforms with the government's view. It's not just about not *asking* the voters, it's about making sure church and state are separated. The irony, by the way, is that this is meant to protect religious people just as much as it's meant to protect atheists: Separation of religion and state will make sure that *all* religions are free to practice what they will without intervention of the state. If the state has no separation of religion and law, then there bound to be one religion that enjoys favorable treatment by laws, and all the other religions (and factions of religions) that are hurt by it. The separation of church and state is meant to protect everyone. I find it ironic that in the USA fundamentalists are usually the ones arguing for religious laws.. which religion, though? and which faction of the religions? If all of christianity was in total agreement about which laws are to be practiced, there would be only ONE version of christianity - and we see that's not the case. When you let the state dictate rules based on religion, you must first pick your favorable religion. Just like some Christians interpret the bible to avoid beating an insubordinate child (Proverbs 22:13-15, Proverbs 13:24, Leviticus 20:9), some others interpret the bible to not care about homosexuality. Which rules do you chose your state to dictate? Obviously, religion is split on how to interpret the bible (literally and non literally, and more in between's). So your statement that the government should only regard secular viewpoints as valid, is in fact a violation of the separation of church and state, since you seem to believe that the government should only listen to the practitioners of your own church (secularism). The government is DEFINED as secular government that allows for its citizens' freedom of religions. The laws of the state, therefore, should be secular, while the citizens can practice their own chosen religion freely. The laws, then, should allow for gay marriage, while the individual citizens should be allowed to practice whatever they choose. For that matter, the fact the law should be secular (and correct unequal treatment) doesn't mean the christian (or other religious) citizens are forced to marry gay marriage.. You can do whatever you choose, but if the state is defined to have separation of religion (again, the USA does), then the laws MUST be secular. ~moo
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 There's nothing non-secular about a law saying "No gay marriage." It'd be a violation of the separation if it said "No gay marriage, because it says so in Leviticus. Blasphemers will be stoned."
mooeypoo Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 There's nothing non-secular about a law saying "No gay marriage." It'd be a violation of the separation if it said "No gay marriage, because it says so in Leviticus. Blasphemers will be stoned." But if the reasons against gay marriage are found to be *ONLY DUE TO RELIGION* then they are religious (and hence, non secular).
iNow Posted December 9, 2009 Author Posted December 9, 2009 (edited) Danth's law? No, not really applicable here since the opposition is expressing a willful disregard of the fact that PRATT is in play. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Danth%27s_Law As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say. In this case, declaring victory and moving on may be legitimate and excusable. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Willful_ignorance Depending on the nature and strength of an individual's pre-existing beliefs, willful ignorance can manifest itself in different ways. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one's expectations. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/PRATT A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, is a common phrase on internet forums where debates have a tendency to recycle over and over again. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThere's nothing non-secular about a law saying "No gay marriage." It'd be a violation of the separation if it said "No gay marriage, because it says so in Leviticus. Blasphemers will be stoned." No. As was discussed earlier in the thread, this argument is countered by SCOTUS rulings. Point number one below is the most relevant to our discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Lemon test is reinforced and informed by by the Establishment Clause of the first amendment and the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the ruling in Loving v. Virginia offers further precedent. The Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment also supports the contention that the argument/law suggested in your quote above is without question unconstitutional since the legislation seeks to restrict the freedoms of a whole group of citizens without adequate reason. Edited December 9, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I'm pretty sure defining a word is a secular thing. It would also pass the Lemon test.
Recommended Posts