Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[mooeypoo]

agentchange, would YOU turn homosexual if you were given the chance? If yes, perhaps you need to reconsider why you haven't so far, and if no, then why not?

 

I suspect (though am not sure, as I can't be sure until you answer) the second answer is true, and you wouldn't "transform" to homosexuality even if given the legal chance to. If that's the case, then why not?

 

That answer is not going to change with legality. Quite frankly, gays won't turn heterosexual if their marriage isn't legally accepted and heterosexuals wont "turn homosexual" if their marriage is legally accepted because it is a sexual preference.

 

Nature vs. Nurture debate aside, it's quite clear that sexual preferences do not depend on legality.

 

~moo

[john5746]

Nature vs. Nurture debate aside, it's quite clear that sexual preferences do not depend on legality.

~moo

 

Keep in mind that I am talking out of my rear, but I was thinking sexuality is more nuanced than I like MALE or FEMALE. So maybe for some small population, they can kind of swing either way, which could be influenced by culture. I would expect this to be small. I wasn't trying to suggest by any means that there would be a huge wave of people becoming gay or anything like that. But, I have no studies to back it up, just brain farting.

[Realitycheck]

I actually did read the first half of the thread and while my response did not come out exactly the way I wanted (the first try somehow got deleted after 2 hours of composing it in the middle of the night), I can see that no matter how hard I work on shoring up these perfectly valid points, I am wasting my time in this forum. I am not going to waste my time squinting trying to read the last half of the thread just to find more of the same irrelevance when it is all a moot point anyway, while, as usual, the far left tries to make mountains out of their molehills that we would just as soon not waste our time with. Gay marriage ... uhhuh, yeah, right. (shakes head in disbelief since smilies are not enabled).

[mooeypoo]

I actually did read the first half of the thread and while my response did not come out exactly the way I wanted (the first try somehow got deleted after 2 hours of composing it in the middle of the night), I can see that no matter how hard I work on shoring up these perfectly valid points, I am wasting my time in this forum.

Oh, c'mon, agentchange. iNow's response to you was the only response detering you from answering, and it was made clear that the style of such response isn't acceptable.

 

My offer to skim through the thread wasn't meant to get you to give up in advance, it was meant to say that your point were dealt with and answered before. We do seem to need a summary-post, though, one that summarizes all points and counter points so far.

 

I am not going to waste my time squinting trying to read the last half of the thread just to find more of the same irrelevance when it is all a moot point anyway, while, as usual, the far left tries to make mountains out of their molehills that we would just as soon not waste our time with. Gay marriage ... uhhuh, yeah, right.

If you think the subject is stupid, you can avoid wasting your time on the thread. As it goes, judging by the number of posts here, there seem to be a large group of members who disagrees with you.

 

It's a nice tactics, though, agentchange, to blame the "far left" for the discussion. I'm not far left, by far, and I suspect I'm not the only one who sees this subject as important or discussion-worthy. But hey.. as long as you can just dismiss it by attributing it to the fringes, why not.

 

If you think this is a waste of time, don't post in the thread. Otherwise, please don't generalize us all into one lump of political extreme.

 

(shakes head in disbelief since smilies are not enabled).

They are for me and others..

 

~moo

[JillSwift]

Keep in mind that I am talking out of my rear,

Hands John a breath mint.

 

but I was thinking sexuality is more nuanced than I like MALE or FEMALE. So maybe for some small population, they can kind of swing either way, which could be influenced by culture. I would expect this to be small. I wasn't trying to suggest by any means that there would be a huge wave of people becoming gay or anything like that. But, I have no studies to back it up, just brain farting.

Sexuality does appear to be a continuum. But again, even if tomorrow dawned and there was perfect acceptance of homosexuality, people would still be where they were today in that continuum.

 

Ted Haggard, poor fella, was and is a homosexual. He lived as a well-watched and important member of a subculture that had no tolerance of homosexuality at all, in fact speaking out against homosexuality himself in public. Even in this most repressive of cultures, he still sought out and found a way to express his homosexuality.

 

Haggard is not an isolated example. Homosexual people are constantly being discovered operating as homosexuals within cultures that fully repress such behaviors.

 

Acceptance and legality of homosexuality has no bearing on the number of people who are homosexual.

[Dudde]

I can see that no matter how hard I work on shoring up these perfectly valid points, I am wasting my time in this forum.

~~~~~

(shakes head in disbelief since smilies are not enabled).

 

Perfectly valid points? I'll do a google search (when I'm not at work,) but I still havne't seen any billboards hosting sex chatlines to begin with, a practice I'm not sure I'll see change just because same sex marriage is legalized. Late night tv, yes, but I'm quite sure I'll care about the same sex ones as much as I care about the heterosexual ones....

 

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'.

 

Then we should have couples sign a contract promising to bear children. If they break it, we can charge them back taxes for everything we've wasted on a marriage that didn't bear children =0

 

All silliness aside, that's simply not the case, and we don't necessarily need to keep our species goin, I figure we're doing pretty well. Not to mention all the non-married couples who have kids that we don't give these same benefits to.

 

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.

 

an intolerant culture who can't accept outside beliefs is crap, and not one I'd like to be part of. I'm sure this same argument would have been used when referencing almost every part of our culture to begin with anyway - it's hardly fair to make this point when our culture depends on letting others in, at least up to this point.

 

If they want to get married, they can move to where they allow that.

 

So which society just happened to start itself with a premise to allow same sex marriage? So far it's had to have been something debated over to my knowledge, though I could quite easily be mistaken.

 

 

EDIT: I forgot also, that a lot of same sex couples are trying to adopt or have foster homes. To take care of those children where the heterosexual parents apparently had something not work out...I don't see children as any kind of legit excuse to prevent same sex marriage.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Dudde
I forgot something...

[iNow]

I was thinking sexuality is more nuanced than I like MALE or FEMALE.

It is.

 

 

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/sexual-orientation-gender-4329.htm

Each of us has a biological sex — whether we are female, male, or intersex. Our gender is our biological, social, and legal status as men or women. And sexual orientation is the term used to describe whether a person feels sexual desire for people of the other gender, same gender, or both genders.

 

Each of us has a gender and gender identity. Our gender identity is our deepest feelings about our gender. We express our gender identity in the way that we act masculine, feminine, neither, or both. Some of us are transgender — which means that our biological sex and our gender identity do not match up.

 

Each of us also has a sexual orientation. You may be bisexual, gay, lesbian or straight. Or you may be “questioning” — unsure about your sexual orientation.

 

The more you understand biological sex, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, the more you may understand yourself and how you relate to other people. Because sex and gender are so complex, you may have many questions. You may wonder about your own sexual orientation or gender identity, or you may wonder about someone you know. You may have questions about how society views sex and gender — including homophobia, sexism, and transphobia.

 

 

 

There is also something known as the Kinsey Scale. While it is sometimes regarded as a bit too simplistic, it was honestly WAY ahead of its time (in terms of accurately describing human sexuality). It was published way back in 1948... that's more than 60 years ago... and yet (despite its slight oversimplifications) still offers tremendous insights to folks who are unfamiliar with anything beyond their own narrow worldview composed of nothing more than heterosexuality.

 

 

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

Introducing the scale, Kinsey wrote:

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

 

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)

 

 

 

 

Either way, there are still no relevant/justifiable/compelling/rational/secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

[Severian]

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.

 

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an opinion that does not stem from religion or tradition, and I resent that implication that any opinion that does stem from these is not 'valid'.

 

Incidentally, I oppose atheists being allowed to marry more than I oppose gay marriage.

[Dudde]

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an opinion that does not stem from religion or tradition, and I resent that implication that any opinion that does stem from these is not 'valid'.

 

Incidentally, I oppose atheists being allowed to marry more than I oppose gay marriage.

 

But the opinions and views of a certain religion/tradition can hardly be used to impose restrictions on someone who completely disagrees with or hasn't heard of that religion. Thus, I can't make anybody else celebrate or stop celebrating Christmas, and I'll probably not make a genuine run with Kwanzaa.

 

By 'not valid,' I think Mooey is alluding to the fact that we're not (supposed to be) using these facts and opinions to make legislation.

 

Whatever happened to the mentality:

link

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

[JillSwift]

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an opinion that does not stem from religion or tradition,

Suggest all y'like. Evidencing that, on the other hand, far more difficult. It's a delicate argument, as all one would have to do to refute it solidly is provide one opinion that was formed without regard to religion or tradition and *poof*.

 

and I resent that implication that any opinion that does stem from these is not 'valid'.

Resentment is not a counter-argument. Within the confines of the question asked, non-secular reasons are immediately invalid.

 

Incidentally, I oppose atheists being allowed to marry more than I oppose gay marriage.

Wow, I get a double "screw you". Yay me!

Of course, this appeal to emotion isn't relevant, either.

[mooeypoo]

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an opinion that does not stem from religion or tradition, and I resent that implication that any opinion that does stem from these is not 'valid'.

The request for valid reasons and for secular reasons is separate. Religious reason would fail not necessarily on its own (opinions are a matter of choice, still) but it would fail this specific request for SECULAR reasons. And an inconsistent reason would fail even if it's non-religious, because it's not relevant... those are not necessarily connected conditions, so there's nothing really to resent.

 

Incidentally, I oppose atheists being allowed to marry more than I oppose gay marriage.

That would be a completely different discussion. Quite interesting, at that, I agree. Not this one, though

 

BTW, just a side point about that -- opposing the general idea of lawful "marriage" (or whatever other word you'd put in there) is separate from the idea of legality. Opposing marriage-for-all is a separate point than opposing the inclusion of a specific group into a specific set of rights given by the law.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

I think Severian makes a valid and relevant point.

[iNow]

I think Severian makes a valid and relevant point.

 

Can you elaborate on this?

As described already above, his point fails the secular condition.

Further, his argument is basically, "I oppose it because I oppose it," which is itself invalid for the rest of us, and is a second failure at meeting the criteria in the question.

 

"Just because" is not a good reason. If you think it is, then I'd ask you to explain why.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an opinion that does not stem from religion or tradition.

In my opinion, the New York Giants are going to beat the Dallas Cowboys tomorrow night. I'd challenge you to present how this opinion stems from religion or tradition. If you cannot, then your point is proven incorrect. Since you chose the condition "no such thing," all it takes to demonstrate falsehood is one example, which I've just provided.

[The Bear's Key]

If you cannot, then your point is proven incorrect. Since you chose the condition "no such thing," all it takes to demonstrate falsehood is one example, which I've just provided.

And my opinion is that you're correct. OH! -- another one

[Severian]

In my opinion, the New York Giants are going to beat the Dallas Cowboys tomorrow night. I'd challenge you to present how this opinion stems from religion or tradition.

 

That's easy. Your opinion is based on the tradition that the 'winner' is the team that scores the most touchdowns.

 

If you alter your statement to "the New York Giants are going to score more touchdowns thanthe Dallas Cowboys tomorrow night", then you are making a prediction, not stating an opinion (at least in the sense used in this thread). You are simply trying to counter my point with semantic acrobatics.

 

Let me try and clarify what I mean. Let's say that you hold the opinion that gay marriage should be allowed because it does not affect anyone outside the marriage, it is entirely up to the individuals who they should be intimate with and how they should declare that intimacy, and (probably most importantly) one should not discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

 

These are all fair enough opinions to be had, but they are all based on tradition, and to a certain extent religion. For example, the idea that all people should be treated equally without discrimination is very much a humanist idea. The Romans certainly didn't think this way, because they had a very different culture and tradition. Also, the notion that gay sex is morally permissible, is very much a statement of morality (by definition), and as I have taken great pains to point out in previous discussions, morality is always derived from religious belief (even if that religious belief is that there is no god, and we should just all be nice to one anther for everyone's sake).

 

It seems to me that this thread is very much taking the usual route when discussing with modern humanist liberals. Any argument that opposes their position is inherently wrong because it is not humanist and liberal.

[iNow]

It seems to me that this thread is very much taking the usual route when discussing with modern humanist liberals. Any argument that opposes their position is inherently wrong because it is not humanist and liberal.

Not quite. All arguments put forth have been shown not to address the question, to be irrational, and/or based on double standards and inconsistent application. The demonstration that the presented arguments are fallacious has had nothing whatsoever to do with them not being "humanist and liberal."

 

You feel otherwise? Cool beans. Remind us, then, what are the relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage? Trying to argue that everything stems from religion is not only inaccurate and plainly false, but's also a cop-out.

[Pangloss]

In my opinion, the New York Giants are going to beat the Dallas Cowboys tomorrow night.

 

The fact that you can't prove the Giants are going to win doesn't prove that the Cowboys are the better team. Likewise, this thread neither demonstrates that gay marriage is a logical mandate, nor that supporting it has a higher validity than any other opinion.

 

The fact that that conclusion has been opined in various posts as connected to the question posed by this thread opens the door for Severian's opinion.

[iNow]

The fact that you can't prove the Giants are going to win doesn't prove that the Cowboys are the better team.

 

Wow. Talk about missing the point. I offered an opinion. My opinion was not based on religion or tradition, hence it disproved Severian's assertion that, "ALL opinions are rooted in religion or tradition."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Likewise, this thread neither demonstrates that gay marriage is a logical mandate, nor that supporting it has a higher validity than any other opinion.

 

So what? You've AGAIN missed the point. I asked for relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

 

NONE have been presented.

All responses have been demonstrated to be fallacious, illogical, and wrong. Nobody is talking about logical mandates or higher validity, so what do you say we stop trying to move the goal posts, eh?

[Pangloss]

Wow. Talk about missing the point. I offered an opinion. My opinion was not based on religion or tradition, hence it disproved Severian's assertion that, "ALL opinions are rooted in religion or tradition."

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean the example can't be used for other purposes. You asked me to expand on my opinion, so I was responding to that request. The point of this thread isn't some academic question, it's an attempt to push everyone onto one side of the issue by means of an incorrect application of logic.

 

This thread neither demonstrates that gay marriage is a logical mandate, nor that supporting it has a higher validity than any other opinion. And since the point has been made that there IS such a mandate, it is legitimate for someone to point out that it actually still comes down to a matter of opinion.

[Severian]

Remind us, then, what are the relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

 

That isn't going to work, because any argument that I give, you will relate back to 'non-secular' through tradition, or in other words, the culture of the society in which we live. Any reasoning that I can give can be dismissed as based on tradition since I am a product of that culture. For example, if I say that I oppose gay marriage because I do not want my elected government to provide gay couples with tax breaks (a view that requires no direct religious belief), you will counter that this is non-secular, since my homophobia is the product of the Christian society I grew up in.

 

Equally though, can you give me any relevant secular reason for supporting gay marriage? (I warn you in advance, that I will do that same trick and claim that your desire to not discriminate is based on your humanism.)

 

Edit: Incidentally, I got my first ever negative reputation comment for this post (from someone not adult enough to leave their name). Which I think goes some way to proving my point that the arguments for gay marriage are as based on emotion as those for opposing it.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Severian

[iNow]

Any reasoning that I can give can be dismissed as based on tradition since I am a product of that culture. For example, if I say that I oppose gay marriage because I do not want my elected government to provide gay couples with tax breaks

No, I'd again ask you why. I'm trying to distill this down to the root issue, and no reasons have yet been provided... none that matter, anyway. You've said that you oppose gay marriage because you don't want your elected government to treat its citizens equally provide gay couples with tax breaks. What is your relevant secular reason for granting tax breaks to heterosexual couples, but not to homosexual couples, when their relationships are equal in every possible way except genitals?

 

 

(a view that requires no direct religious belief), you will counter that this is non-secular, since my homophobia is the product of the Christian society I grew up in.

I may be mistaken, but it appears that you have just conceded that the only reason you have to be against same sex marriage is your homophobia. Score one for the "let them marry side."

 

 

Equally though, can you give me any relevant secular reason for supporting gay marriage?[/qUOTE]

Sure. Equality.

All laws must have a relevant secular reason for existing. Tradition is not relevant (as demonstrated during the equal rights struggle with blacks), and opposition is based on religious belief, hence is not secular.

 

At present, our laws confer privileges and benefits to heterosexual couples. If they wish to deny those SAME privileges and benefits to homosexual couples, then they must have secular and relevant reasons to do so. We're almost 250 posts into this thread, and yet none of you on the opposition side has been able to articulate any reasons.

[Dudde]

anyway, back to Severian's post

 

These are all fair enough opinions to be had, but they are all based on tradition, and to a certain extent religion.

 

While I disagree with your attempt to group logical thinking with blatant opinions by calling them tradition, I can say that the tradition of treating others with respect and learning to cope with others, and their differences, in close proximity is necessary for a species with our numbers. Thus, calling it tradition or religion is all fine if you want (though I strongly appose the calling it religious, but don't really care to argue the point) - there are no real reasons using logic (as personal interests matter little in preventing rights from being given) to prevent same sex marriages.

 

If anybody is offended by my calling arguments against same sex marriage "blatant opinions" - good, please call me on it and prove me wrong.

 

Equally though, can you give me any relevant secular reason for supporting gay marriage? (I warn you in advance, that I will do that same trick and claim that your desire to not discriminate is based on your humanism.)

 

You mean beside the fact that they're doing the exact same thing as others and getting less for it?

By denying same sex marriages, I believe many gays are getting the message that they're okay to be discriminated against - because that's essentially what we're doing. The reason I believe that is because a lot of them have expressed the same to me, so far as to keep living in fear or secrecy because of what others think.

 

It doesn't matter how many people you're affecting - if you're causing any distress whatsoever to a group of citizens, I would hope you'd have a reason better than "because I don't believe it's right"

[JillSwift]

The point of this thread isn't some academic question, it's an attempt to push everyone onto one side of the issue by means of an incorrect application of logic.

Aww, come on. How can you possibly make that assertion?

 

This thread neither demonstrates that gay marriage is a logical mandate, nor that supporting it has a higher validity than any other opinion. And since the point has been made that there IS such a mandate, it is legitimate for someone to point out that it actually still comes down to a matter of opinion.

This thread was never intended to demonstrate any sort of logical mandate. Nor was it intended to offer support for a hierarchy of validity.

 

If a conclusion has been made somewhere in this thread that there is a logical mandate of any sort, I'm afraid I missed it. Id' have to disagree with it anyway.

 

This thread's question can examine only one thing, and that is demonstrating whether or not there is secular, rational reason to oppose gay marriage. Discovering that there are no secular, rational reasons can only lead us to conclude that there are only religious or irrational reasons.

 

Oops! Looks like there can be no logical mandate as a conclusion! Despite there being no secular, rational reasons, there are still reasons! Oh my I guess that straw man deserved to die, anyway.

[The Bear's Key]

...morality is always derived from religious belief (even if that religious belief is that there is no god, and we should just all be nice to one anther for everyone's sake).

I think you're mistaken. Not only does a religious belief have a specific writing it's dedicated to, but its loyal followers reference it consistently under a setting of worship and/or in ceremonies... often its leadership being the ultimate authority for what aspects change -- or the extent to which traditions must be followed.

[iNow]

Even so, morality is derived from our evolution as pack animals (the fact that our own survival is highly contingent on the necessity that we remain part of a larger society), not religion. So, another specious, hollow, and inaccurate assertion that was.