Severian Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 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." Why would that 'score'? Homophobia is not based on religion (unless you claim that it is derived from cultural heritage which iin turn is derived from religion), so it is a relevant non-secular reason for opposing gay marriage, irrespective of how you may value it. Sure. Equality. I'm sorry, but the notion that everyone should be equal is a subjective argument based on your religious beliefs. It is even contary to the interests of an efficient society.
iNow Posted September 20, 2009 Author Posted September 20, 2009 Why would that 'score'? Homophobia is not based on religion (unless you claim that it is derived from cultural heritage which iin turn is derived from religion), so it is a relevant non-secular reason for opposing gay marriage, irrespective of how you may value it. Because, I had a secondary argument in this thread that the opposition was based on nothing more than bigotry, homophobia, and/or ignorance. You've just presented another supporting data point in support of that contention. I'm sorry, but the notion that everyone should be equal is a subjective argument based on your religious beliefs. No, actually... It's a mandate in our laws, but thanks for playing. Also, a slight (but rather significant) clarification... There is no "notion that everyone should be equal," only that our laws must apply equally to all people unless there is a relevant secular reason supporting their differential application. Religious teachings and homophobia fail to meet those crucial criteria.
Dudde Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Come on, I usually respect your posts, you can do better than that. I'm sorry, but the notion that everyone should be equal is a subjective argument based on your religious beliefs. It is even contary to the interests of an efficient society. and when was the last time the United States was considered efficient? Equality isn't exclusively a religious belief, and in fact, I don't know a whole lot of religions who practice it.
Severian Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Because, I had a secondary argument in this thread that the opposition was based on nothing more than bigotry, homophobia, and/or ignorance. You've just presented another supporting data point in support of that contention. Actually, I was demonstrating your inability to see past your own prejudices, by predicting your reponse to a valid argument. I never said that I opposed gay marriage for this reason. You just jumped to conclusions. Homophobia is a perfectly valid reason for opposing gay marriage (and it is even secular) irrespective of how unpleasant you may think it is (you evil homophobephobe!). No, actually... It's a mandate in our laws, but thanks for playing. That is a very poor argument. One could equally say that the asymmetry between gay and hetrosexual marriage is written into your laws. However, being law does not make something right; you are confusing morality with legality. and when was the last time the United States was considered efficient? Isn't maing your socity more efficient a reasonably non-secular motivation? I had expected you to dispute that it does make it more efficient, not dispute that efficiency is a good thing...
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 That is a very poor argument. One could equally say that the asymmetry between gat and hetrosexual marriage is written into your laws. However, being law does not make something right; you are confusing morality with legality. That's a good point, which was made here before. That's why - for the purposes of this specific thread - legality isn't relevant. The point here is to make people consider the reasoning behind their opinions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I really don't expect to change anyone's opinion in this matter. I know why religious people oppose gay marriage, but why would a rational secularist would? I don't know. I am trying to understand. However, when a person who defines him/herself as rational secularist gives me a religious answer, or one that is inconsistent, then it isn't really a rational secular reason, is it? That doesn't mean he immediately should drop his opinion and switch it (though, granted, if he/she considers themselves rational, they might reconsider). People claim the reasons against gay marriage are not just religious. I, for one, am dying to hear such a reason that also makes sense logically. That's - as far as I'm concerned - the purpose of this thread. It's not about right and wrong. It's about example. I don't think there CAN be a secular rational reason against gay marriage. I am trying to see if anyone can prove me wrong here by giving a valid example. I might reconsider my own stance on the matter, even. If I get a compelling set of reasoning, that is... ~moo
Dudde Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I had expected you to dispute that it does make it more efficient, not dispute that efficiency is a good thing... I do believe it creates more efficiency, but I'm assuming you had something prepared in advance to argue that? If so, please post it, if not..then I don't see why you made the point. However, now that you mention it, it does seem interesting that you think treating people equally would be detrimental to the country's efficiency - not that it's entirely on point, but how would legalizing gay marriages affect society? That's actually a question I've been asking for some time. EDIT: actually, after a little afterthought as well, I'm not sure increasing society's efficiency is the only thing we should be striving for. That can come as some pretty extreme costs. In my opinion, we should be striving for a balance between efficiency, and the people's happiness - that's what I'm going for anyway
Pangloss Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 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. Then you agree that even if there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the only relevant secular conclusion is to have gay marriage?
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Then you agree that even if there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the only relevant secular conclusion is to have gay marriage? How not? That might not mean we expect everyone to suddenly agree, but if there are no secular relevant logical reasons against something, why isn't the conclusion that this something should not be opposed..? Again, a person may hold a nonsecular reason, or a traditional reason, or a personal reasion, whatever. We have no right to demand or expect a person change whatever reasons he/she has for their opinions but *if* that person claims to be rational and secular, then either he(or she) should admit this specific issue he believes *DESPITE* of rationality, or they need to re-examine their self-classification *or* their opinion.
Severian Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 It's not about right and wrong. It's about example. I don't think there CAN be a secular rational reason against gay marriage. I am trying to see if anyone can prove me wrong here by giving a valid example. I might reconsider my own stance on the matter, even. If I get a compelling set of reasoning, that is... Nice post moo, so let me try and give you one. (This is the one I posted earlier, and would probably be mine.) If you legalize gay marriage, gay people will stop protesting about marriage. Protests about marriage are a good thing since it leads to debates like this one, where people's views can be challenged and/or strengthened, and hopefully might lead to the sensible conclusion that marriage is a bad thing in general. Alternatively: It is right to forbide gay marriage because you are saving countless gay men the disappointment that marriage will bring. Or how about: it is wrong that my tax dollars go to subsidise any marriage. Making gay marriage legal would increase the number of people that my tax dollars are subsidising. The desire for equality is outweiged the utility I gain from having more money.
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (This is the one I posted earlier, and would probably be mine.) If you legalize gay marriage, gay people will stop protesting about marriage. Protests about marriage are a good thing since it leads to debates like this one, where people's views can be challenged and/or strengthened, and hopefully might lead to the sensible conclusion that marriage is a bad thing in general. Wow. Alright, I must admit you posted a serious point. I disagree with it, deeply even, since I don't think it's sufficient to decide against gay marriage, but that's not the issue at hand. We're not here to decide on sufficient reasoning, but rather on secular valid reasons. Yours seem to be one. However, when you think about it, it's not quite consistent. By your logic, any other subject that is controversial and legal would stop being controversial. By that logic, legalizing marijuana would stop the debate about marijuana. Do you really expect that to happen? By the same logic, legalizing prostitution would stop the debate about prostitution. Did that happen in the states where it is legal? Heck, did it happen in the countries outside the USA where it is legal? No, siree, it did not. The reason, I suspect, why the debate didn't stop despite legality is because - as was stated before - legality is not the same as morality. Issues of morality will keep being debated, whether they are legal or not. So, despite the fact your claim is, indeed, secular, and SOUNDS logical at first, it's not really valid, because its internally inconsistent. Alternatively: It is right to forbide gay marriage because you are saving countless gay men the disappointment that marriage will bring. What about gay women? Alright, well, in that case you should eliminate marriage to all people, gay and straight, to prevent such disappointment for heterosexuals as well (euqality, yes?). Seriously, though, this isn't really relevant either, not really -- because the argument here isn't about the METHOD of marriage (living together, commitment, etc) it's about giving the same RIGHTS. That is, the argument you put forth is relevant for an argument about whether or not people should commit to one another for *howeverlong*, but not about whether or not gay couples who already MADE that decision to commit should receive the same rights under the law. Or how about: it is wrong that my tax dollars go to subsidise any marriage. Making gay marriage legal would increase the number of people that my tax dollars are subsidising. The desire for equality is outweiged the utility I gain from having more money. That is indeed a valid reason, but it's not one for straight vs. gay marriage, it's about ALL marriage. In which case, it is, indeed a secular valid reason against marriage, but then such argument should be done against all marriage systems. The problem is that REALITY dictates there already *is* marriage under the law; the question is whether or not we should include gay couples under that definition. The argument to eliminate all marriages is interesting, but just like an argument for and against action regarding laws, it's a separate discussion. It's valid, sure, and it's secular, yeah, but ti's not about gay marriage, it's about all marriage... it's not really the purpose of this discussion... You should start a separate thread about it, though. Sounds like an interesting one to have. ~moo
Severian Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) However, when you think about it, it's not quite consistent. By your logic, any other subject that is controversial and legal would stop being controversial. By that logic, legalizing marijuana would stop the debate about marijuana. Do you really expect that to happen? By the same logic, legalizing prostitution would stop the debate about prostitution. Did that happen in the states where it is legal? Heck, did it happen in the countries outside the USA where it is legal? No, siree, it did not. I don't accept that. In this case, something is legal which shouldn't be (not the other way around). Allowing a lesser evil to exist (that is, inequality) encourages debate which might lead to the desirable outcome of no marriage being allowed. A bit off topic, but to reply to your question, I think legalising marijuana would lead people who want marijuana to be legal but don't care about other drugs, to stop protesting. This could be seen as a bad thing for someone who wanted cocaine to be legalised. Seriously, though, this isn't really relevant either, not really -- because the argument here isn't about the METHOD of marriage (living together, commitment, etc) it's about giving the same RIGHTS. You did get that that one wasn't meant to be serious, right? If I wanted to argue this one, I would claim that the legal institution of marriage places barriers between people in a relationship which are unhealthy and ultimately lead to misery. If you are just living together these barriers are eased. (Many many single men will give this as their reason for not getting married.) That is indeed a valid reason, but it's not one for straight vs. gay marriage, it's about ALL marriage. In which case, it is, indeed a secular valid reason against marriage, but then such argument should be done against all marriage systems. If it is a secular reason for opposing all marriage then it must be a secular reason for opposing gay marriage, since gay marriage is a subset of all marriage. Alternatively, you could state this as a disagreement about the method for achieving equality. If the right thing to do is to ban all marriage, then you shouldn't start down this path by enlarging the set of people who are allowed to get married. Edited September 20, 2009 by Severian
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I don't accept that. In this case, something is legal which shouldn't be (not the other way around). Allowing a lesser evil to exist (that is, inequality) encourages debate which might lead to the desirable outcome of no marriage being allowed. It's still not consistent, though. Reality shows that even when something IS legalized, the argument doesn't stop. Look at abortion and prostitution as examples. A bit off topic, but to reply to your question, I think legalising marijuana would lead people who want marijuana to be legal but don't care about other drugs, to stop protesting. This could be seen as a bad thing for someone who wanted cocaine to be legalised. Off topic indeed, we'll have to have that discussion somewhere else. On a nutshell, I'll just say I disagree You did get that that one wasn't meant to be serious, right? If I wanted to argue this one, I would claim that the legal institution of marriage places barriers between people in a relationship which are unhealthy and ultimately lead to misery. If you are just living together these barriers are eased. (Many many single men will give this as their reason for not getting married.) Well, you can't blame me from verifying *and* from making sure others won't attempt to use it as a real cause, yes? yes. Funny, though Besides, you can't blame me. While 99% of the discussion so far on this thread was interesting and serious, there HAVE been some claims made that I would categorize as jokes, while they turned out to be seriously-made. If it is a secular reason for opposing all marriage then it must be a secular reason for opposing gay marriage, since gay marriage is a subset of all marriage. Alternatively, you could state this as a disagreement about the method for achieving equality. If the right thing to do is to ban all marriage, then you shouldn't start down this path by enlarging the set of people who are allowed to get married. But we're not arguing about opposing ALL marriages, we're arguing about specifically opposing gay marriage, and from the way reality is at the moment, it's quite clear that opposing gay marriage the way things are means that it's one-sided. I do get what you mean (I think), but it seems to be off point here, that's all I'm saying. ~moo
JillSwift Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Then you agree that even if there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the only relevant secular conclusion is to have gay marriage? Well, not as you phrased it. But neither am I all that far away: Were the issue of same sex marriage purely about secular and rational reasons, then and only then would discovering no reason to oppose gay marriage become a logical mandate to stop opposition. What I do recognize is that the issue of same sex marriage (which the posed question examines only in part) isn't about just the secular or reasonable. We're emotional beings. Nothing in society is ever just about the rational. Heck, quite often "rational" has nothing to do with it. That's why they offer chocolate and vanilla soft-serve at the 7-11.
iNow Posted September 20, 2009 Author Posted September 20, 2009 Then you agree that even if there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the only relevant secular conclusion is to have gay marriage? Let me make this clear. We have state recognized marriage for heterosexual couples. That's a given. We have mandates in our constitution that all laws (or differential application of laws) MUST have a relevant secular purpose (most commonly, the prevention of measurable harm to others). Laws which exclude homosexual couples from gaining the same benefits and privileges as heterosexual couples must have a relevant secular reason supporting this differential conferment. Zero relevant secular reasons have been presented, despite more than 260 posts of trying. So, yes... The ONLY logical conclusion is that gay marriage should be allowed, as disallowing it requires relevant secular reasons, whereas none of those seem to exist.
Pangloss Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Then you agree that even if there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage' date=' that doesn't mean that the only relevant secular conclusion is to have gay marriage? [/quote']How not? That might not mean we expect everyone to suddenly agree, but if there are no secular relevant logical reasons against something, why isn't the conclusion that this something should not be opposed..? Because there is at least one equally reasonable possibility -- a 100% legally equal "civil union". Were the issue of same sex marriage purely about secular and rational reasons, then and only then would discovering no reason to oppose gay marriage become a logical mandate to stop opposition. Okay, but what I think is not yet clear to the pro-gay-marriage side in this discussion is that a lack of logical grounds against gay marriage does not, in and of itself, constitute an irrefutable logical argument for gay marriage. What I do recognize is that the issue of same sex marriage (which the posed question examines only in part) isn't about just the secular or reasonable. We're emotional beings. Nothing in society is ever just about the rational. Heck, quite often "rational" has nothing to do with it. That's why they offer chocolate and vanilla soft-serve at the 7-11. Indeed, and well put. There is, however, no acceptable argument against chocolate!
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Okay, but what I think is not yet clear to the pro-gay-marriage side in this discussion is that a lack of logical grounds against gay marriage does not, in and of itself, constitute an irrefutable logical argument for gay marriage. Agreed. It would suggest that there's no reason NOT to be for gay marriage, but in itself it's not a logical argument for gay marriage, indeed. As for the rest of your claims, im' not ignoring them, I'm just about to leave, so i'll answer those later ~moo
iNow Posted September 20, 2009 Author Posted September 20, 2009 Because there is at least one equally reasonable possibility -- a 100% legally equal "civil union". All you've done is to displace the question. You have not answered it. The question is now, "What relevant secular reason is there to call their relationship (which is the SAME in every possible way except genitals) by another name?" Okay, but what I think is not yet clear to the pro-gay-marriage side in this discussion is that a lack of logical grounds against gay marriage does not, in and of itself, constitute an irrefutable logical argument for gay marriage. Sure it does. The logical argument FOR it is that we have an existing institution of marriage, a social contract which confers benefits and privileges to heterosexual couples. Since the relationship of homosexual couples is the same in every possible way except genitals, same sex couples should be allowed the same rights (and same name, for that matter) unless SOMEONE can name AT LEAST ONE SINGLE relevant secular reason which supports the differential conferment of benefits and privileges, or the different name/label.
Pangloss Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 All you've done is to displace the question. You have not answered it. The question is now, "What relevant secular reason is there to call their relationship (which is the SAME in every possible way except genitals) by another name?" Except that unlike in your excellent answer to Severian above, this one can't be easily answered in the reverse. Are there any relevant secular reasons why we cannot have civil unions instead, if they are created 100% equal to marriage?
iNow Posted September 20, 2009 Author Posted September 20, 2009 Are there any relevant secular reasons why we cannot have civil unions instead, if they are created 100% equal to marriage? It's not 100% equal by definition, since you are naming it something unequal. In essence, your point rests on a flawed premise, so the requirement for you to explain why they should be named differently still stands. What relevant secular purpose is served (what value does it bring) to call them by another name? As I explained earlier in the thread, the arguments have thus far all demonstrated that such an approach would be detrimental in the context of equality.
Pangloss Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) It's not 100% equal by definition, since you are naming it something unequal. I recognize that the Unicode characters are not the same, but the issue before us is equal justice under law. So if you think that's important, more power to you, but that's a matter of opinion. Are there any relevant secular reasons why we cannot call them civil unions if they are legally equal to marriage? What relevant secular purpose is served (what value does it bring) to call them by another name? What value it brings is equality under law. Having it called "marriage" would also bring equality under law. Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why is that is the only logical conclusion? Edited September 20, 2009 by Pangloss
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 If you think that's important, more power to you, but that's a matter of opinion. Actually, is it? By definition, isn't this also inequality? If you would have proposed a different name for biracial marriage, would it still be a matter of opinion to say that it's unequal by itself? The idea that you would need a different definition hints that there's a need to separate the groups. It might end up being equal by the law, but that doesn't mean ti will be equal socially.. in fact, it seems to me that it would only serve to further ingrain the insistence on singling out of gay couples. Are there any relevant secular reasons why we cannot call them civil unions if they are legally equal to marriage? What value it brings is equality under law. Yes, because of what I wrote above. It might be equal by law, but it will be inequal socially, and serve to further single out gay couples rather than treat them as equal members of the society. Equality by law is only one aspect of equality. ~moo
Pangloss Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Actually, is it? By definition, isn't this also inequality? If you would have proposed a different name for biracial marriage, would it still be a matter of opinion to say that it's unequal by itself? The idea that you would need a different definition hints that there's a need to separate the groups. It might end up being equal by the law, but that doesn't mean ti will be equal socially.. in fact, it seems to me that it would only serve to further ingrain the insistence on singling out of gay couples. 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.
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 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. Ah! Constitutional, perhaps, but we're here talking (as we've discussed before) less about lawfulness and more about an opinion. the goal here is to see if there's a valid secular reason to support such opinion against gay marriage, so though the argument about equality in the eyes of the constitution is an interesting one, and a valid argument in itself, it's not quite what we're discussing here. The separate definitions might be equal constitutionally (not sure about that, btw, because they're still SEPARATE, but I'll accept that), but they are not equal socially, and the might actually contribute more for the increase of social inequality. 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. Yes, you'd get equal lawful rights. That's a great step forward, but it isn't 100% equality. If we were arguing about what can we do to promote the idea of gay marriage, I'd have agreed with you. As it happens, the argument is about principles. A theoretical debate about the reasoning behind opinions. ~moo
Pangloss Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Actually I think what we're talking about is what should be done with the law. I think we all agree that you can't change opinions overnight.
mooeypoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Actually I think what we're talking about is what should be done with the law. I think we all agree that you can't change opinions overnight. 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.
Recommended Posts