Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes you are correct on this. Matrimony was describing a certain state of the usage of the word marriage. And that state is (state of being a mother).

...

Personally I agree with a post I read about secular marriage being a little on the absurd side. I don't see any meaningful definition outside of spiritual context and it's just a dumb piece of paper and law stating to be joined together for life.

 

I thought that you were just now trying to define marriage secularly; if so then what is the problem with secular marriage?

[Dudde]

Oh sweet I love when they put words in my mouth and go backwards.

 

No, I agree.I don't believe the sex practice should be encouraged to children at all whether homosexual or heterosexual.

 

I don't remember mentioning anything about Children.

 

Conversation is interesting but fruitless

Then take interest and participate, or expect no fruit and stop. You're either trolling out of amusement, or really believe the arguments you're standing on. In either case, we have several threads on the subject and have countered all these before.

 

(Now I believe the word marriage is derived from taking a bride or young woman but admit I am still searching on this.)

If you find anything conclusive, and hopefully from a reliable source, please share. It's fairly important if you're basing your entire point of view from it.

 

EDIT:

by the way, the argument that

 

Good try!

 

is in reference to is completely valid, and I see no reason to discredit it.

[walkntune]

I thought that you were just now trying to define marriage secularly; if so then what is the problem with secular marriage?

Outside of spiritual meaning it only has meaning it is given by paper and law(for me).For me it has spiritual meaning but I was left with no choice from the original post to give secular reasons.

As far as I am concerned you can come along and sing Christmas carols,spread the joy of giving love and presents,celebrate gatherings of friends and family,Etc...

You don't have to believe in God and Jesus to do this.The holiday meaning will be different for you than a Christian though.

You can also get married but just can't do it in the name of Holy matrimony.Once again you can take the word marry but it still has an altered definition from matrimony.

 

When you take the word marriage to encompass unions of ideas, things and people, why do you need to limit it's meaning to just people?

[Mr Skeptic]

I see. Well, for one thing many people are atheists so a religious argument would be totally meaningless for them. For another, in the US we have religious freedom and separation of church and state, so to get legally married you need a secular definition.

 

Anyhow, what you now say suggests that it is the word that bothers you rather than the actions. I think most gay couples would be fine with just a regular, legal, secular matrimony rather than a holy one. However, some religious gay people have gotten married, and some churches have married gay people, so it seems not all churches agree that gays cannot partake of the holy matrimony aspect as well.

[A Tripolation]

I think most gay couples would be fine with just a regular, legal, secular matrimony rather than a holy one.

 

From what I've read, some of them STILL consider this discrimination...even if they are not religious...which confuses me a great deal.

[walkntune]

Anyhow, what you now say suggests that it is the word that bothers you rather than the actions. I think most gay couples would be fine with just a regular, legal, secular matrimony rather than a holy one. However, some religious gay people have gotten married, and some churches have married gay people, so it seems not all churches agree that gays cannot partake of the holy matrimony aspect as well.

 

I don't oppose gays getting married anymore than I would someone drinking, smoking, eating unhealthy foods(and it's actually the sexual acts) that I would oppose.

I believe consenting adults should have there rights to take their health risks but just don't believe it should be forced into society or on children in schools any more than the act of smoking, drinking, etc...

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah, so gay people can get married so long as they don't have anal sex? I think lesbians fall into that category.

[walkntune]

As far as denying the use of the word marriage as in to encompass unions of ideas, things and people I can care less.

 

I am just saying if you use the word in this context, why do you need to limit the usage with just people? I know this was argued but I never heard the answer.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now I guess I will find the related threads to search through but this one took awhile.

[Phi for All]

I don't oppose gays getting married anymore than I would someone drinking, smoking, eating unhealthy foods(and it's actually the sexual acts) that I would oppose.

I believe consenting adults should have there rights to take their health risks but just don't believe it should be forced into society or on children in schools any more than the act of smoking, drinking, etc...

Why does a hetero couple having the types of sex you oppose for health reasons not impact society or children? What is a gay couple "forcing" on anyone by wanting to be married?

[Sisyphus]

I don't oppose gays getting married anymore than I would someone drinking, smoking, eating unhealthy foods(and it's actually the sexual acts) that I would oppose.

I believe consenting adults should have there rights to take their health risks but just don't believe it should be forced into society or on children in schools any more than the act of smoking, drinking, etc...

 

What are you talking about? What activities are forced on children in schools, unhealthy, and only possible between two married people of the same sex? Wouldn't that require teachers to be forcibly marrying students of the same sex, then making them do.... what?

[walkntune]

[

Why does a hetero couple having the types of sex you oppose for health reasons not impact society or children?

I have already answered this.

What is a gay couple "forcing" on anyone by wanting to be married?

Didn't say gay couple , I am talking about the health risk factors of anal sex.

If gays want to use a definition of the word marriage to be joined together, I don't care but just interested in a reason why it is limited to just humans?

 

What are you talking about? What activities are forced on children in schools, unhealthy, and only possible between two married people of the same sex? Wouldn't that require teachers to be forcibly marrying students of the same sex, then making them do.... what?

If they are taught about anal sex as an alternative lifestyle while forced to be in class,is that not in essence knowledge being forced on them. Why is there such a debate about evolution and creationism being taught in schools?

[Sisyphus]

So you object to teachers acknowledging that homosexuality exists? Because you're afraid that will lead to lots of anal sex?

[A Tripolation]

That's what they're teaching in schools nowadays? When I was there...gosh, a whole 3 years ago, they didn't even talk to us about heterosexual relationships, but now they're going to talk about how anal sex is ok?

 

Man, where was I at when they made this curriculum change?

[Phi for All]

I have already answered this.

Insufficiently, imo. Why would allowing gay marriage automatically lead to teaching a pro-stance about anal sex in schools?

 

Didn't say gay couple , I am talking about the health risk factors of anal sex.

If gays want to use a definition of the word marriage to be joined together, I don't care but just interested in a reason why it is limited to just humans?

Are you arguing for marriage for non-humans?

 

If they are taught about anal sex as an alternative lifestyle while forced to be in class,is that not in essence knowledge being forced on them.

Even if the subject was taught as part of an alternative lifestyle course, it would neither require children to participate in anal sex nor encourage them to do so, and it might possibly educate them in the potential health hazards, which is done for vaginal sex in all health classes now anyway. There are numerous studies showing that education is more effective than abstinence.

 

Why is there such a debate about evolution and creationism being taught in schools?

Because one is science and one is religion. Schools teach science, churches teach religion. K-12 schooling is mandatory and religious classes are optional.

[walkntune]

Insufficiently, imo. Why would allowing gay marriage automatically lead to teaching a pro-stance about anal sex in schools?

 

I guess it's possible to hang out in bars without drinking but they are usually associated with alcohol.

Are you arguing for marriage for non-humans?

 

Why? Does it have any less meaning?

 

So you object to teachers acknowledging that homosexuality exists? Because you're afraid that will lead to lots of anal sex?

 

I feel it would be better left as an open elective for older kids in high who can handle their own convictions of what they feel is right for them than to be taught the acceptance of certain behaviors and lifestyles to children in second grade who they convieniently know they can teach them when they are young and lead them around like cattle. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

I don't feel religion needs to be taught in school either.

[npts2020]

I guess it's possible to hang out in bars without drinking but they are usually associated with alcohol.

 

 

Why? Does it have any less meaning?

 

 

 

I feel it would be better left as an open elective for older kids in high who can handle their own convictions of what they feel is right for them than to be taught the acceptance of certain behaviors and lifestyles to children in second grade who they convieniently know they can teach them when they are young and lead them around like cattle. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

I don't feel religion needs to be taught in school either.

 

I have been to many bars without drinking (anything alcoholic anyway). AFAIK any student may opt out of the sex education part of health class in all public schools, if you can show a case where anyone has been forced to sit through it then I will stand corrected.

[Phi for All]

I guess it's possible to hang out in bars without drinking but they are usually associated with alcohol.

I do it all the time. They serve club soda, and it's usually free when I'm with my friends who are drinking alcohol.

 

 

Why? Does it have any less meaning?

You mentioned that you wondered why the term marriage should be limited to humans. Do you consider gay people not human?

 

I feel it would be better left as an open elective for older kids in high who can handle their own convictions of what they feel is right for them than to be taught the acceptance of certain behaviors and lifestyles to children in second grade who they convieniently know they can teach them when they are young and lead them around like cattle. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

I don't feel religion needs to be taught in school either.

Let's get some perspective on this. A second-grader is not going to be taught anything about sex that Mom and Dad wouldn't tell them. Kids that age need simple answers. If they ask what gay means, teachers wouldn't launch into graphic descriptions about anal sex.

 

The rest of your post sounds like you support discriminative practices because acceptance of someone else's lifestyle is beyond what you are prepared to do. Which behaviors do you find unacceptable that a second-grader would be exposed to? Remember that all of us here are probably going to object to sexual activity from anyone in front of a 7-year-old.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What about gay women? Everyone brings up anal sex when talking about homosexuality, but there are lesbians too.

[Phi for All]

What about gay women? Everyone brings up anal sex when talking about homosexuality, but there are lesbians too.

Sometimes I think if it were only women wanting to marry each other it wouldn't be as big a deal. Most of the objections I hear are with gay men. Women can share a kiss on TV but it's pandemonium when men do it (and they can never put as much gusto into it).

 

Guys who love sex are called studs, women who love sex are called sluts. Guys having sex with guys is disgusting to many, women who have sex with women are... well, hot. And it all seems to boil down to paranoia that the child you pass your estate along to might not be yours. Men can be idiots, really.

[walkntune]

The rest of your post sounds like you support discriminative practices

Where is this when I said that two consenting adults have their right to take their own sexual behavior risks?Or is it because I value marriage on a spiritual level and find no value in it secular based, or because I feel children should not have to be exposed to certain relationship practices until they are at a certain age of accountability?Asking out of curiosity is not the same as being subjected to it.(And this doesn't matter what the sexual genders are).

You mentioned that you wondered why the term marriage should be limited to humans. Do you consider gay people not human?

Trying to find out where the secular value of the term lies.

For me it is a spiritual meaning where two people come together as one to produce one flesh after their own kind.

acceptance of someone else's lifestyle is beyond what you are prepared to do

What do you mean by accept? You mean place the same value on it? I am not attracted to the same sex so I find no value in it and it would even be difficult to reproduce!

Are you asking if society should find value in it? Besides curing loneliness for the ones who are participating and sharing their time together help me to see what value it adds to society. Maybe I am missing something.Since I don't understand what the values are and the benefits to society are from the stand point of gay marriage, why don't you enlighten me to what they are. I ultimately see people finding mates as a way of reproduction and the circle of life and can easily discern the value in this.Sure it's enjoyable but I don't find that as the reason for it's value.

[iNow]

Or is it because I value marriage on a spiritual level and find no value in it secular based

 

<...>

 

For me it is a spiritual meaning where two people come together as one to produce one flesh after their own kind.

And yet, atheists have been marrying for decades, and all without objection from church groups or otherwise. Fancy that.

 

 

I find no value in it and it would even be difficult to reproduce!

 

<...>

 

I ultimately see people finding mates as a way of reproduction and the circle of life and can easily discern the value in this.

And yet, people who are infertile, people with no desire for children, and the elderly who are no longer reproductively viable have all been marrying for decades, and all without objection from church groups or otherwise. Fancy that.

 

 

Are you asking if society should find value in it? Besides curing loneliness for the ones who are participating and sharing their time together help me to see what value it adds to society. Maybe I am missing something.Since I don't understand what the values are and the benefits to society are from the stand point of gay marriage, why don't you enlighten me to what they are.

Since you are trying to restrict equal rights for an entire group of the population, the onus is on you to demonstrate why we should allow that restriction to be implemented. It's not about proving worth, it's about equality and removing unwarranted discrimination from our laws and the state conferment of benefits and privileges to citizens born in this country.

 

So, as per the thread title, and in response to your claims that homosexuals should be denied equal rights, what relevant secular reason is there for you to oppose/deny gay marriage?

[walkntune]

Sometimes I think if it were only women wanting to marry each other it wouldn't be as big a deal. Most of the objections I hear are with gay men. Women can share a kiss on TV but it's pandemonium when men do it (and they can never put as much gusto into it).

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!

[Dudde]

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!

 

You probably haven't experienced it then, having sex especially to produce offspring is in the minority of times you'll run across it. Thus why contraceptives are so popular, and sexually explicit acts are up for grabs free all across the internet - as I'm doubtful most of them end up with child.

 

Are you asking if society should find value in it? Besides curing loneliness for the ones who are participating and sharing their time together help me to see what value it adds to society.

 

No one asked society to think or try to get anything whatsoever from someone else's bonding with others - the argument for this is definitely back in the thread, if I get time in the next hour I'll link to it. For now, I don't see why it's something that has to have a use for society, and a huge percentage of acts done by heterosexual couples are already pretty useless to society, yet you have no mention of them?

 

Does a married couple on their wedding night deserve to be disbanded because they have no intention of bearing a child on the first night? It's hardly fair to hold others to these standards

[Phi for All]

Where is this when I said that two consenting adults have their right to take their own sexual behavior risks?Or is it because I value marriage on a spiritual level and find no value in it secular based, or because I feel children should not have to be exposed to certain relationship practices until they are at a certain age of accountability?Asking out of curiosity is not the same as being subjected to it.(And this doesn't matter what the sexual genders are).

 

What do you mean by accept? You mean place the same value on it? I am not attracted to the same sex so I find no value in it and it would even be difficult to reproduce!

Are you asking if society should find value in it? Besides curing loneliness for the ones who are participating and sharing their time together help me to see what value it adds to society. Maybe I am missing something.Since I don't understand what the values are and the benefits to society are from the stand point of gay marriage, why don't you enlighten me to what they are. I ultimately see people finding mates as a way of reproduction and the circle of life and can easily discern the value in this.Sure it's enjoyable but I don't find that as the reason for it's value.

Acceptance doesn't mean you have to embrace it yourself. It just means you allow it on a legal level and acknowledge it as a choice. It means not forcing your rigid mindset on the rest of the society. It means realizing that not everyone shares your point of view, experiences and upbringing, and that that doesn't make them any less valuable to society as a whole.

 

Society is strengthened anytime there is a union that provides stability and economy within the parameters of that society. The worth of people is validated by these unions and that keeps people happy, productive and motivated to think beyond themselves alone. If you could see past what you consider an abnormal sex act, I think you'd have to admit that it's better to have more people involved in happy relationships that help society prosper than to deny them the right to form those acknowledged partnerships.

 

Varying values are what keep an economy healthy. If you place a higher value on orange cars, donating to basset hound charities and Stilton cheese than I do, I'm actually glad because I'm never going to be interested in any of those things but I can accept that you are and that the value you place on them will actually help my society (and me, indirectly, because I won't have to buy or support them because of you!). So you don't have to embrace gay culture for it to benefit society, you just have to acknowledge that it's a choice for some people and stop denying that it has validity to parts of the society you live in.

 

Trying to find out where the secular value of the term lies.

For me it is a spiritual meaning where two people come together as one to produce one flesh after their own kind.

This definition fails to include even hetero couples who either can't or choose not to have children. Are they not married in your spiritual meaning? Is one soul less than another just because it didn't reproduce with another?

[mooeypoo]

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!

 

You probably haven't experienced it then, having sex especially to produce offspring is in the minority of times you'll run across it. Thus why contraceptives are so popular, and sexually explicit acts are up for grabs free all across the internet - as I'm doubtful most of them end up with child.

Also, the fact you don't find value in sex for non reproduction, walkntune, isn't a reason to oppose gay marriage. As was said in this thread BEFORE (multiple times), using this as a reason will necessitate making sure heterosexual couples who are unable to bear children are also forbidden from having sex.

 

 

We aren't talking about what people approve of, we're talking about equal rights. The state is allowing for certain rights that ACCOMPANY marriage (read the thread, they're discussed). You are essentially claiming you wish to take a group and exclude them from the rights that are given to everyone else.

 

The fact you are not approving of their lifestyle -- or, rather, of what YOU think is their lifestyle (no, Gay men are not just into anal sex, nor are they *all* into anal sex, nor is the LGBT community made up of gay men only) -- has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

Especially when the debate is specifically encompassing the relevant *secular* reasons to oppose gay marriage.

 

~moo