Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

I'm pretty sure defining a word is a secular thing. It would also pass the Lemon test.

If you're refering to defining the word "marriage" under the law, then it seems the Lemon test would fail on it if its definition is strictly religious. And if the definition is secular, there's absolutely no reason to prevent gays from being included in it.

**CharonY** · December 9, 2009

The question is how you define it and based on what premises.

Edit: Mooeypoo was faster and more eloquent.

walkntune · December 9, 2009

I'm pretty sure defining a word is a secular thing. It would also pass the Lemon test

I don't believe males can use matrimony since the only definition I find is (mother subject to be).

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

I don't believe males can use matrimony since the only definition I find is (mother subject to be).

What? I am not sure I understand what you're saying.

Sisyphus · December 9, 2009

"Mother subject to be?" So... pregnant?

Is this a "words mean their etymological roots" argument? If so, would you agree that the word "trivia" only means a road intersection?

Mr Skeptic · December 9, 2009

If you're refering to defining the word "marriage" under the law, then it seems the Lemon test would fail on it if its definition is strictly religious. And if the definition is secular, there's absolutely no reason to prevent gays from being included in it.

But how can you tell if a definition is strictly religious? From a purely etymological point of view, there would be even less reason to include gays in the definition than to exclude them. All this of course being completely separate from the issue of gay rights. And since iNow will again bring up the tired old argument that it would violate separate but equal, I will point out that the government could use a common word other than marriage to make them equal and separate.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is this a "words mean their etymological roots" argument?

Well that could be amusing, as then one might claim that all marriages should be gay.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

But how can you tell if a definition is strictly religious?

By searching for relevant valid secular reasons and finding none.

This is really very simple: if marriage a term like "baptism", then we would have no quarrel here.. it would be religious and I would have nothing to say. However, unlike "baptism" (that *is* religious term) "marriage" is a term used by law to give some citizens certain rights.

It should therefore be re-examined in secular light, to preserve separation of church and state.

Or, it should be totally abolished from the law and the "union between partners" should be using a whole new word (for *all*), with whatever rights included.

This is not the case, though. The religious parties want to eat the cake and leave it whole; the want secular law to use a religious term, but not dare secularize it. Nice plan, but it lacks logic, and is against the separation of religion and law - a separation existing in the constitution of the USA.

Edited December 9, 2009 by mooeypoo

Mr Skeptic · December 9, 2009

By searching for relevant valid secular reasons and finding none.

That's an argument from ignorance. Why not search directly for religious reasons and find only those? It's also a false argument, since secular reasons for a definition do not need to be relevant.

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

That's an argument from ignorance. Why not search directly for religious reasons and find only those? It's also a false argument, since secular reasons for a definition do not need to be relevant.

I'm sorry, I clicked "post" before finishing my argument, and edited my post later.. I think the expansion (and explanation) for my one-liner is in my previous post.

That said, I disagree. The law should be secular. If we find no reason to have a law, then we shouldn't have a law. Societies change, and so do their laws; they are re-examined every now and then, and changed.

The reason *FOR* gay marriage exists - and is absolutely non religious: Equality being the main one. That means that there *are* reasons for getting rid of the inequality, and if we find no reasons against it, then there's no reason to oppose it.

That's not argument from ignorance at all, that's an attempt to examine our reasoning and adjust our rules to *fit* the reasoning, and not our reasoning to fit an archaic law.

padren · December 9, 2009

But how can you tell if a definition is strictly religious?

I won't say all reasons are religious - some are bigoted or irrational... but that's the reason for the word "relevant" in the topic title: bigoted/irrational/emotional arguments aren't really relevant to state law. At least we make the effort to keep it that way and consider it a failing (regardless of topic) when they do weasel their way in.

The thing is someone can pose a non-religious argument, which is challenged for faulty logic on all manner of grounds, and after peeling it like an onion for some time it boils down to: religious, irrational or bigoted. At least so far. The claim isn't that no such argument exists, but that no such argument has been presented that survived any degree of debate. There is an ancillary view (largely unspoken) that in order to deny a petition to the state for the recognition of a people's rights that some rational argument must be made. If there was some ancient law on the books that anyone of Australian descent within the last 3 generations could no own blue clothing - any US Citizen of aussie heritage could petition for that equal right, and their petition could only be denied of cause was shown. The state would have to demonstrate the law was not capricious.

All that is secondary though, and gets into consititutional law and "rule by majority" vs. "rule by law" and whatnot. This thread is just to try and uncover if any relevant secular reasons exist to oppose gay marriage and so far none have stood up to debate.

walkntune · December 9, 2009

Of course we can change definitions, Words only have meaning because we give them meaning.But then again that's why I see no value in a secular marriage except for the state benefits which of course is meaning we gave it.What interesting word would you change matry from besides "mother"

I suppose they would say matry means marriage and mony still means "subject to be"

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

Of course we can change definitions, Words only have meaning because we give them meaning.But then again that's why I see no value in a secular marriage except for the state benefits which of course is meaning we gave it.

Great, then you should see no reason to give those benefits to *ALL CITIZENS* in that definition that the state gave the word - for the purpose of defining the benefits.

That is, you should see no relevant secular reason not to include all citizens.

What interesting word would you change matry from besides .
I suppose they would say matry means marriage and mony still means "subject to be"

I don't know, and quite frankly I don't quite care. Call it oobapalooba if you wish, but all citizens should get the benefits the the secular law defines under them.

Mr Skeptic · December 9, 2009

The law should be secular. If we find no reason to have a law, then we shouldn't have a law. Societies change, and so do their laws; they are re-examined every now and then, and changed.

But I didn't mention the law in that post, only the definition. A definition can be quite arbitrary when first defined. The law uses words, and words have definitions. Definitions change as well, but the meaning of words in previous literature does not change with them.

The reason *FOR* gay marriage exists - and is absolutely non religious: Equality being the main one. That means that there *are* reasons for getting rid of the inequality, and if we find no reasons against it, then there's no reason to oppose it.

Not really. Equality is an argument for equal rights, not for defining a word. I did mention this in the post you responded to previously.

That's not argument from ignorance at all, that's an attempt to examine our reasoning and adjust our rules to *fit* the reasoning, and not our reasoning to fit an archaic law.

Well, what I had replied to (before your edit) most definitely was an argument from ignorance. In any case, I agree that we must adjust our rules. Re-interpreting rules is a different story though.

The religious parties want to eat the cake and leave it whole; the want secular law to use a religious term, but not dare secularize it. Nice plan, but it lacks logic, and is against the separation of religion and law - a separation existing in the constitution of the USA.

The secular law has been using the word "marriage" for quite some time. Are you claiming that our laws have been unconstitutionally in violation of the first amendment all this time? Or is this evidence that "marriage" has secular meaning?

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

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.

Yes, agreed. As I said before, I don't quite care about what you call it, I care about the benefits the state decided to give the beneficiaries. If you allow *all citizens* to get the benefits, then, as far as I'm concerned,you can call it whatever you want (as long as it's a definition for *EVERYONE* - equally).

If the term "marriage" itself is the problem, then abolish marriage completely under law, turn it into a strictly religious ceremony (and have the law have NOTHING to do with it) and make up another word that will encompass all the benefits, that will affect *all citizens* regardless of their sexual preferences, or gender, or religious affiliations.

~moo

walkntune · December 9, 2009

Great, then you should see no reason to give those benefits to *ALL CITIZENS* in that definition that the state gave the word - for the purpose of defining the benefits.

That is, you should see no relevant secular reason not to include all citizens.

Maybe it would be more beneficial to give benefits to only marriages that reproduce.This would discourage any marriage for the sole purpose of benefits.

**mooeypoo** · December 9, 2009

But I didn't mention the law in that post, only the definition. A definition can be quite arbitrary when first defined. The law uses words, and words have definitions. Definitions change as well, but the meaning of words in previous literature does not change with them.

We talked about that in the thread before, and that's not quite true. Definitions of words themselves change all the time and that makes us change the literature to adjust to the new definition.

Or, change the word completely to avoid a problem. Whichever one you choose to support, the problem in the USA is the *benefits* and *rights* that a certain group of the population is refused of.

Not really. Equality is an argument for equal rights, not for defining a word. I did mention this in the post you responded to previously.

Well, there used to be a time where "nigger" was a perfectly valid way to describe a black person; the word existed in law, too, defining what rights that group is allowed and what it is denied.. there were a few minor differences between the southern states, but the general feeling of it was quite clear.

The argument for equal rights includes an argument for re-examining the definitions inside the law. We might end up getting rid of that word entirely (like we did with "nigger") and putting up something different that includes everyone, or we might redefine the word itself (like was done with "queer"). Either way, the social definition is one thing, and the definition by LAW is different.

The definition by law *results* in inequality. That forces us to re-examine the definition we attached to the words that defined the law.

Well, what I had replied to (before your edit) most definitely was an argument from ignorance. In any case, I agree that we must adjust our rules. Re-interpreting rules is a different story though.

Yes, I'm sorry, I accidentally clicked the "post" button; I disagree with you on argument from ignorance still (for the reasons above) but I can see how it could look like it.

Interpretation of the law is dependent upon quite strict definitions of words. Have you ever seen a lawful contract? The first parts are usually lengthy and wordy and include all the definitions that will be used in the contract to define whatever transactions/conditions that apply. Even words that are SUPPOSED to be familiar are again defined in length and in depth to make sure the contract is carried out as intended.

Laws are the same. You must have proper definitions; if we see that a word is badly defined and is included in law, then we either redefine it, or we throw it out and use a different one. Either way, the argument for equality includes re-examining those definitions.

The secular law has been using the word "marriage" for quite some time. Are you claiming that our laws have been unconstitutionally in violation of the first amendment all this time? Or is this evidence that "marriage" has secular meaning?

"Nigger" was used for a very long time too. So were rules preventing women from voting (the USA got equality fro women in the 1920s, I believe.. that's a LOT of time for the existing inequality before that). We change laws to accommodate new problems we notice with equality ALL THE TIME.

This is no different.

Now, as to how to do it or how to amend it, it's a whole different discussion than the one we're having in this thread. *IF* the definition is said to be strictly religious, then that word has no place in a secular law. If we find ways to define it in secular terms, then there's no reason it shouldn't include gays.

~moo

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe it would be more beneficial to give benefits to only marriages that reproduce.This would discourage any marriage for the sole purpose of benefits.

Really? So heterosexual couples that are *physically unable* to bear children - they might adopt, by the way, making them *have* children just not in the "natural" way - will have no rights under the law?

Does that include christian couples that are unable to bear children and, perhaps, adopted children? Absolutely no rights under the law? Really? Is that what you want?

If that's the case, then you should show that the benefits that come with the term "marriage" (under law) are strictly *for* the purpose of reproduction. I doubt the right to be buried next to one another, or to make decisions over one another's health issues are strictly related to reproduction, but in any case, that's a new discussion, you're welcome to open it and try to make your case.