Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[iNow]

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.

 

<...>

 

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.

 

<...>

 

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.

 

I'm starting to think that... besides being irrelevant, nonsecular, and bigoted... that most arguments in opposition to gay marriage are pretty stupid and ignorant.

 

 

In case it's not clear to the stupid and ignorant, this is my opinion.

With that said, the objective summary from Padren is wholly accurate.

 

 

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Not_even_wrong

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/PRATT

[walkntune]

These are good points. I feel marriage should be encouraged for love only and not for beneficiary reasons and actually the same for reproduction.(People having children to take advantage of welfare system).

there was nothing sexually gendered in (my) comment.

[iNow]

Listen, kid. Your argument was that people should only marry for love.

The response you received was that same sex couples are also desiring to be married for love, and yet you don't want to let them.

In sum, your position is not internally consistent, nor do you seem to grasp why.

 

You should work on that.

[Phi for All]

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.

This seems illogical. The benefits we're talking about are things like hospital visitation rights as a family member, and being claimed as family under group insurance. Your scenario discriminates against many loving couples. What's next, you can't be buried side by side unless you have at least four children?

 

It would only include reproduction and not adoption. It"s the reproduction of children that is beneficial to future generations.

Carrying on the species is important but marriage has many other benefits for society, something many here have shown but you refuse to recognize. Right now we have no population control legislation in place, either to increase or decrease the present rates of childbirth. Your scenario is unnecessary right now, and if anything, we may soon need to encourage a decrease in the rates due to limited resources.

 

These are good points. I feel marriage should be encouraged for love only and not for beneficiary reasons and actually the same for reproduction.(People having children to take advantage of welfare system).

You "feel marriage should be encouraged for love only" by whom, the state? I thought you said:

Well I am not for the state being involved in marriage and feel it's unfair for single people who have a tough time surviving so it's just more complicated from my point of view!

Look, our society already has a layered system of benefits that extend upward depending on how much you benefit society. As a single taxpayer, you get the basic set, as a married person you get more, if you enlist in the armed forces to defend society you get even more, etc.

 

What the gay community is asking for is to be treated in marriage the way everyone else is. The way you choose to have sex never comes under question with regards to benefits for heterosexuals (who face many of the same health concerns you've been mentioning), nor should it, so why should it for gay people?

[padren]

Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[ANSWERED: YES]: People can give gays equal rights without violating the separate but equal clause, using a word other than "marriage", which they might then with no legal implications restrict to only male/female unions.

 

End of proof by example.

 

That has failed a simple test: What relevant secular reason is there for calling it something other than marriage? Marriage is already a secular term defined by the state that allows a couple to share wealth, debt, heathcare decisions and everything else.

 

The petition is to extend that term to include same sex couples. Your argument does not explain why that should not occur and be bypassed in favor of a different term granting similar recognition of legal status.

 

Your argument could just have easily been used to deny interracial marriage by granting a "separate but equal" union for interracial couples. If you feel your argument is sound in it's application to same sex couples, do you also feel it is a worth while argument denying interracial couples "marriage" by definition, if they had access to a differently named union of same benefits?

[toastywombel]

I think we should all be able to come to a conclusion on this by now.

There are no relevant, secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

[Mr Skeptic]

That has failed a simple test: What relevant secular reason is there for calling it something other than marriage? Marriage is already a secular term defined by the state that allows a couple to share wealth, debt, heathcare decisions and everything else.

 

The petition is to extend that term to include same sex couples. Your argument does not explain why that should not occur and be bypassed in favor of a different term granting similar recognition of legal status.

 

Because people want it so and there is no legal reason not to (given the conditions I mentioned).

 

Your argument could just have easily been used to deny interracial marriage by granting a "separate but equal" union for interracial couples. If you feel your argument is sound in it's application to same sex couples, do you also feel it is a worth while argument denying interracial couples "marriage" by definition, if they had access to a differently named union of same benefits?

 

You are calling them by separate names as yourself: "interracial", "same sex". You is the evil discriminator!

[npts2020]

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.

 

Really? How was my point about business interests opposing gay marriage on fiscal grounds "refuted" (near as I can tell it was ignored)? We can argue about whether or not it is fair for them to do so but nobody has countered the notion that it is a secular reason for opposition.

[Severian]

Really? How was my point about business interests opposing gay marriage on fiscal grounds "refuted" (near as I can tell it was ignored)? We can argue about whether or not it is fair for them to do so but nobody has countered the notion that it is a secular reason for opposition.

 

Exactly. All we get in response to 'relevant secular reasons' is either 'its not relevant' or 'its not secular'. Indeed, it seems that the word 'secular' in this thread is defined by whether or not a notion supports or opposes gay marriage.

[Phi for All]

Really? How was my point about business interests opposing gay marriage on fiscal grounds "refuted" (near as I can tell it was ignored)? We can argue about whether or not it is fair for them to do so but nobody has countered the notion that it is a secular reason for opposition.

 

Exactly. All we get in response to 'relevant secular reasons' is either 'its not relevant' or 'its not secular'. Indeed, it seems that the word 'secular' in this thread is defined by whether or not a notion supports or opposes gay marriage.

While I support gay marriage, I also support the above views, and I dislike any attempts to marginalize the opinions of others as "irrelevant", "not based in reality", or any of the other phrases or words that cast aspersions on the person rather than addressing their argument. It happens way too often on these boards, imo.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

While I support gay marriage, I also support the above views, and I dislike any attempts to marginalize the opinions of others as "irrelevant", "not based in reality", or any of the other phrases or words that cast aspersions on the person rather than addressing their argument. It happens way too often on these boards, imo.

 

This is unfortunately very, very true. I wish we were able to have discussions like this one without these tactics, and I will always try to stop the use of such tactics when I see them. Unfortunately I was too late here, it seems.

 

 

Seeing that this thread will likely continue to run around in circles until the end of time (or 2012, whichever comes sooner), I'm closing it now. It could go for another 400 pages and still nobody would be convinced.

 

(As a side note, I hereby propose Alex's Law of Arguments: As soon as an argument becomes mildly personal, the participants have such a vested interest in their position that they will never admit they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence against them.)

 

(Also, the Corollary, for those who read the above paragraph and said "that's exactly what my opponents are doing!": Anyone who applies Alex's Law in an argument to say "see, you're wrong and refuse to admit it" is, in fact, a victim of Alex's Law as well. You may never use Alex's Law to attack your enemies because it can just as easily be used against you.)

Edited December 9, 2009 by Cap'n Refsmmat