Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage

[LuisDantas]

An interesting Newsweek link about this matter, courtesy of Mark Evanier's blog:

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy | Newsweek Culture | Newsweek.com

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I would not have had children unless I was married.

So... If you were in the same position as many same-sex couples, i.e. Married in their hearts and, according to their beliefs, in the eyes of God as well but without government recognition of their marriage, you wouldn't have kids? Really?

So marriage is the exclusive province of governments, then? That seems to be the implication here.

I answered this in the above post.

No, you didn't. There's a major disconnect in your position, namely that the course of action you suggest to protect children actually harms them. How can you reconcile this?

 

[Starfish]

So... If you were in the same position as many same-sex couples, i.e. Married in their hearts and, according to their beliefs, in the eyes of God as well but without government recognition of their marriage, you wouldn't have kids? Really?

If I was a homosexual, I would live out my life celibate and unmarried. Just as many heterosexuals have done, who never had the opportunity to marry. (My aunt, for one.) If I were allowed to share my religious beliefs in this thread, I could explain that better to you. But I can't.

So marriage is the exclusive province of governments, then? That seems to be the implication here.

I agree with legal protections to children and that promote strong families.

No, you didn't. There's a major disconnect in your position, namely that the course of action you suggest to protect children actually harms them. How can you reconcile this?

You're saying my position harms the existing children of SS couples. I'm saying that their parents put their children in this situation. Their parents brought children into an unmarried home. They did this with full knowledge of the law and the will of the majority of our society. To make this choice and then to hold their children up as reasons to push their agenda is, in a sense, a form of blackmail.
Look at it this way. If my husband and father of my children, had an affair and fathered another child with another woman, doesn't that child deserve married parents? Using your logic, shouldn't my husband be allowed to marry that child's mother while remaining married to me? Shall we change the law to accomodate that?

Another example: Should the speed limit be increased because I'm late getting my son to his dentist appointment ? I knew the speed limit before making the appointment. I didn't schedule my time well enough to allow for travel time. We're late because of MY actions, not because of the legal speed limit. Yet my son, who had NO control in the situation, will pay the price, so to speak.

I'm mainly speaking out for unborn children. Each one deserves to be BORN into a home with married parents, both a father and a mother. Adults must be responsible for the welfare of their unborn children as well. Children's needs must come before the parent's needs. Laws must protect the welfare of society as a whole. Laws can't always fit the needs/wants of every individual. Changing the definition of marriage will encourage future generations of children to life without either a father or a mother.

 

[Autodidact]

You haven't read my posts. I've said numerous times that a gay home is better than no home. Let SS couples adopt hard-to-place children with no other hope for parents. Of course. But don't predestinate an unborn child to a life without a father.

The fact is that a gay home is a good as a straight home. Not opinion, fact. If you want to say it's not, then bring forth your research. Even better, go to this thread and explain to us why the National Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare Council of America, the Evan B. Donaldsen Adoption Institute, the American Psychological Association and the National Council of Social Workers are all wrong. Hey, your kids are predestined to a life with only one mom, poor things. I'm not saying it's not as good as no home at all, but couldn't possiby be as good as a two-mom home, with two caring loving mothers to take care of them.

I've never said that a child should be taken from their parent. I'm talking about future, unborn children. They ALL deserve a father. I don't agree with laws that encourage otherwise.

So you want to prohibit gay people from having children?

All adults KNEW the laws and traditions of our society BEFORE conceiving their children. Then they complain that society isn't changing to suit what they've created--children with unmarried parents. Children deserve to be BORN into a home with married parents, AND every child deserves a mother and a father. We as adults have the responsibility (to the best of our ability) to see that this happens.

O.K., so I'm guessing that you support gay marriage then, to make sure this is possible? Because you would never say that all children need married parents, and then prohibit their parents from getting married, would you? That would be so blatantly hypocritical and discriminatory.

btw, what do you think interracial couples should have done before that was made legal? Do you think they should have shut up and go find someone of their own race to marry? Or were they right to push for the right to redefine marriage to include interracial couples?

Do I have the moral right to deny my child a father because I don't prefer men?

The question is, do you have the moral right to deny your child two moms because you do?

As far as existing children in SS homes, love them, nurture them, raise them. But their parents conceived them in an unmarried situation. They set this up deliberately. They did this to their children; society didn't do it.

Oh, so society permits them to marry, they just don't choose to do so?

 

[Autodidact]

I love this blaming the victim, Starfish. First you discriminate against us, then you blame us for being discriminated against. Here's what all children deserve: to live in a loving family that cares for and wanted them. It doesn't matter what gender their parents are, or even whether they're married. What matters is if they're responsible adults capable of and willing to take care of those kids. Straight people do this some of the time, and a lot of the time give birth to children that they are unwilling or unable to take care of--hence all the children in foster care waiting for families, some of them gay, to take care of them. Gay people do this 100% of the time. Every child in a gay family is a wanted child, and that is worth more than all the marriage licenses and penises in the world. Fact.

 

[MoonWater]

You haven't read my posts. I've said numerous times that a gay home is better than no home. Let SS couples adopt hard-to-place children with no other hope for parents. Of course. But don't predestinate an unborn child to a life without a father.

If you're in favor of gay adoption then I take it you are also in favor of gay marriage? Because otherwise those gay couples would not be able to provide said adopted children with the security that marriage offers. It seems as though your contention is against artificial insemination in the case of lesbians and surrogate mothers in the case of gay men(as those are the other ways they can have kids). If that's the case then shouldn't you be advocating against allowing gays to have surrogate mothers and lesbians to artificially inseminate? Because when you advocate against gay marriage that doesn't just affect the children that come about through those scientific means, it also affects adopted children by gay couples, which you just said so yourself that you are in favor of(if only in a limited capacity).

I've never said that a child should be taken from their parent. I'm talking about future, unborn children. They ALL deserve a father. I don't agree with laws that encourage otherwise.

All adults KNEW the laws and traditions of our society BEFORE conceiving their children. Then they complain that society isn't changing to suit what they've created--children with unmarried parents. Children deserve to be BORN into a home with married parents, AND every child deserves a mother and a father. We as adults have the responsibility (to the best of our ability) to see that this happens.

Do I have the moral right to deny my child a father because I don't prefer men?

As far as existing children in SS homes, love them, nurture them, raise them. But their parents conceived them in an unmarried situation. They set this up deliberately. They did this to their children; society didn't do it.

Just as auto said, you're blaming the victim here star. It's like going up to a woman who was raped and telling her that it was HER fault she got raped because she didn't fight back hard enough or scream loud enough. You are right that they chose to bring these children into such a situation with full knowledge of the law. But it was society in the first place that prevented them from getting married. If they did do as you say and not have kids until they could get married then that wouldn't simply mean those kids that had surrogate mother's or were artificially inseminated would not be born, it would mean that ALL the children that gay couples had adopted would have had to grow up in an orphanage or foster care rather than in the families that they did. If you are in favor of gay adoption then you should also be in favor of gay marriage, because otherwise YOU ARE encouraging kids to be placed in households without a mother or father. Not only that you are preventing those "hard to place kids", whom you said so yourself should be adopted by a gay couple rather than stay in an orphanage, from having the protections marriage affords. Again, let's assume that what you say is true, and children raised in same sex couples are at a disadvantage over kids raised by opposite sex couples, if that were the case then preventing those same sex couples from getting married would put those kids that they raise at a DOUBLE disadvantage. How can you not see that what you are advocating hurts children.

I understand you lost your father when you were young star and I understand it must have been difficult for your mother to raise you on her own. But you can't compare that situation to the situation of gay couples and their kids as it is comparing apples and oranges. you were raised by ONE parent where as children in gay families have TWO. A gay family with kids is not the same as a single parent with kids(surely you can see how they are different) thus to take the results one gets with a single parent and apply them to gay parents and say that the results would be the same is dishonest and comparing apples to oranges.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If I was a homosexual, I would live out my life celibate and unmarried.

Not that any of the rest of your position has any merit, but I particularly like this little nugget you've put forth.

How on earth can you make such a statement? You've shown absolutlely no ability to empathize with gay people, yet you want us to believe that you know what you would do if you were actually gay.

I can honestly say that your posts betray the very religion that you espouse.

I'm not at all surprised at your intolerance - it's your pride in the bigotry that amazes me.

 

[Starfish]

Not that any of the rest of your position has any merit, but I particularly like this little nugget you've put forth.

How on earth can you make such a statement? You've shown absolutlely no ability to empathize with gay people, yet you want us to believe that you know what you would do if you were actually gay.

I can honestly say that your posts betray the very religion that you espouse.

I'm not at all surprised at your intolerance - it's your pride in the bigotry that amazes me.

If it helps you to believe I'm bigoted, then there's not much I can do about that. It isn't true, but as I said, you won't be convinced here. I can only hope what I'd do if I was attracted to my same sex. I hope that my faith and religion would guide me in any circumstance. I have reasons that are not allowed in this thread. Reasons that are powerful enough to motivate me in this hope. Reasons that are not hateful to anyone. Quite the opposite.
You want to believe I and others like me, are hateful. You don't understand me, just as you claim that I don't understand you. I've answered you and the others here over and over, with the same points brought up again and again.

I've answered the issue of existing children in SS homes. I've answered the issue of bringing new life into this world with no plan to give them a father and mother. I've tried to communicate as openly and fairly as this thread and forum allow. I don't know what more I can say.

Just know that when others don't agree with you, that doesn't mean that there's only one reason why. Please don't assume that we either agree with you, or we hate you. There are other possibilities.

 

[Father Heathen]

If I was a homosexual, I would live out my life celibate and unmarried.

And if you were black, you would happily and humbly ride in the back of the bus. Right.

 

[Autodidact]

If it helps you to believe I'm bigoted, then there's not much I can do about that. It isn't true, but as I said, you won't be convinced here. I can only hope what I'd do if I was attracted to my same sex. I hope that my faith and religion would guide me in any circumstance. I have reasons that are not allowed in this thread. Reasons that are powerful enough to motivate me in this hope. Reasons that are not hateful to anyone. Quite the opposite.
You want to believe I and others like me, are hateful. You don't understand me, just as you claim that I don't understand you. I've answered you and the others here over and over, with the same points brought up again and again.

I've answered the issue of existing children in SS homes. I've answered the issue of bringing new life into this world with no plan to give them a father and mother. I've tried to communicate as openly and fairly as this thread and forum allow. I don't know what more I can say.

Just know that when others don't agree with you, that doesn't mean that there's only one reason why. Please don't assume that we either agree with you, or we hate you. There are other possibilities.

Yes, such as simply being wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I was a homosexual, I would live out my life celibate and unmarried. Just as many heterosexuals have done, who never had the opportunity to marry. (My aunt, for one.) If I were allowed to share my religious beliefs in this thread, I could explain that better to you. But I can't.

I don't think I expressed myself well. Let me try again:

Put yourself, as you are, back just after you got married. You are a woman who has entered into a religious marriage with a man; in your heart, you consider yourself married, and you believe yourself to be married in the eyes of God... But, for whatever reason, the government does not recognize your marriage or confer the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage upon it.

Given all that, would you choose to raise a family?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I have reasons that are not allowed in this thread. ...

I have no idea why you feel that you cannot speak your mind in this thread. If you feel as though your best (or only) reasons for such blatant discrimination against 10% of our population are based in your religious views, then you should simply say so, and bow out of the conversation.

I NEVER participate in debates that are based in scriptural discussion, for the simple fact that I do not feel entitled to opine on something which I obviously do not embrace. If you cannot (or will not) use logic and reason to develop and defend your positions, you might be better off to simply avoid discussions that would ask you to rely on those disciplines.

Autodidact has asked you (repeatedly) to offer some type of substantiated evidence for your position that the children of gay couples are at some disadvantage to children (such as ours) that have a traditional set of parents. You have ignored her requests ad nauseum. The truth is, you have come to your position solely on your religious views. That is the reason that you cannot offer any evidence to support your position, and it is the source of your intolerance. I do not begrudge you (or anyone else) your religious beliefs - but I am completely puzzled by your seemingly insatiable need to justify yourself in a thread such as this, to people that clearly see the religiously based bias for what it is, and have consistently pointed it out to you.

 

[Sententia]

No...

Agreed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Continuing from my last post...

I agree with legal protections to children and that promote strong families.

But you're advocating stripping away the legal protections from a whole class of children and weakening the families that raise them. Nothing in your position actually does anything to accomplish your stated goal.

You're saying my position harms the existing children of SS couples. I'm saying that their parents put their children in this situation. Their parents brought children into an unmarried home. They did this with full knowledge of the law and the will of the majority of our society. To make this choice and then to hold their children up as reasons to push their agenda is, in a sense, a form of blackmail.

So... you're advocating harm to children because you don't approve of the actions of their parents? To me, this is abhorrent.

Look at it this way. If my husband and father of my children, had an affair and fathered another child with another woman, doesn't that child deserve married parents? Using your logic, shouldn't my husband be allowed to marry that child's mother while remaining married to me? Shall we change the law to accomodate that?

The law already gives the parents in that situation many of the rights and privileges that same-sex couples are trying to gain. For example, both parents in that situation would be able to (and would in fact have the responsibility to) raise the child in a proper way. At the same time, in the case of same-sex couples in some places, the parent of a child cannot even take part in the child's parent-teacher interview.

Another example: Should the speed limit be increased because I'm late getting my son to his dentist appointment ? I knew the speed limit before making the appointment. I didn't schedule my time well enough to allow for travel time. We're late because of MY actions, not because of the legal speed limit. Yet my son, who had NO control in the situation, will pay the price, so to speak.

Heh... you realize that you're opening a can of worms when you ask a traffic engineer a question about speed limits, right?

My answer to your question is this: yes or no; it depends.

First off, there's the question of safety. The design speed of the road is what it is, and your desire to go quickly doesn't necessarily make it safe to go quickly. Assuming that the speed limit was set in a proper and non-arbitrary way, there is a valid, justifiable rationale for preventing people from speeding.

However, in the larger picture, the desires of road users are one factor that should be taken into account when designing a road. This process would take into account the general desire of a segment of the road-going public (e.g. you when late for the dentist) to drive very fast. It's balanced against other valid needs, but it IS taken into account when setting design speeds, and therefore speed limits.

Going back, though, if there is no valid reason for the speed limit on that road, then sure, raise it for everyone. If it's safe to do so, why not?

However, the current dichotomy between same-sex and opposite-sex couples is very much like having one speed limit for red cars and another lower one for blue ones.

I'm mainly speaking out for unborn children. Each one deserves to be BORN into a home with married parents, both a father and a mother. Adults must be responsible for the welfare of their unborn children as well. Children's needs must come before the parent's needs. Laws must protect the welfare of society as a whole. Laws can't always fit the needs/wants of every individual. Changing the definition of marriage will encourage future generations of children to life without either a father or a mother.

But here's the thing: for any particular unborn child, you cannot make the choice you're suggesting. It isn't a matter of that child going to an opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple, it's a matter of it being born to whatever parents it would get or it not being born at all.

In effect, you're arguing that the world will be a better place if the potential children of same-sex couples are never born.

 

[Magic Man]

If I were allowed to share my religious beliefs in this thread, I could explain that better to you. But I can't.

And herein lies the problem. The point of this thread is to show that there is no legitimate reason against gay marriage without religion, and you've just pointed that out quite well. Thank you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something struck me...

I'm mainly speaking out for unborn children. Each one deserves to be BORN into a home with married parents, both a father and a mother. Adults must be responsible for the welfare of their unborn children as well. Children's needs must come before the parent's needs. Laws must protect the welfare of society as a whole. Laws can't always fit the needs/wants of every individual. Changing the definition of marriage will encourage future generations of children to life without either a father or a mother.

Starfish, I think I may have realized the source of our differing views on this issue.

I think of a person as a product of their genetics and upbringing; these things are specific to a particular set of parents, in terms of both their genetic contribution and their contribution in terms of raising the child in question. Since I see the identity of a person, and therefore in some sense that person's very existence, as dependent on their parents, I think that when you change a potential child's parents, that child ceases to be the child you started with.

Also, I don't think there's any sort of "pool" of unconceived children that we can draw from as we become parents.

However, I realized that this probably doesn't match the views of the LDS Church. Am I right in my understanding of how you approach this issue?

- there exists a "pool" of pre-existent souls who will end up being people.
- when a particular "soul" ends up as the child of a same-sex couple, it means that "soul" loses the opportunity to be raised by an opposite-sex couple, which is something that it would otherwise have... just as (to use a more neutral example) the fact that a child is born as a German would deny that child the opportunity to be Chinese.

Is that a fair assessment?

I think that in your argument, you may have inadvertently snuck in a rationale that depends on your religion: if you don't believe in pre-existent souls, then I think that your argument disappears.

I don't see it as a matter of unconceived children going to same-sex couples or an opposite-sex couples; I see it as a matter of those children going to same-sex couples or never being born at all.

 

[Autodidact]

That's interesting, 9/10, and illustrates how our religious views subtly influence our perspective. I have encountered comparable situations with other Mormons, where their religious emphasis on reproduction colors their views of other issues, including homosexuality. I'm learning that the entire area of reproduction is crucial to Mormon theology, and that Mormons view reproduction through a religious lens.

 

[Starfish]

I have no idea why you feel that you cannot speak your mind in this thread. If you feel as though your best (or only) reasons for such blatant discrimination against 10% of our population are based in your religious views, then you should simply say so, and bow out of the conversation.

I NEVER participate in debates that are based in scriptural discussion, for the simple fact that I do not feel entitled to opine on something which I obviously do not embrace. If you cannot (or will not) use logic and reason to develop and defend your positions, you might be better off to simply avoid discussions that would ask you to rely on those disciplines.

Autodidact has asked you (repeatedly) to offer some type of substantiated evidence for your position that the children of gay couples are at some disadvantage to children (such as ours) that have a traditional set of parents. You have ignored her requests ad nauseum. The truth is, you have come to your position solely on your religious views. That is the reason that you cannot offer any evidence to support your position, and it is the source of your intolerance. I do not begrudge you (or anyone else) your religious beliefs - but I am completely puzzled by your seemingly insatiable need to justify yourself in a thread such as this, to people that clearly see the religiously based bias for what it is, and have consistently pointed it out to you.

I'm sorry my answers are frustrating to you. I'm trying to answer as clearly as possible. The title of this thread asks for "non-religious reasons", so I'm doing my best to respect that.

Yes, I do come to my opinions largely based on my religious beliefs. But you need to understand, and perhaps you do, that my religiuos beliefs are every bit as real to me and millions like me, as your belief, for example, that your love for your family is real. My religious beliefs are as real as this computer in front of me.

I've stopped responding to most of Autodidact's posts, not out of spite as it may seem, but because she and I have debated considerably in the past, and it always went nowhere. She demands studies, which I've given before, but because they usually come from Christian sources, they are never good enough. My opinion of studies is that when they involve concrete evidence, as in medical science, they are useful. But studies in human nature contain so many variables, that they can prove just about anything. She knows that I ackowledge that her children are loved and happy. I respect her defense of her choices.

My main point here is the importance of fathers, which does not necessarily involve religion. Therefore I felt it was appropriate to this thread.

 

[Autodidact]

On the contrary, Starfish, I don't care if the researcher is Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Atheist, as long as they use sound methodology. I have no prejudice against Christians. In fact, why would anyone even know or ask about the religion of a researcher? How would that be relevant? Now if you mean that you have not been citing relevant studies at all, but propaganda based on irrelevant work, such as comparing single-parents to married couples, and the lying bigots who use such dishonest methods happen to be fundamentalist Christians, it's because of their dishonesty that I object, not their religion. My problem isn't with your religion, it's with the lies that you irresponsibly spread about my people. If you don't care to defend your bogus assertions, please have the integrity not to continue to spread them.

Your beliefs may be real, but that doesn't mean that what you believe is also real. What you believe is just accepted doctrine that you believe because you were born and raised to believe it. It's your right to base your worldview on such a flimsy basis, but not to insist that anyone else should.

 

[Starfish]

Something struck me...



Starfish, I think I may have realized the source of our differing views on this issue.

I think of a person as a product of their genetics and upbringing; these things are specific to a particular set of parents, in terms of both their genetic contribution and their contribution in terms of raising the child in question. Since I see the identity of a person, and therefore in some sense that person's very existence, as dependent on their parents, I think that when you change a potential child's parents, that child ceases to be the child you started with.

Also, I don't think there's any sort of "pool" of unconceived children that we can draw from as we become parents.

However, I realized that this probably doesn't match the views of the LDS Church. Am I right in my understanding of how you approach this issue?

- there exists a "pool" of pre-existent souls who will end up being people.
- when a particular "soul" ends up as the child of a same-sex couple, it means that "soul" loses the opportunity to be raised by an opposite-sex couple, which is something that it would otherwise have... just as (to use a more neutral example) the fact that a child is born as a German would deny that child the opportunity to be Chinese.

Is that a fair assessment?

I think that in your argument, you may have inadvertently snuck in a rationale that depends on your religion: if you don't believe in pre-existent souls, then I think that your argument disappears.

I don't see it as a matter of unconceived children going to either same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples; I see it as a matter of those children going to same-sex couples or never being born at all.

Hmmm. Your post is certainly provokes thought. You could be right. OTOH regardless of where children come from, whether they exist before birth, as I believe, or if they spring into existance at birth, they still come into the same world. The world of SS parents and the world of traditional parents is the same one world. The society is the same. It's still a world where men and women, with all their differences, coexist and interact. So what type of upbringing gives the child the better advantage in this one world?

Thanks for your point of view. It's all interesting.