Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[Rolling_Stone]

Just one. I've yet to hear one secular argument for opposing gay marriage that hasn't been refuted and if I can get one that makes sense to me, I, too, will have the open-mindedness to oppose gay marriage.

I hereby challenge you to change my mind.

The argument is easy. Changing your mind is up to you.

The difference between men and women goes much deeper than bodily functions and appearance. There are psychological differences as well. Even the brains are hard-wired differently. Each brings something into a union that the other lacks. Therefore, a union between members of the opposite sex is qualitatively different than a union between members of the same sex and therefore different by definition.

It is ironic that, generally speaking, the same ones who believe in the preeminence of evolution, social and biological, are the same ones who want to overturn it because it suits their personal likes and disikes. And rather than going to the ballot box, they seek to impose their values (or lack thereof) through the courts, which in some cases have clearly gone beyond the law they are sworn to uphold by effectively passing laws from the bench.

 

[McBell]

first you would have to explain why the reason I gave is not legitimate.

The reason in post #16 is to broad.
Which was pointed out later by another.

No, marriage has been a religious ceremony for almost the entire existance of the institution. It is only recently that governments decided to recognize marriage and confer benefits upon it. The legally recognized rites are a government addition to the religious rite.

So?
The fact is that marriage is now a legal contract.

oh really? please show me where post 16 says that. In a nutshell, you have no idea what I said apparently. :sarcastic

My apologies.
It was not post #16.
it was post #25.

yep, and the government doesn't want to encourage babies being born that way. which is why it chooses to encourage marriage...

Interesting.
I wonder why?

nope. it doesn't. The government wants to encourage the best way for children to be raised and that appears to be in a heterosexual family historically.

Really?
I find this argument to be nothing but a cheap shot.

well, almost, you seem to have difficulty reading and remembering what I write. if the government confers legal benefits upon same sex marriage, it is encouraging same sex marriages.

LOL
So i gues the short answer would have been merely "yes."

That isn't so difficult to understand. Just like the government encourages buying a hybrid vehicle by giving tax benefits to people who buy them and it discourages behaviour by taxing it such a cigarette taxes.

Problem here is that these two are not taking basic rights and privelegdes away from a group simply because they are gay.

allowing same sex marriage isn't what the debate is about. It is about conferring the same benefits on homosexual marriage as it does on heterosexual marriage.

Oh.
you are talking about this thread.
My mistake.

and I have shown how you are merely wrong. you have either failed to actually read my post or you are misrepresenting it. Try being honest and respond to the post rather than saying it is something it isn't.

Actually You are right.
But only because I refereed back to post #16 instead of post #25.
So sorry that such a simple mistake would cause you such problems.

secondly, everyone has already agreed that this isn't about banning same sex marriage so I don't know why you continue to talk about it.

so far you have just misrepresented my argument and then argued against that. We call that a straw man fallacy. it's annoying and boring.

Interesting how you jump at the chance to dismiss the whole argument based solely upon a mistaken post #.
The fact remains that post # 25:

well, my argument wasn't that heterosexual marriage was just any benefit but the specific benefit of supplying the country with people. That particular thing (procreation) is of particular importance to a country. While I will agree that the 3 benefits you have suggested may indeed be benefits, they are not benefits the government seems to feel are important enough to encourage by recognizing homosexual marriage.

I wasn't arguing at all the homosexual marriage does not benefit society. I have no idea whether it will/does or not. My point was rather that heterosexual marriage is incouraged specifically because it creates children which end up being the labor force for society and the government. This is what the govt. wants to encourage (IMO).

I understand that it is possible to list benefits that homosexual marriage offers to society and government. I think the question is, is it a benefit the government values enough to encourage the behavior...
​

is merely you stating that the government 'endorses' heterosexual marriage and not same sex marriage because of the ability to procreate.
Yet this falls through simply because there are heterosexual couples allowed to marry who cannot procreate.

 

[McBell]

The argument is easy. Changing your mind is up to you.

The difference between men and women goes much deeper than bodily functions and appearance. There are psychological differences as well. Even the brains are hard-wired differently. Each brings something into a union that the other lacks. Therefore, a union between members of the opposite sex is qualitatively different than a union between members of the same sex and therefore different by definition.

It is ironic that, generally speaking, the same ones who believe in the preeminence of evolution, social and biological, are the same ones who want to overturn it because it suits their personal likes and disikes. And rather than going to the ballot box, they seek to impose their values (or lack thereof) through the courts, which in some cases have clearly gone beyond the law they are sworn to uphold by effectively passing laws from the bench.

Interestingly enough this will have to be dealt with on the federal level because there are conflicting laws between the states.
So sooner or later the federal government is going to have to intervene and make a final ruling on same sex marriage.
Wonder why the federal government has thus far avoided the same sex marriage issue like the plague?

Because there is not one legitimate legal argument against it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

First off, to say that the government does not further encourage hetero couples to have children is untrue. There are further tax deductions for children. The government encourages couples to stay together and raise their children. There is a higher tax rate for filing separately.

Secondly, has anyone ever heard of the marriage penalty? Two married professionals with no children pay higher taxes than they would if they were unmarried.

Thirdly, no one has taken any rights away from anyone. You have to have rights in the first place to have them taken away.

You don't have to buy a home, but if you do, you will get a tax advantage.

You don't have to bring children into this world either, but if you do, you will get another tax advantage.

To say this is not a secular argument is an ultimate denial of the facts.

Game, set, match point.

 

[McBell]

First off, to say that the government does not further encourage hetero couples to have children is untrue. There are further tax deductions for children. The government encourages couples to stay together and raise their children. There is a higher tax rate for filing separately.

I do not recall anyone in this thread denying that the government encourages marriage.

Secondly, has anyone ever heard of the marriage penalty? Two married professionals with no children pay higher taxes than they would if they were unmarried.

And why would it be so difficult to do the same with same sex couples?
Actually, this seems to be an argument for same sex marriage seeing as the government would get more with them being married and not having children.

Thirdly, no one has taken any rights away from anyone. You have to have rights in the first place to have them taken away.

Semantics.
However we can play that game if you like.
Please present one legitimate legal reason to prevent same sex couples from being able to receive the rights of married couples.
Sounds like that is what this thread is already about.

You don't have to buy a home, but if you do, you will get a tax advantage.

Nor do you even needs be married.

You don't have to bring children into this world either, but if you do, you will get another tax advantage.

Yet bringing children into the world is not a prerequisite for heterosexuals to enter into the legal contract known as marriage.

To say this is not a secular argument is an ultimate denial of the facts.

Um.
You forgot about the LEGITIMATE part.

Game, set, match point.

Not even close.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Semantics.
However we can play that game if you like.
Please present one legitimate legal reason to prevent same sex couples from being able to receive the rights of married couples.
Sounds like that is what this thread is already about.

Because their marriage does not deserve the same benefits because the relationship will not produce children to pay more taxes later.

The government expects a return on the benefits they give you.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I can expand on this. You get a deduction for college expenses. If you go to college, you get a better job and pay more taxes later.

If a family has 10 kids, you pay next to nothing in taxes, but the next generation will be filing 10 tax returns. A good return on an investment, give up one tax payer and gain 10.

 

[Reverend Rick]

To say that is not "one secular reason" or is "not valid", is not debating in good faith.

 

[gnostic]

To say that is not "one secular reason" or is "not valid", is not debating in good faith.

You only have given good secular reason of heterosexual marriage, not the "banning" of same-sex marriage.

 

[McBell]

Because their marriage does not deserve the same benefits because the relationship will not produce children to pay more taxes later.

The government expects a return on the benefits they give you.

Yet heterosexual couples who cannot have children are not excluded from the marriage contract.

Why?
Because it is not about having children, it is about gender.

I can expand on this. You get a deduction for college expenses. If you go to college, you get a better job and pay more taxes later.

If a family has 10 kids, you pay next to nothing in taxes, but the next generation will be filing 10 tax returns. A good return on an investment, give up one tax payer and gain 10.

Fair enough.
So as soon as the government excludes marriage from ALL couples who cannot have children...

To say that is not "one secular reason" or is "not valid", is not debating in good faith.

Let me get this straight.
You claim that because same sex couples cannot have children that they should not be allowed to get married, but it is just fine for heterosexual couples who cannot have children to get married?
Then even go so far as to suggest that I am not debating in good faith?

 

[Mike182]

so just who the hell gets hurt if we give homosexuals the same legal benefits of marriage that heterosexuals have?

 

[Jistyr]

Yet heterosexual couples who cannot have children are not excluded from the marriage contract.

Why?
Because it is not about having children, it is about gender.

This is a fantastic point. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Interestingly enough this will have to be dealt with on the federal level because there are conflicting laws between the states.
So sooner or later the federal government is going to have to intervene and make a final ruling on same sex marriage.
Wonder why the federal government has thus far avoided the same sex marriage issue like the plague?

Because there is not one legitimate legal argument against it.

Ballots legitimize and determine legality. What is not specifically addressed by the Constitution is, according to the Constitution, left to the states. (Of course, this hasn't stopped the federal government or the courts from acting unconstitutionally.)

 

[Sunstone]

so just who the hell gets hurt if we give homosexuals the same legal benefits of marriage that heterosexuals have?

Who gets hurt? I'll tell you who gets hurt! The sanctity of my marriage to my Acme Latex Love Doll gets hurt, that's who gets hurt! And it's not just you gays who want to get married that hurt the sanctity of marriages to people of latex, either. Heterosexual marriages hurt the sanctity of marriages to people of latex too! Anytime you marry someone who is not a person of latex, you're hurting the sacred institution of marrying people of latex. It's disgusting how no one seems concerned about the plain truth, anymore!

 

[bflydad]

The difference between men and women goes much deeper than bodily functions and appearance. There are psychological differences as well. Even the brains are hard-wired differently. Each brings something into a union that the other lacks.

That is debateable. First, I have yet to see any proof that brains are hardwired differently by gender (hormones yet, brain physiology I haven't seen). Second, if you can show this, you'd have to further show that homosexual men/women and heterosexual men/women have the same brain physiology.

Frankly (and I realize this is an opinion based on personal experience), I think homosexual men (I'm not so sure about women) are more "balanced" than heterosexual men. Now while it is easy to argue whether this is physiological or environmental, it doesn't change the fact that if homosexuals are hard-wired differently than heterosexuals than the only way they could be happy (at a brain physiological level - ignoring emotions) is being with another homosexual.

 

[Reverend Rick]

so just who the hell gets hurt if we give homosexuals the same legal benefits of marriage that heterosexuals have?

Mike, that is not the point, nor are you producing a secular argument. The Op of the thread asked for one valid secular argument.

To have an argument does not even have the requirement to win.

Anyone that would care to debate whether the government is looking out for their best interest, and not the people they give tax breaks to, would be the best course of debate to disprove the argument presented.

If we want to expand this debate, perhaps another thread should be started.

As I see it, the argument was presented, has not been disproved and pretty much this thread has been asked and answered.

Time to move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Mike182]

Mike, that is not the point, nor are you producing a secular argument. The Op of the thread asked for one valid secular argument.

To have an argument does not even have the requirement to win.

Anyone that would care to debate whether the government is looking out for their best interest, and not the people they give tax breaks to, would be the best course of debate to disprove the argument presented.

If we want to expand this debate, perhaps another thread should be started.

As I see it, the argument was presented, has not been disproved and pretty much this thread has been asked and answered.

Time to move along, nothing to see here.

the argument was (as i understand it) that heterosexual marriage benefits are a good thing because heterosexuality is a positive thing for society.

the premise for this argument is that positive things for society are supported by the government, implicating that negative things for society are not (or should not) be supported by the government.

so follow through with your argument, and show how legal recognition of homosexual marriage is negative for society.

 

[gnomon]

First off, to say that the government does not further encourage hetero couples to have children is untrue. There are further tax deductions for children. The government encourages couples to stay together and raise their children. There is a higher tax rate for filing separately.

Secondly, has anyone ever heard of the marriage penalty? Two married professionals with no children pay higher taxes than they would if they were unmarried.

Thirdly, no one has taken any rights away from anyone. You have to have rights in the first place to have them taken away.

You don't have to buy a home, but if you do, you will get a tax advantage.

You don't have to bring children into this world either, but if you do, you will get another tax advantage.

To say this is not a secular argument is an ultimate denial of the facts.

Game, set, match point.

There is not a single term in your argument excluding homosexuals from participating. Therefore it is not a secular argument specifically against homosexual marriage. In fact, it is nothing more than a reason given as to why the government supports marriage.

 

[McBell]

Mike, that is not the point, nor are you producing a secular argument. The Op of the thread asked for one valid secular argument.

To have an argument does not even have the requirement to win.

Anyone that would care to debate whether the government is looking out for their best interest, and not the people they give tax breaks to, would be the best course of debate to disprove the argument presented.

If we want to expand this debate, perhaps another thread should be started.

As I see it, the argument was presented, has not been disproved and pretty much this thread has been asked and answered.

Time to move along, nothing to see here.

I refuted your "because same sex couples can not have children" argument.
I have shown that it isn't true or valid (thus I have in fact DISPROVED it) do to the fact that heterosexual couples who cannot/will not have children are not barred from entering into the marriage contract.

This fact clearly shows that preventing same sex couples from being married is not about them not having children and about something else entirely.
I say it is merely because of the gender of those getting married.
Which would make it gender discrimination.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I have yet to see any proof that brains are hardwired differently by gender

This proves you do not investigate your opinions, which, in the end, is irrelevant anyway. The general tone of this whole discussion proves what someone (I forget who) wrote: "Secularism is an ideal which, once having attained a voice, must impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals." The validity of this statement is proven by the desire of a vicious and vocal minority to impose their desires on society through the courts, and such action delegitimizes all argument that it is a question of "rights."