Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Let's say a heterosexual couple gets married, have a kid, and the male becomes sterile, from either surgical or non-surgical ways. He divorces his wife, and eventually wants to get re married. Since he cannot have any kids in this new marriage, even though he is a male and wanting to marry a female, your argument puts him with the same bracket as homosexuals, due to his inability to father anymore children.
Or what about people who are born infertile? Are they also to be denied marriage because they cannot bear children?

 

[roli]

Incest causes genetic deformities.
Bestiality is rape.
Pedophilia is rape.

Homosexuality is consensual and causes no deformities.

Who says,are you an expert and are you speaking from personal experience
Ya ok ,check out the stats on homosexuals and also get some first hand accounts of homosexuals about their lifestyle and tell me what they tell you,if they are honest and no sensoring on your part, you might well be surprised to find they are emotionally ,physically and mentally distraught.
Yes, so are hetro's as well ,but my point is that the average life expenctancy for homosexuals is 37 or so,many are alchololics,dissatisfied,disillusioned and depressed.
They are attempting to raise children in an enviroment where they are biasly encouraged to express themselves as they feel and more so in favor of the particular lifestyle they are being raised in,yet we think children are born that way but avoid the truth that most are encouraged and influenced to sexually express themselves as they feel, so let's not be surprised to see how far perversion will go in our society when that which is or was considered unnatural becomes natural.
Such is our society
Isa 5:20




Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

This is the direction in which our society is heading,we will not be able to turn back if we continue

 

[bflydad]

This proves you do not investigate your opinions, which, in the end, is irrelevant anyway.

As it so happens I do investigate my sources. I would hope after making a comment like that you would expound on your original statement. Since you didn't perhaps you can respond to more specific questions. Define "hard-wired brains". As I understand the term that would mean that there certain neural pathways exist at birth which are incapable of being "overwritten" (to use a computer term). Can you show me of any study that has found such pathways in newborn human babies? in infants? even if you could show me such pathways in children 2 or older, you would already be caught in the nature/nurture dilemma. So please elaborate on how science has shown any hardwiring beyond simple sucking reflexes, interpretation of sensory stimuli and autonomic functions.

the average life expenctancy for homosexuals is 37

any sort of information you'd like to quote for this? or just throwing out meaningless self-delusional numbers for your own amusement. just curious. :areyoucra

 

[roli]

Calling it 'unnatural' is not a valid argument. If that's the reason why it's wrong, then get rid of every single electronic and other man-made device you own. Calling it unnatural doesn't mean anything.

Homosexuality is not only natural, it has been proven genetic.

Let's be honest, you don't need my arguement to show it is unnatural, you have the organs and orifices to prove it is unnatural,what more is needed to be said,c'mon are you kidding me.

Pedophilia, rape, and beastiality (beastiality isn't a bad thing, really. It's just kinda gross) are not in the same category as Homosexuality. They all can cause serious harm. Gays cause no such problems.

That my freind is a politically correct response and nothing more.
You must be more rational then that.

Anyone has yet to show one reason why Homosexuality is harmful to society and Humanity.

Ok than !!!!!

And don't put the Bible into this. It is a SECULAR argument

Jhn 3:19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Jhn 3:20
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
That is why you don't want the bible involved is because Jesus exposes darkeness and evil.

 

[Prometheus]

Rolling_Stone, your argument is that each gender is "wired" differently and so each gender brings something positive into the raising of children. Therefore, you should have both genders.

I agree that men and women are "wired" differently, however, people are allowed to be single parents. So, even now, many children are raised with exposure to only one gender. Very little exposure, I might add, since this single parent must work and spend time away from their children. I believe that two women raising children with one partner working and the other at home would be better than one women raising them.

Reverend Rick, your argument is that the government wants to encourage more children being born.

I would just like to ask, then, why polygamy is illegal? That seems to produce many more "taxpayers" for even less government investment.

roli, you didn't actually address my post but went off on a tangent about how homosexuals are emotionally distressed, etc. and would not be fit parents.

There are several counters I have for this. First, your argument is a gross generalization. Second, maybe gays are so distraught and unhealthy psychologically because people like you see them as perverted, unnatural and less than human? Just a thought. Third, even if some homosexuals aren't fit to raise children, you admitted that heterosexuals are often unfit as well. This is why we have social workers which help get abused children out of these homes. Child negligence already happens plenty within heterosexual families so you have no ground to stand on by accusing homosexuals of doing the same.

 

[Mike182]

Who says,are you an expert and are you speaking from personal experience
Ya ok ,check out the stats on homosexuals and also get some first hand accounts of homosexuals about their lifestyle and tell me what they tell you,if they are honest and no sensoring on your part, you might well be surprised to find they are emotionally ,physically and mentally distraught.

do you even realise how offensive that is?

Yes, so are hetro's as well ,but my point is that the average life expenctancy for homosexuals is 37 or so,many are alchololics,dissatisfied,disillusioned and depressed.

wanna give me some stats on this? because i've never been told by any doctor or health specialist that i am expected to die at 37.

They are attempting to raise children in an enviroment where they are biasly encouraged to express themselves as they feel and more so in favor of the particular lifestyle they are being raised in,yet we think children are born that way but avoid the truth that most are encouraged and influenced to sexually express themselves as they feel, so let's not be surprised to see how far perversion will go in our society when that which is or was considered unnatural becomes natural.

what are you rambling about here?

Such is our society
Isa 5:20




Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

This is the direction in which our society is heading,we will not be able to turn back if we continue

Roli, you have offended me so much with these statements that i would put you on my ignore list were i not a forum moderator.

your deceleration that homosexuals are evil under the false pretense of being good disgusts me, and your accusations that government supporting homosexuals couples and families as degrading all of society are unfounded and unjustified.

obviously though, i ask you to forgive me, after all, i am arguing for is a government to show love and compassion and understanding...

 

[UnTheist]

Let's be honest, you don't need my arguement to show it is unnatural, you have the organs and orifices to prove it is unnatural,what more is needed to be said,c'mon are you kidding me.

Whether it is natural or not is irrelevant.

That my freind is a politically correct response and nothing more.
You must be more rational then that.

That my friend is reality and nothing more. Provide evidence that shows Homosexuality is harmful, and I'll listen.

That is why you don't want the bible involved is because Jesus exposes darkeness and evil.

The Bible shouldn't be involved with people who don't believe in the Bible. It's simple as that. By doing this you're just shoving your beliefs down our throats.

 

[UnTheist]

any sort of information you'd like to quote for this? or just throwing out meaningless self-delusional numbers for your own amusement. just curious. :areyoucra

Actually it is true, but for people with AIDS. He is probably claiming that most Homosexuals contract AIDS and therefore have a shorter life.

And there is no conclusive evidence that HIV-negative Homosexuals live a shorter life.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

The thing is it is Unbiblical... and Looked upon in the Christian Faith as Negative.. I just Personally dont think god is upset about it...

 

[gnomon]

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

But yeah I say blessed is the man that put peanut butter in chocolate, and chocolate in peanut butter.

 

[roli]

do you even realise how offensive that is?

Do you expect that everybody is going to take your position ,I think not .
I have nothing personal against you, so please spare me from making it seem so.
Your emotionalism is no different than mine is towards my position.
Maybe the real truth is, your just as intolerant towards those who stand up for what they think is right.
Where will this society be if some don't stand up and speak up for what they believe to be unnatural and unethical.
This is a moral issue and if you think that I can't speak from a secular perspective and include morals at the same time you are mistaken.

wanna give me some stats on this? because i've never been told by any doctor or health specialist that i am expected to die at 37.
what are you rambling about here?

37 yrs of age,That was one study, this particular one states 42 yrs of age
Here you go ,will you read, that will be left to be determined.
Let's discuss this site and the professional observations and conclusions found out about the same sex lifestyle.
Do you want more sites to clarify my point,or am I allowed to make my point.
Are we aloud here to discuss this or are will you make me appear as though I have have violated some ethical line
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" . For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

Roli, you have offended me so much with these statements that i would put you on my ignore list were i not a forum moderator.

I am sorry about your being offended ,but what about those of that lifestyle who attempt to convince the world that they are the bleeding heart and disregard those who stand where I stand.
How can I not be enraged seeing children who are most impressionable and influential and wanting desperately to express themself being encouraged to express themselves with no morals or ethics and being taught in schools that homsexuality is a free expression of what you feel etc. etc.
They are teaching that in schools and they actually have books that encourage such lifestyles.

your deceleration that homosexuals are evil under the false pretense of being good disgusts me, and your accusations that government supporting homosexuals couples and families as degrading all of society are unfounded and unjustified.

The verse In question here states that ," we will call good bad and bad good" this is the condition our society is in.
Evil is never what I classify it as ,only what God does.
We can only call something evil or bad if we actually know what good is.
Do you have any sense of what is good and what is bad.
Please convince me otherwise that what is accepted today as good was not so 30 40 yrs ago.
Was it in existence,absolutely,but it certainly was'nt accepted but was considered wrong.
Think about it, where would our culture be if such lifestyles were accepted 50 ,100yrs ago.
We would be worse off today then we are.

By the way most of civil law is derived from the laws of the bible,but that is another topic.
The humanistic minds of today choose to separate church and state ,but as it always was is how it will always be,that being civil law has it';s roots in biblical doctrine.

obviously though, i ask you to forgive me, after all, i am arguing for is a government to show love and compassion and understanding

The gov't does show this love and compassion towards such minority groups because such issues have political gain in mind.

 

[roli]

Whether it is natural or not is irrelevant.


That my friend is reality and nothing more. Provide evidence that shows Homosexuality is harmful, and I'll listen.

The Bible shouldn't be involved with people who don't believe in the Bible. It's simple as that. By doing this you're just shoving your beliefs down our throats.

You can look up any stats on homosexuality, yourself.
The question is will you only read that which supports and does not oppose your view
For psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
* Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle, as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives" (27)

 

[camanintx]

Yes, so are hetro's as well ,but my point is that the average life expenctancy for homosexuals is 37 or so,many are alchololics, dissatisfied, disillusioned and depressed.

It looks like you're referring to Paul Cameron's "study" on the lifespan of gays. If so, you might want to retract your statement since this absurd "study" has been throughly discredited.

 

[gnomon]

Then why did God make people gay? Or why didn't he at least bother to make everyone male or female?

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Oh, he did. Or didn't he?

http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

For those keeping score, gnomon is using a bait and switch tactic.

I wonder what happens to a person not born clearly male or female, doctors perform surgery forcing a sexual identity that the person doesn't truly identify with and lives according to a lifestyle more common for the other most frequent sexual identity, but the person's Christian fundamentalist parents don't agree...hmmm...and the cow jumps over the moon. Think about it. What Would Jesus Do? I wonder if he'd blow his own brains out?

And the majority of laws have nothing to do with the Bible. The majority of common human jurisprudence predates the Bible anyway.

I wonder how many of the psychological issues homosexuals, individuals with gender identity disorder and especially intersexed individuals are derived from a hateful society applying an enormous emotional pressure on them when they could...just live and let live.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

you might well be surprised to find they are emotionally ,physically and mentally distraught.

I'm not even gay, and I find that offensive. I know people in homosexual relationships that much more happy than most heterosexual relationships. No censoring on my part, just my own un-biased observations. And they also have normal relationship problems just like hetero couples.
You might be surprised, if you let go all prenotions of bigotry, that homosexuals are much like heterosexual couples. They are indeed capable of loving, raising children into fine adults, and can be good people.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

* Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle

I see no bias there whatsoever.

This is merely an argument saying, "Homosexuality is gross!" It is a personal preference, not a valid secular argument.

 

[UnTheist]

Roli, if you are referring to Paul Cameron, his "Research" has been embarassingly debunked. All he used was obituaries from gay magazines and used outdated references to hold a "Scientific theory", which in reality is nothing more than blatant pseudoscience.

 

[standing_alone]

For those of you who are throwing out that "hets have kids, thus, only they should marry" argument, you do realize that homosexual couples do raise children, whether the child is biological to one of the parents or adopted, right? Therefore, if the government is going to recognize the het families that are raising children, shouldn't the government recongnize the homosexual families that are raising children? Both the hets and the homosexuals are raising children that will go out and contribute to society once they leave home. Why favor the hets?

 

[jamaesi]

I think it would depend on the home they are raised in. I don't think there has been enough time to gauge what effect homosexual parents have on an adopted child (if any) and whether it is better or worse than being raised in a foster home. I think it will take time to determine whether it is a benefit or not.

From Wikipedia.

Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts. Organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples include the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.[2]
The American Psychological Association states:

there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children," and that "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."[1]
​

yes but homosexual couples do this anyway don't they? The encouragement to buy homes is given by the Fed with it's interest rates, it is not encouraged via marriage recognition.

Homosexual couples are discriminated against in the housing market because they can not legally marry.

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...

anyway, I respect your opinion. I was just trying to demonstrate what I beleive the governments rationale behind it's policy is...

Homosexuals can have biological children.

Well, yes. I should have said that they were not willing to reproduce. Nice catch though.

Homosexuals are willing (depending on the person) and able to have biological children.

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.

Again, homosexuals can have biological children.

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.

Female and male brains are different- but not all females have the same brain nor do males have the same brain. There's variations everywhere. I'm chromosomally and physically female, my sex is female- but my brain is not wired the same way as "normal" female brain is (Geschwind-Galaburda cluster due to being exposed to high levels of testosterone in the womb).

Rolling_Stone, your argument is that each gender is "wired" differently and so each gender brings something positive into the raising of children. Therefore, you should have both genders.

You say both genders like theres only two genders and that gender is equal to sex. Don't fall into his trap, dear.

That is why you don't want the bible involved is because Jesus exposes darkeness and evil.

Last I checked, Roli, Jesus (peace be upon him) never said a thing about homosexuals. He did have a lot to say about loving others, though...

 

[Comprehend]

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

So in other words you can't explain why the reason I provided is not legitimate? I thought so....

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

nope. it isn't.

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

nope. you are still wrong. pay attention:
you said:

"Post #16 claims that marriage is for procreation and that those who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry."

you say you meant #25. ok. please show me in post #25 where I say "that marriage is for procreation and that those who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry."

You seem to be interested in distortion and misrepresentation rather than an honest argument... I am noticing this is a trend with you.

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

in what way? calling it a name doesn't make it any less true.

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

no. the short answer would be "almost" (meaning no but close).

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

nope. although you are persistant in your attempt to turn it into that sort of argument... it's a straw man.

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

it's ok, you seem to be easily confused.

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.

actually you are being dishonest either way as I have shown. Nowhere in any of my posts have I said ""that marriage is for procreation and that those who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry." as you have tried to say I did.

Personally I find it offensive and pathetic that you are still at it instead of admitting your misrepresentation. Since I have already pointed it out, there are only two options, either you are unable to understand the plain meaning of my posts or you are lying about them. I won't venture a guess as to which it is.

Interesting how you jump at the chance to dismiss the whole argument based solely upon a mistaken post #.

wrong. I didn't jump at anything. I will happily allow you to continue to embarrass yourself as long as you like. I didn't jump at anything, I pointed out your error. and you don't seem to be able to accept you didn't/don't understand my argument or you are intentionally lying about it.

The fact remains that post # 25:

yes, lets examine post 25, shall we?

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.

​

If there is anything you have trouble with in this paragraph let me know and I'll help you out. Nothing is underlined here so I figure you get it?

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 encouraged 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).

​

hmmm. first off, I notice I didn't say anything about who should or should not be allowed to get married so you can apologize for that part already.

Second, you will note that I did not say that the purpose of marriage was to create children as you have also wrongly accused me of saying. Rather, I said that heterosexual marriage DOES create children (if you are unaware of how children are produced, I am not sure what to tell you) otherwise, how can you dispute the fact that heterosexual marriages produce children? No, I didn't say ALL heterosexual marriages, nice try. The government encourages heterosexual marriages generally because generally the institution of heterosexual marriages create children. That is a fact and one I think even you would have to admit.

The government wants a healthy well adjusted work force. Heterosexual sex provides 99.9% of all human beings, a two parent household raising their own biological children is an advantage to the goverment. Thus the government encourages heterosexual marriages. It really isn't rocket science, and no that does not mean that homosexuals can't get married. I couldn't care less if they get married and neither does the government. What it means is that the government is not going to give them the economic incentives to get married when they do not produce the desired result.

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...

​

again, if you have any trouble with this portion, let me know.

is merely you stating that the government 'endorses' heterosexual marriage and not same sex marriage because of the ability to procreate.

well, not quite (again). The government endorses heterosexual marriage because it *does* procreate, not because it has the ability. Again, it is promoting the entire institution because as an institution, heterosexual marriage does in fact produce the children and then raises and provides for them.

Yet this falls through simply because there are heterosexual couples allowed to marry who cannot procreate.

uh. no. like I said, I never have argued ( as you continue to mistakenly argue) that couples should not be allowed to marry... any couples... gay/straight or whatever. Please, show me where I have said anybody should not be allowed to get married. second, the government is promoting the institution of heterosexual marriage not individual couples. The ability to procreate lies in the institution of heterosexual marriage. The fact that not every heterosexual couple produces a child is as pointless as the fact that not every hybrid car ends up making less pollution than every regular car yet the government still gives tax breaks for every hybrid car purchase. so what? you are missing the point.

The fact still remains that although not every heterosexual couple produces a child, almost every child (99% easily) is produced by a heterosexual couple.


Here is a fact I would like to point out. After all this, you have yet to actually make an argument. All you have done is distort my argument, put words in my mouth and then complain that your made up imagination of what I said is discrimination.... uh... good one. You have yet to address my original posts and the points made in those posts. I don't care if you don't like the reasoning, the OP asked for a secular argument. I gave one and it is perfectly legal. Sorry if it doesn't make you happy. Why don't you try giving some actual evidence as to why my argument is wrong rather than lie about what I said and then call it discrimination.

You have attempted to dismiss my argument while accusing me of doing it. I would say that is pretty weak. I am happy to defend my argument all day if you like but you will have to start being honest and actually address what I have said.