Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[Shadow Wolf]

• 1. To hell with society’s right to set standards
  2. To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide
  3. To hell with the Constitution
  4. To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences
  5. To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom
  6. I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

1. I've said this many times.
2. Somethings just can't wait. The courts also only hear cases that are concerned with public issues. And the court is much better than war.
3. How has anyone said "to hell with the constitution?" It doesn't say laws or policies have to be voted on by the public. If that were the case, prohibition would never have come about.
4. Actually, society as a whole says to hell with differences. That's the whole reason blacks were discriminated against, gays are discriminated against, and most other minority groups are discriminated against.
5. What wisdom is being ignored. A truly wise person can change thier mind when irrefutable evidence is presented. And what thousands of years of wisdom is being told to go to hell?
6. Why not? If I like doing something, why not do it? Especially if it doesn't harm anyone else, in which homosexuality does not. Granted thier are somethings that make people feel good and cause harm, such as torture, but for the sake of the argument, let's leave it at strictly being secular arguments against homosexuals, and banning thier legal rights to marriage.

 

[gnomon]

I think there is a problem with your question. The government nor anyone else is attempting to "ban" gay marriage and they couldn't even if they tried. I think what you are adressing is whether or not government should, 1. "recognize" gay marriages and 2. confer the same benefits, etc on gay marriages as is done with heterosexual marriages.

You are talking about legal recognition of the gay marriage, not the gay marriage itself.

If you aren't then the government would have nothing to do with it. If I wanted to marry my wife without it being recognized by the government, I could have had my own ceremony, exchanged rings and called ourselves married... the whole argument is about having that marriage recognized legally.

Now, since that is the case, here is the obvious and very short answer:

The government chooses to confer certain benefits to heterosexual couples because of the general benefit heterosexual marriage is to any society. It is to the government's benefit to have heterosexual marriages, therefore the government encourages such behavior by giving certain benefits to such.

...and that is one secular argument for you...

I don't see the logical connection. If government benefits by supporting "parental units" then the government would benefit from gay couples who adopt or choose to prodce children through surrogate, artificial insemination, etc. From the government's standpoint, the traditional aspect is irrelevant. All that matters is that children are produced and their is some form of primary guardianship.

The logical conclusion is that the government shouldn't recognize marriage so much as it should children and their guardians. Childless hetero couples are of no benefit to the government.

 

[gnomon]

Let’s see what the pro-gay “marriage” people are saying:

• 1. To hell with society’s right to set standards
  2. To hell with the ballot box; let the courts decide
  3. To hell with the Constitution
  4. To hell with qualitative (and therefore definitional) differences
  5. To hell with thousands of years of accumulated wisdom
  6. I want what I want because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing (and to hell with reason)

That’s it. That’s all they’re saying.

1. Recognizing gay marriage would be setting a standard.
2. It is the courts and not referendums which interpret...
3. the Constitution. The Constitution reserves all rights to the individuals and the state except where explicitly stated the government has the power to legislate authority.
4. The qualitative difference is that homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex. Irrelevant.
5. Thousands of years of accumulated wisdom tells us that star patterns influence our personality, the full moon makes people crazy, we create our own reality, and that there's some big guy in the sky that loves you. So much for thousands of years of accumulated wisdom.
6. Recognizing homosexual marriage allows for those people who so choose to live within a relationship affording the same rights to parenthood which is apparently very much needed in our country.

 

[Comprehend]

So that there is no confusion and I don't get into a spat with you like Mestemia has, please be kind enough to restate your argument as plainly as you can. If I can't show it to be bad logic then I will accept it. If I can, you must admit that it is refuted. Agreed?

Thanks, here is the short version:

The government provides specific incentives to heterosexual marriage because it provides the society with something which 1. the government deems valuable, and 2. which homosexual marriage does not provide. (a workforce).

Obviously, not every heterosexual marriage produces a child, but nearly (99%?) every child is produced by heterosexuals, and the governement would like to encourage it being done as a married couple and therefore gives an economic incentive to be married.




Now, in order for the secular reason to be legitimate does not require that you agree with the reasoning but rather that it be sound.

 

[Prometheus]

The government provides specific incentives to heterosexual marriage because it provides the society with something which 1. the government deems valuable, and 2. which homosexual marriage does not provide. (a workforce).

Obviously, not every heterosexual marriage produces a child, but nearly (99%?) every child is produced by heterosexuals, and the governement would like to encourage it being done as a married couple and therefore gives an economic incentive to be married.

I'm going to try to translate this into premises and conclusion. Please tell me if I misinterpret it.

P1. The Government's interest is to encourage procreation.
P2. Heterosexual couples procreate.
P3. Homosexual couples do not procreate.
C. The Government's interest is to encourage Heterosexual couples.

It appears there is nothing wrong with this argument at first glance. However, it does fail at the total evidence requirement.

The first premise fails when you introduce polygamy into the mix.
Now let's restate the argument with the missing premise and use deductive reasoning to draw the new conclusion.

P1. The Government's interest is to encourage procreation.
P2. Heterosexuals couples procreate.
P3. Homosexuals couples do not procreate.
P4. Heterosexual polygamists procreate.
C. The Government's interest is to encourage Heterosexual couples and Heterosexual polygamists.

This argument is valid. However, the conclusion is false. Because it's a deductive argument, we know that for the conclusion to be false, one of the premises must be false. That premise is, "The Government's interest is to encourage procreation."

Obviously, because polygamy is illegal, the government must factor in other things than procreation when making these laws.

Now, in order for the secular reason to be legitimate does not require that you agree with the reasoning but rather that it be sound.

I believe I have shown that your argument is not sound, having one or more false premises.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe I have shown that your argument is not sound, having one or more false premises.

True, but at least it is a secular argument that doesn't bring obvious opinions, religion, or biased "facts and research" into it.
And legal immigration also brings a fresh supply of work force/tax payers. I do not know what the current immigration rate is though, so it might not be awhole lot.

 

[Prometheus]

True, but at least it is a secular argument that doesn't bring obvious opinions, religion, or biased "facts and research" into it.

Of course I always respect people who can do this. It's just going to have to take a sound secular argument to have a chance to change my mind.

 

[jamaesi]

Obviously, not every heterosexual marriage produces a child, but nearly (99%?) every child is produced by heterosexuals, and the governement would like to encourage it being done as a married couple and therefore gives an economic incentive to be married.

So when are you going to provide a source for your 99% number there?

PS- Even though a child may come from heterosexuals that no way guarantees that those heterosexuals were married nor are they the ones raising the kid.

 

[McBell]

that's what I expected. zero substance once again, you have utterly failed at presenting any semblance of an argument.

your inability to address my argument is embarrassing.

Fact is that when one removes all the buttered up wording, all the glim and glamor, all the window dressing, all the preening and strutting, all the showboating and all the window dressing from your presented argument, all you are left with is:

Marriage is for procreation.

​

Gee, that sounds like exactly what I said.

beg your pardon? Nobody has refuted mine thank you.

And you say that I am being dishonest.
I have more than refuted the core premise of your fluffed and buffed argument.
You refusal to admit that your argument is merely a fluffed up, fancily worded and cleverly disguised 'marriage is for procreation' argument is what is embarrassing.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Looks like I touched a nerve and see nothing to show I was wrong despite the poorly reasoned and (apparently) emotional or responses. It would be pointless an too time consuming to make counter everything, so l will settle for one example that been used a lot and so easily countered it seldom is (not to mention the fact that it's insulting to many blacks):

Sounds like the "separate but equal" approach back when blacks and whites had different schools, etc. Sorry to be a broken record in comparing this to racism, but I often find it to be a good analogy.

This is a "good analogy"? Humans are humans no matter what the race. My statement dehumanizes no one, your "analogy" does.

 

[Prometheus]

This is a "good analogy"? Humans are humans no matter what the race. My statement dehumanizes no one, your "analogy" does.

How does pointing out how blacks used to be treated dehumanize them or anyone else? I think you misinterpreted what I said completely.

What I think is dehumanizing is telling two consenting adults who are in love that they aren't allowed to express that love through marriage.

 

[gnomon]

Looks like I touched a nerve and see nothing to show I was wrong despite the poorly reasoned and (apparently) emotional or responses. It would be pointless an too time consuming to make counter everything, so l will settle for one example that been used a lot and so easily countered it seldom is (not to mention the fact that it's insulting to many blacks):

This is a "good analogy"? Humans are humans no matter what the race. My statement dehumanizes no one, your "analogy" does.

You haven't touched a nerve. Your tremendous lack of knowledge of the rule of law and the function of society has just been revealed is all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So if gay marriage was to become a legal marriage, would we be right to disallow polygamy?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

So if gay marriage was to become a legal marriage, would we be right to disallow polygamy?

Gay marriage is legal in some countries isnt it? Or is there a difference between the civil partnership they are allowed now marriage which you speak of? Legally, it allows them to do the same thing! But I see your point! and agree with it!

To the OP, Gays in general (not marriage) increase the chances of HIV spreading. As it is more likely that men pass on the virus rather than women.

 

[standing_alone]

To the OP, Gays in general (not marriage) increase the chances of HIV spreading. As it is more likely that men pass on the virus rather than women.

Firstly, that only addresses gay males. Gay females have the lowest chance of spreading STDs.

Secondly, wouldn't allowing gay males to marry potentially decrease the chances of spreading HIV because marriage would encourage monogamy and, thus, the men taking marriage vows would be committing themselves to one sexual partner?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Firstly, that only addresses gay males. Gay females have the lowest chance of spreading STDs.

Secondly, wouldn't allowing gay males to marry potentially decrease the chances of spreading HIV because marriage would encourage monogamy and, thus, the men taking marriage vows would be committing themselves to one sexual partner?

Yeah, thats just a terminology thing, I refer to males as gays and females as lesbian! I also for some reason have more of an issue with lesbians than gays (dont ask why I dont know)

As for the marriage - as I said it doesnt refer to marriage it refers to gays in general so wasnt really answering the OPS question. I agree with what you say in an ideal world - but how many gays/lesbians who are likely to be non-religious (due to most religions frowning upon it) stay with one partner for the rest of their lives? theres also a high incidence of adultery. I dont agree with it, but its the unfortunately the world we live in. Some of my friends have had 20 sexual partners and their 21!!!

 

[standing_alone]

I refer to males as gays and females as lesbian!

Okay. It's just, this thread is about gay marriage (or, better referred to as, same-sex marriage), which would affect both gay men and lesbians, so certain arguments against gay males don't really apply to lesbians.

As for the marriage - as I said it doesnt refer to marriage it refers to gays in general so wasnt really answering the OPS question.

Um okay, I guess the phrasing "To the OP" threw me off, considering the OP is looking for secular arguments against gay marriage.

I agree with what you say in an ideal world - but how many gays/lesbians who are likely to be non-religious (due to most religions frowning upon it) stay with one partner for the rest of their lives?

How many heterosexuals do, regardless of religious persuasion? Gays and lesbians also don't have anything similar to marriage that is accepted by society as a statement that would encourage them to stay with one partner the rest of their lives. Gays and lesbians always have their partners either treated as legal strangers or just a boyfriend or girlfriend, never a spouse. Other than that, I don't know of any figures on non-religious (or religious, for that matter) gays and lesbians and how long they stay in committed relationships. All I know as a non-religious lesbian is that I would love nothing more than to be in a life-long committed relationship. Promiscuity doesn't interest me. Most of my friends (who are also homosexual) feel the same as me. Not exactly the stereotype society wants, though, I guess...

 

[Comprehend]

I'm going to try to translate this into premises and conclusion. Please tell me if I misinterpret it.

P1. The Government's interest is to encourage procreation.
P2. Heterosexual couples procreate.
P3. Homosexual couples do not procreate.
C. The Government's interest is to encourage Heterosexual couples.

It appears there is nothing wrong with this argument at first glance. However, it does fail at the total evidence requirement.

The first premise fails when you introduce polygamy into the mix.
Now let's restate the argument with the missing premise and use deductive reasoning to draw the new conclusion.

P1. The Government's interest is to encourage procreation.
P2. Heterosexuals couples procreate.
P3. Homosexuals couples do not procreate.
P4. Heterosexual polygamists procreate.
C. The Government's interest is to encourage Heterosexual couples and Heterosexual polygamists.

This argument is valid. However, the conclusion is false. Because it's a deductive argument, we know that for the conclusion to be false, one of the premises must be false. That premise is, "The Government's interest is to encourage procreation."

Obviously, because polygamy is illegal, the government must factor in other things than procreation when making these laws.



I believe I have shown that your argument is not sound, having one or more false premises.

you misinterpreted my argument when you created your own version of my argument. You asked for me to restate my argument. Why did you then decide to re-interpret it? You changed my argument and then argued against your interpretation of my argument....

not really the best way to go about it. How about you let me speak for myself and you speak for yourself?

 

[Comprehend]

Fact is that when one removes all the buttered up wording, all the glim and glamor, all the window dressing, all the preening and strutting, all the showboating and all the window dressing from your presented argument, all you are left with is:

Marriage is for procreation.​

Gee, that sounds like exactly what I said.

yes, I know you keep trying to argue that. However, it isn't at all what I said. I have proven you are a liar, keep going, it makes you look even worse...

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

How many heterosexuals do, regardless of religious persuasion? Gays and lesbians also don't have anything similar to marriage that is accepted by society as a statement that would encourage them to stay with one partner the rest of their lives

Ok throwing in my two cents even though I said I would avoid this thread. A piece of paper does not a relationship make. If homosexuals wanted to be monogamous they would, regardless of the government not recognizing their relationship as a marriage. There are plenty of couples who aren't legally married, yet they stay with one another out of fidelity, and love. So I fail to see how not having a legal document changes a person's feelings toward one another, and their option to commit.