Searching for one secular reason to ban gay marriage

[Mister_T]

This thread is a waste of time.

I raised a secular argument because that is what this thread is about. Those who responded either did so from an emotional level, from ignorance, or used reasoning one might expect from a third-grader. No one, not one, raised a reasonable objection. All fit somewhere on the list of six.

Point me to your argument and I will give it a shot.

 

[!Fluffy!]

where have I said "I condemn homosexuality" ?

no dude i didn't mean to claim that, if you follow the quotes back it was something schism said, then i just remarked how it appeared a thread that began with gay marriage turned so fast into a discussion about condemning homosexuality. no worries; nothing directed at you.

 

[Comprehend]

You have proven nothing other than you would much rather resort to ad hominem than address what was posted.

You have been flat out asked by more than one person to explain what you meant, since it is not inline with what you actually said, but instead you whine about how everyone is supposedly changing what you said.
the fact is, no one is changing what you said.
They are merely removing all the fluff and window dressing from it and addressing the core premise.

Funny, is it not, that I am not the only one who was not fooled with your fluffing and buffing?

your continued refusal to explain what you meant, since it is something other than what you actually said, is rather revealing.

So you go right ahead and keep calling me a liar.
whatever you must do to avoid the fact that your whole argument, as presented thus far, is nothing more than a "marriage is for procreation" argument.

What I find rather interesting is that it seems as though you are the only one who thinks that what you have presented thus far is not a "marriage is for procreation" argument.

I wonder why that is, with everyone seeing how you are claiming that it isn't, they still seem to think that it is?

Nice try, when you are done :sad4: . You can try responding.

I have explained my position a number of times. you have so far failed to make an actual response. You just cry discrimination and hope that counts as an argument.

I haven't refused to explain what I mean. I have done it at least twice. you have LIED yet again. at least you are a consistant liar.

whenever you are ready to actually address my argument feel free. Problem is, if you could have you would have by now.

I'm waiting....

 

[Truth_Faith13]

ok cool!

 

[standing_alone]

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.

Yup, and I know quite a few same-sex couples who have made a life-long commitment. However, their relationships can be strained at times because they don't receive the same benefits and dignity hets take for granted and seldom appreciate.

So I fail to see how not having a legal document changes a person's feelings toward one another, and their option to commit.

Of course you're not going to understand my point. As a heterosexual, you take marriage for granted. That your relationship is put up on a pedestal and given all kinds of rights and benefits is expected. Funny how heterosexuals are capable of staying in committed relationships without marriage, too, but most making life-long commitments choose to marry. Why is that? Because taking wedding vows and being legally-bound (not legal strangers) will make people work harder on the relationship should rough times come; plus, you become more than just boyfriend or girlfriend, you become spouses and with that you get all certain rights and benefits that make maintaining such a relationship easier. It's easier to walk away from a relationship when you're just technically dating than when you are married. I can't really articulate this point well, but hopefully you'll kind of get what I'm saying.

Exactly! but this thread is about gays/lesbians so didnt mention that! Although I did give an example - my friends - all are heterosexual!

Okay, I'm failing to see your point was then (about non-religious gays and lesbians and commitment).

The one thing about gays/lesbians is if we were to legalise it "fully" so that your partner is considered a spouse. How far should we go, should we allow as someone else stated mutli marriages between husband and wives, wife and husbands (as many ppl live in threesomes!) - at least they can procreate!, should we allow someone to marry their pet (after all a dog is considered a mans best friend!) the list is probably endless. I guess its how far should you push something, human rights, political correctness etc etc... (but thats a completely different topic and nothing to do with religion! )

Ummm, firstly, civil marriage grants more than just being able to call one's partner a spouse. Secondly, the rest of those things should be considered according to their own merit--it makes no sense to judge same-sex marriage based on polygamy or bestiality. Same-sex marriage, as with opposite-sex marriage, is between two consenting adults. Polygamy involves more than two adults and bestiality involves only one member capable of consent. I guess my point is, just by granting same-sex marriage, it's not going to mean people are going to become completely incapable of analyzing those other types of relationships (using the word relationship loosely when it comes to bestiality) for what they are.

 

[Green Gaia]

Not everyone who is religious is your enemy and a good beginning would be to search out some common ground instead of labeling us all bigots and homophobes.

Whoa! How did you get that out of what I said?

I consider myself and those of my religion to be religious and we accept and love GBLT people, so why do you assume I think religious people are my enemy?

I don't understand your attack on what I said.

 

[McBell]

Nice try, when you are done :sad4: . You can try responding.

I have explained my position a number of times. you have so far failed to make an actual response. You just cry discrimination and hope that counts as an argument.

I haven't refused to explain what I mean. I have done it at least twice. you have LIED yet again. at least you are a consistant liar.

whenever you are ready to actually address my argument feel free. Problem is, if you could have you would have by now.

I'm waiting....

I see you are only going to further ignore the issue with your ad hominem and blatant avoidance of the topic.

I am done playing this little game of yours.
Make whatever claims you wish, since it is obvious you only read this thread to take childish stabs at me.

If anyone else can show how Comprehends argument is not merely a fluffed up "marriage is for procreation" argument, would you be so kind as to explain it?
Since it is obvious that Comprehend will/can not.

 

[gnomon]

I havent read all of comprehends posts (there are too many all together and I am too lazy to search ) but I read his initial one about offspring and as far as the GOVERNMENTS point of view I think he has a slight point. After all, more people means more taxes!!!! and they make more money! Greedy arent they?!!!

By logical extension his argument shows that the government would benefit by segmenting a portion of the population off for breeding and others off for to perform duties supporting the breeding population. It's been addressed before in a popular dystopian novel.

The also still doesn't take into account that lesbian couples can produce children and in fact have produced children. The relationship to the sperm donor is irrelevant.

 

[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).

The government encourages heterosexual marriage because heterosexuals procreate and does not encourage homosexual marriages because homosexuals do not procreate.

Or, in other words:

The government encourages procreation
Heterosexuals do procreate
Homosexuals don't procreate

This is where I got my premises. Do you have any trouble seeing how I drew these from what you said?

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.

Then you say that the government wishes for children to be raised by married parents. My introducing polygamy into the argument does not break this rule because polygamists are married couples. Also, it fits even better with the first premise because polygamy means more children and even less benefits have to be given out.

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....

I am struggling to see how I could possibly have misinterpreted anything you said. I'm not trying to straw man anything. I am trying very hard to keep with the rule of charity and make sure my premises are as close to your reasoning as I can. If you still think I misinterpreted it then you're going to have to rephrase it a third time because my premises are what you are saying. I think anyone else here besides Mestemia would agree that it's hard to interpret your logic any other way.

 

[Prometheus]

A bit off-topic but strange thought occurred to me just now.

Anyone who thinks two people of the same gender (same-sex marriage) or more than two people (polygamy) are incapable of raising a child properly should go watch this movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094137/

Hehe.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Of course you're not going to understand my point. As a heterosexual, you take marriage for granted.

No I don't take marriage for granted. I am married only according to Islamic law. I am not legally married. I f my hubby died today I do not have rights over anything of his. My choice yes, but we have been together for 9 years faithfully. Has nothing to do with legal paperwork. Now the main difference here is that at any time I can legalize my relationship with a license. Homosexual relationships are also quite legal except no license. So my point stands. It is just that too a point, not a argument as I have not made the time to think of an argument neither for nor against same-sex marriage.

Help me with something though if you will. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? This is a legit question also, not a challenge. Do civil unions grant the same legalities as marriage? If not, would homosexuals consider it good enough if it did? Just curious.

 

[lombas]

There is a good reason to oppose gay marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a government responsibility.

Have the marriage you want, with who you want, as many times you want, with as many people as you want - all without it being the nosy business of the state.

Voila, that sorts things out.

PS In my country, it is illegal to get married in a religious or any other way if you have not previously obtained government approval (civil contract, civil marriage).

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Have the marriage you want, with who you want, as many times you want, with as many people as you want - all without it being the nosy business of the state.

I can get with that LOL.......

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The government encourages procreation
Heterosexuals do procreate
Homosexuals don't procreate

This is where I got my premises. Do you have any trouble seeing how I drew these from what you said?

I'm wondering what the point of this argument is, that hetero procreate and homos dont. Not all heteros procreate, either because of choice, they are physically unable to, or simply cannot handle the responsibilites, such as financially. It is a secular argument, but it's a very weak one, and contains many loop-holes.

I raised a secular argument because that is what this thread is about. Those who responded either did so from an emotional level, from ignorance, or used reasoning one might expect from a third-grader. No one, not one, raised a reasonable objection. All fit somewhere on the list of six.

What argument? That a minorite can't change society to gain equality, because it will disrupt the main stream culture? That a court battle is somehow wrong? Even though most laws that are passed into being are never voted on by the people? And that somehow just because someone does something different, it's wrong if the rest of society thinks it is?
Sorry, but that argument is just as shallow as the other. If people didn't change society, if minorities didn't fight, we would still have slavery, America would still be controlled by England, and we would still be living in the fuedal sytems of the dark ages, if society even advanced that far, which it probably wouldn't, if it wasn't for people who changed it.

 

[Prometheus]

Help me with something though if you will. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? This is a legit question also, not a challenge. Do civil unions grant the same legalities as marriage?

Civil unions grant some of the benefits, but not all. Also, most states don't even recognize them. So if you get a civil union in one state and then move, the next state won't honor it.

If not, would homosexuals consider it good enough if it did? Just curious.

If a marriage and a civil union were identical, why use the different words? The only reason would be to discriminate.

There is a good reason to oppose gay marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a government responsibility.

So you oppose all marriage not gay marriage specifically?

Have the marriage you want, with who you want, as many times you want, with as many people as you want - all without it being the nosy business of the state.

I would agree. What I want is equality. That means either the government grants the same benefits to all or to none.

However, as it stands, it would be more work to take away all marriage benefits than it would be to grant them to homosexuals.

 

[lombas]

So you oppose all marriage not gay marriage specifically?

I oppose all civil marriages, I do not oppose two or more consenting adults to get married in their local parish, backyard or surf paradise.

I would agree. What I want is equality. That means either the government grants the same benefits to all or to none.

However, as it stands, it would be more work to take away all marriage benefits than it would be to grant them to homosexuals.

I never urge for more government, what I want is less government - certainly what marriage is concerned. I don't believe in the strategy "if you can't do it away, make it equal for everyone" you propose.

 

[Comprehend]

I see you are only going to further ignore the issue with your ad hominem and blatant avoidance of the topic.

I am done playing this little game of yours.
Make whatever claims you wish, since it is obvious you only read this thread to take childish stabs at me.

If anyone else can show how Comprehends argument is not merely a fluffed up "marriage is for procreation" argument, would you be so kind as to explain it?
Since it is obvious that Comprehend will/can not.

I've explained it a number of times. you refuse to respond. everyone else can see it, I'm not worried.

 

[Comprehend]

The government encourages heterosexual marriage because heterosexuals procreate and does not encourage homosexual marriages because homosexuals do not procreate.

Or, in other words:

The government encourages procreation
Heterosexuals do procreate
Homosexuals don't procreate

This is where I got my premises. Do you have any trouble seeing how I drew these from what you said?



Then you say that the government wishes for children to be raised by married parents. My introducing polygamy into the argument does not break this rule because polygamists are married couples. Also, it fits even better with the first premise because polygamy means more children and even less benefits have to be given out.



I am struggling to see how I could possibly have misinterpreted anything you said. I'm not trying to straw man anything. I am trying very hard to keep with the rule of charity and make sure my premises are as close to your reasoning as I can. If you still think I misinterpreted it then you're going to have to rephrase it a third time because my premises are what you are saying. I think anyone else here besides Mestemia would agree that it's hard to interpret your logic any other way.

ok. first, polygamous marriages are not "married couples" as you have stated, they are married groups which by definition must be larger than a couple.

As you will notice in the text of mine which you quoted, I say "governement would like to encourage it being done as a married couple" meaning that the government sees a married couple as the best way to raise productive members of society. This wording would exclude polygamous marriages.

Are you suggesting that the government is not allowed to select which particular practice it finds most productive for it's needs? Clearly the consensus in America is that polygamy is not a benefit to society. The government tries to encouraging things that are beneficial to the society generally. (you know, promote the general welfare...).

The problem with polygamy in this argument is that it produces children all right but it does not produce a healthy "workforce" you will also notice I specifically used the word "workforce" in my shortened version of my argument to illustrate that the government does not simply want bodies... it wants productive healthy members of society.

So, like I said, I think you misrepresented my argument by selecting parts which you would address and making assumptions about what it means rather than taking the plain meaning of words. Words mean things, I would appreciate it as I have said before, if I get the benefit of speaking for myself. I do not speak for you.

 

[Comprehend]

Another point I would like to make clear.

Just so everyone is straight on this, the argument I have presented is nothing near my personal beliefs so those who have assumed that I have a biased view of the subject need to check their own biased views.

Personally, I think the government has no business being in the marriage business at all. I think that if you are consenting adults, knock yourselves out. I think it is wrong of the government to encourage any kind of marriage and I happen to be a married heterosexual. It just isn't the place of government to play these kinds of games.

so........




smoke it.

 

[Prometheus]

As you will notice in the text of mine which you quoted, I say "governement would like to encourage it being done as a married couple" meaning that the government sees a married couple as the best way to raise productive members of society. This wording would exclude polygamous marriages.

At last, I see the problem. Sorry for my mistake.

Are you suggesting that the government is not allowed to select which particular practice it finds most productive for it's needs?

I'm suggesting the government, and society as a whole, needs to rethink this whole marriage business entirely. The current system is imperfect.

Clearly the consensus in America is that polygamy is not a benefit to society. The government tries to encouraging things that are beneficial to the society generally. (you know, promote the general welfare...).

I would submit that homosexual marriages provide only benefits to society.

The problem with polygamy in this argument is that it produces children all right but it does not produce a healthy "workforce" you will also notice I specifically used the word "workforce" in my shortened version of my argument to illustrate that the government does not simply want bodies... it wants productive healthy members of society.

If you truly argue this then the burden of proof is on you to show that homosexual marriages do not produce a healthy workforce.

To me, it would be in the best interest of the government if many more people had the ability to adopt and raise children who would otherwise grow up without a family.