Author Topic: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 14537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26497
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2012, 01:31:43 PM »
3. Sure you can say that it's better for a heterosexual couple to adopt than a homosexual couple, and you can even use whatever logic you want on that. However that whole "is it better to leave them in an institution or let them be adopted by a same sex couple" isn't a random made up scenario. Right now there are currently over 500,000 children that aren't being adopted. The odds of 100% of those children being adopted by a heterosexual couple are 0. So by blocking homosexual couples from being able to adopt, you're making sure a lot of those kids STAY in orphanages. If heterosexual couples were going to adopt all of those kids, then there wouldn't be a problem.

The argument comes eventually down to the comparison of which is "worse": Staying in an orphanage, or being brought up by a gay couple?
Apparently Omega thinks it's better to be likely physically abused than live under a gay couple.

Actually I don't think he actually thinks that. I think he's just pulling in whatever argument he can think of to rationalize his notion.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2012, 01:32:39 PM »
So much of the argument is simply begging the question, that it's really hard to move forward, discussion-wise, from its fatally flawed premises. 
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline chrisbDTM

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3840
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2012, 01:37:05 PM »
this is just one of those issues that logical arguments will fall on deaf ears, no matter how hard you try.


btw is this other thread that everyone is referring to the one where he said marrying a person of the same sex is the same as marrying a cartoon character? haha

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4606
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2012, 01:37:34 PM »
But one would be gravely mistaken to confuse the subordinate purposes of marriage with its main and most important purpose: the creating and nurturing of the next generation of society.

You act like this is an accepted fact.  I challenge.

I just Googled 'traditional wedding vows' and clicked on the following link: http://weddings.about.com/od/weddingvows/a/traditionalvows.htm 

Now, obviously traditional vows have no bearing on the law.  But they do set a standard for what is covered in the contract of marriage.  When two people get married, their vows speak to what they expect of that marriage.  So if the main and most important function of marriage is to produce children, then shouldn't there be something about that somewhere in the vows? 

Quote
Traditional Wedding Vows 1:
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

Quote
Traditional Wedding Vows 2:
I, (name), take you, (name), to be my [opt: lawfully wedded] (husband/wife), my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.

Quote
Traditional Wedding Vows 3 (traditional civil ceremony vows):
(Name), I take you to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife). Before these witnesses I vow to love you and care for you as long as we both shall live. I take you with all your faults and your strengths as I offer myself to you with my faults and strengths. I will help you when you need help, and I will turn to you when I need help. I choose you as the person with whom I will spend my life.

Quote
Traditional Wedding Vows 4:
I, (name), take you, (name), to be my beloved (wife/husband), to have and to hold you, to honor you, to treasure you, to be at your side in sorrow and in joy, in the good times, and in the bad, and to love and cherish you always. I promise you this from my heart, for all the days of my life.

I don't see children mentioned or referenced once anywhere in any of those vows.  What I do see is a lot of promises between the people entering the union of marriage, promises of love and faithfulness.  If these are considered traditional vows, then surely they must reflect traditional views on what marriage is about.  Therefore, I assert that children are not necessarily included in traditional views on what marriage is about.  Traditional views dictate that marriage is about two people proclaiming their love for one another.

Again - I do not mean to imply that these vows should dictate the law.  I am simply responding to your claim that everyone accepts that marriage is about having children - I see no evidence that everyone, or even most people, views marriage that way. 


EDIT: I know I'm not a mod and have no authority whatsoever, but I don't know why anyone is bothered about this thread.  Some other thread on the same subject went bad?  This one hasn't yet, and I'm sure bosk will lock it if it does.  You're bored of discussing these points?  You don't have to post here.  What exactly is the big deal?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 01:44:30 PM by Jaffa »
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27186
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2012, 01:45:51 PM »
Well I posted my argument because my first post was dickish and I don't want Bosk to hate me more than he already does (can you feel the rage Bosk? Good....wel don't give in to your hate this time, wait till it's directed at someone else).


But I am sure it will either be ignored or replied to with strawmen. So with that said, unless I can correct someone else (which is unlikely) I will bow out because this will surely turn into a ban fest soon enough and I'd hate for it to start with me.


May the Bosk be with all of you.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3386
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2012, 01:46:29 PM »
Some other thread on the same subject went bad? 

Yup.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4606
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2012, 01:49:29 PM »
Some other thread on the same subject went bad? 

Yup.

This one hasn't yet, and I'm sure bosk will lock it if it does.

Again, not seeing what the big deal is. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2012, 01:52:25 PM »
In the last thread everyone just got frustrated because they never moved past Omega's first assumption that marriage is for procreation, and the thread was pages and pages long.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3386
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2012, 01:59:26 PM »
Some other thread on the same subject went bad? 

Yup.

This one hasn't yet, and I'm sure bosk will lock it if it does.

Again, not seeing what the big deal is.

You didnt experience the other thread obviously, and looks like you havent even read it.  So this is a new thread and topic to your eyes, and that being said, it is understandable for you to think this is no big deal.  What isnt understandable is to then be given information that this is indeed a continuation of a flame-fest from another thread, and to continue saying that you dont see what the big deal is.
If you want to know what the big deal is, read the other thread.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2012, 02:06:41 PM »
A couple things for Omega to mull over:

1)  There is actually not as much scientific evidence for the advantages of heterosexual parenting as you claim there to be.  The author of the original article you posted concedes this; he points to one article that supports his viewpoint, but then admits that there is on the whole no reliable scientific evidence in his defense because conducting that experiment would obviously be ethically dubious.

2)  It is no longer true that same-sex adoptive couples are an exception to the greater rule.  A quick Google search pointed me to this article, which shows that in 2009, 21,740 gay couples had adopted a child, up from about 6,500 9 years beforehand.  That's 32,751 children living with gay couples in 2009.  This article says this trend is occurring because A) we have a lot of children waiting for adoption (about 115,000), and B) because gays are seeing greater acceptance from government and adoption agencies as well as society as a whole.

Keep in mind that these figures are from 2009, which means they're probably significantly higher now should the trend have continued (a safe assumption), and that these figures are vastly lower than what they could be if there weren't legislation in place to prohibit or otherwise restrict gay adoption (which is the case for about half the states in the Union).

3)  I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but I should point out that loving relationships between homosexuals are not analogous to loving relationships between fathers and daughters or siblings.  Loving relationships between homosexuals are true romantic-sexual relationships such as you would find between heterosexuals.  Loving relationships between fathers and daughters and siblings are in all but a few cases simple family ties.  There are numerous psycho-biological processes in place to prevent that sort of relationship from progressing to the sexual stage; for instance, there's a documented psychological effect that prevents you from being sexually attracted to someone should you spend a lot of time with them or grow up with them (I forget its name, could someone help me out?).

4)  You bring up that the sexually activities of homosexuals do not naturally lead to children.  You are right, of course, but this does not make useless their marriage.  In fact, this trait is actually a boon to society.  Homosexual parenting is actually valuable because homosexual parents have to try very, very hard to get children.  Let's face it: a lot of children of heterosexual parents are "accidents", and it's safe to say that many of these "accidents" are being raised in subpar conditions because the parents were either emotionally or financially unprepared to parent.  You've said before that you're young, Omega (I've assumed you're either high school or college), so you shouldn't have much trouble thinking of a few children who would be orders of magnitude better off had their parents waited a few years to conceive, or of an acquaintance or two who unfortunately had children entirely too young.  The problem is arguably worse in urban areas; most of the parents in the projects, for instance, would probably have put off their pregnancies by a very long while if they had been able.  I could tell you horror stories about the heterosexual household I grew up in, of course, but I'm sure that's not necessary (let's just say you're talking to one of the very "accidents" I'm talking about).

On the flipside, we have homosexual couples.  They won't make babies no matter how vigorously they have sex, and this is a good thing, because they are, by definition, not raising children when they're not ready.  Meanwhile, the adoption application process is extremely rigorous and is meant only to give away children to families that are able to raise them adeptly.  Further, homosexual couples have to try particularly hard to adopt because there are so many roadblocks in place to try to stop them.  The effect of this is that homosexual adoptive couples tried really, really hard for a baby and waited a very long time for one; in other words, homosexual couples with children, generally speaking, have to be ready to raise children.  Because heterosexual couples are not held to that same requirement before they have children, one could very easily make the argument that homosexual parents are, all other things being equal, superior.

5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.

6)  The last point you made was particularly weak, Omega, and I'm a little surprised you're supporting it with so much veracity.  I don't know why it's such a big deal that we need to teach our boys how to be "real men" in the first place, or what the two words even mean, or why a woman couldn't explain the concept to a boy if it's such a big deal.  Menstruation and bra-purchasing are not difficult concepts, and two men would easily be able to handle explaining them to the girls (and if they were truly lost for some reason, they could consult the internet or their female friends, two powerful resources).

I seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs, a lot on this forum lately.  Anyway, we don't need our politicians making legislation to support gender roles, or to otherwise endorse the idea that a person is necessarily the same as everybody else of the same gender.  Men can do things women can do, and women can do things men can do, and I'm sick and tired of people claiming that men can't do X, Y, and Z because those are things that would be better handled by girls, as if they possessed some intrinsic knowledge we didn't.  Half of the world is men, and half is women; in each group, there are people who would make good parents, and people who would make bad parents.

Actually, that's where we should make the divide.  Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 02:44:19 PM by theseoafs »

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21003
  • Bad Craziness
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2012, 02:12:12 PM »
Actually, that's where we should make the divide.  Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.
Hell yeah.   :tup
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline j

  • Posts: 2794
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2012, 03:28:11 PM »
On the flipside, we have homosexual couples.  They won't make babies no matter how vigorously they have sex

 :rollin

"Harder, damn it!  We're trying to make a baby here!"

Quote
I seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs

I know this is an aside, but this is a little extreme IMO.  To some extent, gender roles are a reality.  In general, there are things that men and women, respectively, are better equipped for biologically than the other.  That is okay, and there are plenty of exceptions, which is okay too; it's not poisonous or inhibiting.  They're just generalizations, a useful but oft-misused tool that we nonetheless invoke all the time in all kinds of different matters.

Quote
Actually, that's where we should make the divide.  Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.

I know you're not being completely serious with this fascist idea ( :biggrin:), but I was talking to a co-worker about this very thing the other day.  He pointed out that people have been raising kids since the dawn of humanity (obviously), and asserted that kids are basically weeds who will pretty much raise themselves in any environment.  There are lots of examples of people who everybody might think of as great parents or at least good examples, but who end up somehow putting out horrible brats that grow into shitty adults.  Conversely, there are some great people who come out of terrible childhoods with negative parental influence, if any at all.  But common sense tells you that if somebody's primary example growing up--their parent--is a "good person," then it's at least more likely that they'll turn out to be similar themselves.  But regardless, it's impossible to gather data about this stuff, because like you said, it would be immensely unethical and impractical to do so.

-J

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2012, 03:35:05 PM »
Quote
asserted that kids are basically weeds who will pretty much raise themselves in any environment.

Hmm, that about sums up my feelings about most people.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2012, 03:45:20 PM »
Quote
I seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs

I know this is an aside, but this is a little extreme IMO.  To some extent, gender roles are a reality.  In general, there are things that men and women, respectively, are better equipped for biologically than the other.  That is okay, and there are plenty of exceptions, which is okay too; it's not poisonous or inhibiting.  They're just generalizations, a useful but oft-misused tool that we nonetheless invoke all the time in all kinds of different matters.

This is a topic for a different thread, but my response would be that while gender roles are occasionally accurate in certain limited contexts, we shouldn't be incorporating our vague ideas of what men and women generally act like into our legislation, for obvious reasons.  In my view, legislated gender roles are extremely poisonous and inhibiting, yes.

Quote
Actually, that's where we should make the divide.  Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.

I know you're not being completely serious with this fascist idea ( :biggrin:), but I was talking to a co-worker about this very thing the other day.  He pointed out that people have been raising kids since the dawn of humanity (obviously), and asserted that kids are basically weeds who will pretty much raise themselves in any environment.  There are lots of examples of people who everybody might think of as great parents or at least good examples, but who end up somehow putting out horrible brats that grow into shitty adults.  Conversely, there are some great people who come out of terrible childhoods with negative parental influence, if any at all.  But common sense tells you that if somebody's primary example growing up--their parent--is a "good person," then it's at least more likely that they'll turn out to be similar themselves.  But regardless, it's impossible to gather data about this stuff, because like you said, it would be immensely unethical and impractical to do so.

-J

Yes, this obviously was not a serious suggestion. :lol  It's also true that it's difficult to tell what makes a good parent, and who will make a good parent before the parenting actually occurs.  My greater point is that if we're going to pretend that marriage exists for children, and that we should restrict worse parents from getting married, then we should do exactly that: find the people of all sexualities who would be worse parents and keep them from getting married, rather than making dubious generalizations about homosexuals.  Barring that, of course, complete equality would be preferable.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #49 on: July 09, 2012, 03:55:58 PM »
1)  There is actually not as much scientific evidence for the advantages of heterosexual parenting as you claim there to be.  The author of the original article you posted concedes this; he points to one article that supports his viewpoint, but then admits that there is on the whole no reliable scientific evidence in his defense because conducting that experiment would obviously be ethically dubious.

As I said, decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage. That’s because a mother and a father each provide a unique and important contribution to their role as parents. Children who are raised – for example – in fatherless families suffer, on average, in every measure of well-being. They have higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational difficulties, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, and physical and sexual abuse. This is supported by multiple studies including Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?,” Kristin Anderson Moore et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?," and David Popenoe, Life Without Father, including countless other sources which all indicate that a child is best raised by a committed mother and a father. Denying the presence of a biological female mother or a biological male father to a child has been determined again and again to negatively affect a child's well-being.

Let us also examine Kolasinksi's passage carefully:

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.


Kolasinksi pulls no punches:

However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

And

However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development.

I suspect that what Kolasinksi means to convey when he writes: "Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting" is merely to note that studies that have attempted to draw conclusions regarding a homosexuals couple's ability to raise children cannot be necessarily trusted due to the fact that the selection of which homosexual couples to study or examine could be always be called into question. (For example, what criteria is being used to select homosexual couples to examine or study? Perhaps those selecting the samples are deliberately selecting high-income, stable homosexual couples and perhaps selecting random or low-income, unstable heterosexual couples. How one can determine that the conclusions reached from such a study are correspondent with reality is perhaps too difficult a task.)

Whether homosexual couples are able to raise a child effectively is not of much concern, though, when one considers not only that countless studies in psychology, social science, and medicine have consistently determined that children raised in heterosexual couples in which both the father and mother were present were being raised in the most ideal of conditions and that depriving a child of a mother or a father in turn resulted in negative consequences, be them psychological, social, or medicinal, but also that homosexual adoption, by its very design, will deliberately deny a child either a mother or father every time. By legalizing same-sex parenting, society declares by law that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That means a mother or a father offers no unique contribution to a child. A man could provide all the benefits of a woman; a woman could provide all the benefits of a man. If such is true, then, conceivably, we should also allow single men or single women to adopt as well, considering that the role a man or a woman has been determined to be interchangeable. But surely it would be not only counterintuitive but also morally callous to deliberately design a family in which a child is deprived of a mother or a father, would it not?

Quote
2)  It is no longer true that same-sex adoptive couples are an exception to the greater rule.  A quick Google search pointed me to this article, which shows that in 2009, 21,740 gay couples had adopted a child, up from about 6,500 9 years beforehand.  That's 32,751 children living with gay couples in 2009.  This article says this trend is occurring because A) we have a lot of children waiting for adoption (about 115,000), and B) because gays are seeing greater acceptance from government and adoption agencies as well as society as a whole.

Keep in mind that these figures are from 2009, which means they're probably significantly higher now should the trend have continued (a safe assumption), and that these figures are vastly lower than what they could be if there weren't legislation in place to prohibit or otherwise restrict gay adoption (which is the case for about half the states in the Union).

It doesn't seem to me to be of much importance how many children are being adopted by homosexual couples when one takes into account the fact that by doing so, one is deliberately denying a child of their mother or their father and is thus committing an injustice. If anything, this simply serves to show that this particular injustice is simply occurring more frequently than we'd like to think. Again, the real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple -- all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting. That being said, and again to repeat myself, decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage.

Quote
3)  I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but I should point out that loving relationships between homosexuals are not analogous to loving relationships between fathers and daughters or siblings.  Loving relationships between homosexuals are true romantic-sexual relationships such as you would find between heterosexuals.  Loving relationships between fathers and daughters and siblings are in all but a few cases simple family ties.  There are numerous psycho-biological processes in place to prevent that sort of relationship from progressing to the sexual stage; for instance, there's a documented psychological effect that prevents you from being sexually attracted to someone should you spend a lot of time with them or grow up with them (I forget its name, could someone help me out?).

Why not? What is so different between the love shared by an unrelated man and another unrelated man and the love between a man and his sister or a man and his brother? Is it because there is no sexual activity between the man and his sister or a man and his brother? Why does that matter? Why do we have to use our sex organs with one another to qualify for marriage? Isn’t it enough that we love each other and are committed? Making sexual activity a requirement for marriage is principally arbitrary. Thus the defender of same-sex marriage must commit himself to the supposition that only love is a requirement for marriage. But if that is so, then there can be no basis for one to deny 3 women and 2 men who all love each other to marry, or a father to marry his daughter, or a brother to marry his sister, or a mother to marry her 2 sons and daughter. Kolasinksi hits the nail on the head here when he writes:

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Quote
4)  You bring up that the sexually activities of homosexuals do not naturally lead to children.  You are right, of course, but this does not make useless their marriage.  In fact, this trait is actually a boon to society.  Homosexual parenting is actually valuable because homosexual parents have to try very, very hard to get children.  Let's face it: a lot of children of heterosexual parents are "accidents", and it's safe to say that many of these "accidents" are being raised in subpar conditions because the parents were either emotionally or financially unprepared to parent.  You've said before that you're young, Omega (I've assumed you're either high school or college), so you shouldn't have much trouble thinking of a few children who would be orders of magnitude better off had their parents waited a few years to conceive.  The problem is arguably worse in urban areas; most of the parents in the projects, for instance, would probably have put off their pregnancies by a very long while if they had been able.  I could tell you horror stories about the heterosexual household I grew up in, of course, but I'm sure that's not necessary (let's just say you're talking to one of the very "accidents" I'm talking about).

On the flipside, we have homosexual couples.  They won't make babies no matter how vigorously they have sex, and this is a good thing, because they are, by definition, not raising children when they're not ready.  Meanwhile, the adoption application process is extremely rigorous and is meant only to give away children to families that are able to raise them adeptly.  Further, homosexual couples have to try particularly hard to adopt because there are so many roadblocks in place to try to stop them.  The effect of this is that homosexual adoptive couples tried really, really hard for a baby and waited a very long time for one; in other words, homosexual couples with children, generally speaking, have to be ready to raise children.  Because heterosexual couples are not held to that same requirement before they have children, one could very easily make the argument that homosexual parents are, all other things being equal, superior.

Again, the real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted or raised is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple -- all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting. I've responded lengthily to this issue on the first point, so I'll just redirect you there. Also, again, I cannot help but concur with Kolansinksi:

In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

I think Kolasinksi's words ring true; once marriage is re-conceptualized to meet and tend to the happiness of the couples getting married rather than to meet the needs of their children and to tend for the next generation of civilization, then the mystery as to why marriage in contemporary Western society now leads to a worryingly high number of divorces, why children suffer from pathologies related to bad parenting, etc, no longer remains a mystery. And homosexuals the ability to marry, even in defiance of the absurdity of such an action, would not solve any of those problems that trouble society today and which are largely born out of a misunderstanding of marriage, but merely intensify the problem further.

Quote
5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.

I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.

Quote
6)  The last point you made was particularly weak, Omega, and I'm a little surprised you're supporting it with so much veracity.  I don't know why it's such a big deal that we need to teach our boys how to be "real men" in the first place, or what the two words even mean, or why a woman couldn't explain the concept to a boy if it's such a big deal.  Menstruation and bra-purchasing are not difficult concepts, and two men would easily be able to handle explaining them to the girls (and if they were truly lost for some reason, they could consult the internet or their female friends, two powerful resources).

I seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs, a lot on this forum lately.  Anyway, we don't need our politicians making legislation to support gender roles, or to otherwise endorse the idea that a person is necessarily the same as everybody else of the same gender.  Men can do things women can do, and women can do things men can do, and I'm sick and tired of people claiming that men can't do X, Y, and Z because those are things that would be better handled by girls, as if they possessed some intrinsic knowledge we didn't.  Half of the world is men, and half is women; in each group, there are people who would make good parents, and people who would make bad parents.

Actually, that's where we should make the divide.  Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.

Again, by legalizing same-sex parenting, society declares by law that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That means a mother or a father offers no unique contribution to a child. A man could provide all the benefits of a woman; a woman could provide all the benefits of a man. If such is true, then, conceivably, we should also allow single men or single women to adopt as well, considering that the role a man or a woman has been determined to be interchangeable. But surely it would be not only counterintuitive but also morally callous to deliberately design a family in which a child is deprived of a mother or a father, would it not? Besides this point, this last point ignores at least two key points. One is that, again (in the name of ad nauseum), decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage. Second is that men and women, as has been recognized from the dawn of mankind and as admitted by the of a more genuine character, have undeniable and immutable differences, however minute or large they may be, that distinguish them, and no amount of acting, feigning or yelling "sexist" (which is no sexist claim at all) will ever change that. Our intuitions clearly tell us this is so. Men are, by the very nature of their being men, different in some aspects than women, just as women, by virtue of being women, are different in some aspects to men. And notice that this doesn't entail that one sex is "superior" than the other; all it means is that there are intrinsic, undeniable differences between men and women and that one sex is not interchangeable with the other.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4606
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2012, 04:06:04 PM »
a woman could provide all the benefits of a man. If such is true, then, conceivably, we should also allow single men or single women to adopt as well, considering that the role a man or a woman has been determined to be interchangeable.

We do.  Single parents are allowed to adopt children.  It's not as common, but it does happen.  Something like 5% of all adoptions are single parents, as I recall.  Don't quote me on that number, as I'm probably wrong.  But yeah, single parents can adopt children. 

I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.

I'm only asking for evidence because I have evidence that opposes you.  If vows aren't enough for you, consider this: if a child is found to be physically abused, child services may remove that child from the custody of his/her parents.  However, the government will not then legally dissolve the marriage of the parents - even though they have now been categorically proven to be unfit parents, their marriage stands.  I present this as evidence that marriage and parenting are independent as far as the law is concerned.

Your counterpoint?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 04:16:01 PM by Jaffa »
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2012, 04:07:40 PM »
Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.

Aren't you glossing over an important fact which is that majority of marriages throughout history have been polygamous? If you're going to argue for "traditional marriage" you should really be arguing for "one man + many mistresses."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2012, 04:18:14 PM »
Quote
5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.

I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.

If it's so obvious, and if everybody who could possibly argue otherwise is muddleheaded, then it shouldn't be all too difficult to produce the evidence I and others have asked for, shouldn't it?  All I need is a text showing a Western government, state or federal, recognized marriage in the first place to supervise procreation.

Keep in mind that in addition to comprehensive historical evidence, I'll also take evidence from applicable Judeochristian texts, because marriage has its roots as a religious ceremony.  If that's the case, any verse that says "you are married because it's your duty to have children, dammit, and not because you want to make a public romantic commitment to each other" or something analogous will do.

If you're unable to provide that for me, I'm going to assume your argument for the legal purposes of marriage is faulty (which I'm fairly certain is the case anyway), and we should more or less stop right here.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2012, 04:32:16 PM »
Can we please lock this?
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2012, 04:32:59 PM »
Yes, please. This forum really does live to discuss the same things over and over again, does it not?

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5215
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2012, 04:33:15 PM »
No.  But the next person who decides they want to play mod and decide what gets locked and who gets to post what is going to lose their posting privileges in this part of the forum.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2012, 07:12:04 PM »

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

Do you feel that a single male or single female is incapable of propagating society?  Should they not then be allowed to raise children?  My old landlord was gay raising a child; and that child is top of his class and has a girlfriend.  Gay parents raise straight kids; it happens all the time.

Every fact and facet of reality screams in the face of any anti-gay argument.  I just don't get it...

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2012, 08:20:01 PM »
Quote
5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.

I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.

If it's so obvious, and if everybody who could possibly argue otherwise is muddleheaded, then it shouldn't be all too difficult to produce the evidence I and others have asked for, shouldn't it?  All I need is a text showing a Western government, state or federal, recognized marriage in the first place to supervise procreation.

Keep in mind that in addition to comprehensive historical evidence, I'll also take evidence from applicable Judeochristian texts, because marriage has its roots as a religious ceremony.  If that's the case, any verse that says "you are married because it's your duty to have children, dammit, and not because you want to make a public romantic commitment to each other" or something analogous will do.

If you're unable to provide that for me, I'm going to assume your argument for the legal purposes of marriage is faulty (which I'm fairly certain is the case anyway), and we should more or less stop right here.

There are at least 3 reasons why marriage, properly understood, entails its purpose being that of procreation and the nurturing of the subsequent members of civilization:

1.) A reasoned inquiry into to the purpose of marriage entails that by its very nature and by its ends exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation and the biological, emotional and cultural nurturing of offspring born into this most optimal of union (which can also be ascertained by reason) for the propagation of civilization itself. As such, marriage enjoys the privilege of being (for all-too-obvious reasons) the most important societal unit upon which all other structures of society depend and which we are accordingly obligated to protect, lest we jettison the idea of structured, ordered civilization.

2.) Countless centuries of tradition bespeak to both its basic, enduring importance in the formation and maintainment of civilization and its effectiveness in supporting a structured and ordered civilization and society.

3.) The state or governing authority accordingly extends legal, financial, societal and cultural benefits to two heterosexual individuals willing to be united in marriage because the sate recognizes both the immeasurable importance of marriage in the maintainment and formation of society and its role in the continuation of the state and, on a grander scale, of structured civilization itself.


It is only relatively recently (perhaps some 60-70 years now) that the most of Western society either forgot the importance of marriage or was tricked into a loosening of sexual morality which in turn led to the devastation of the familial unit and thus to the sexual and moral decadence and irresponsibility that the West has fallen to today. And who do we have to thank for tricking the West into its loosening of sexual morality? We have, among many other supposed "intellectuals" and "anthropologists," primarily Margaret Mead to thank, who, through sleight of hand, deliberate misinformation and, most damningly of all, wanting to rationalize her own sexual looseness wrote Coming of Age in Samoa and with that launched the sexual revolution in the mid 1900's. Her deceitful and now-tainted "research" convinced countless naive, gullible or otherwise sexually "loose" Westerners (most of whom were only too eager to rationalize their own sexual deviancy and desires themselves and soothe their conscience) that a relaxed approach to sex and an indifference towards marriage would be completely acceptable. Years later and now in the next century, the effects of the havoc she wreaked more than half a century ago continue to trouble society and it only seems to be getting worse. But I digress. That is a topic for another instance.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 08:26:09 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2012, 08:38:15 PM »
1.) A reasoned inquiry into to the purpose of marriage entails that by its very nature and by its ends exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation and the biological, emotional and cultural nurturing of offspring born into this most optimal of union (which can also be ascertained by reason) for the propagation of civilization itself.

Perhaps you misunderstood me.  What I was looking for was concrete historical evidence that the US government recognizes marriages primarily to oversee procreation, or at the very least a Judeochristian text which says as much.  It turns out that I have conducted a reasoned inquiry into the purpose of marriage, and came to no such conclusion, so you would do well either to  summarize that inquiry for me, point me to a place where you or someone else has already summarized that inquiry, or give me the concrete historical or religious evidence I asked for.

EDIT:  While I'm at it, I'll point you to Jaffa's posts, which have made a few great points.  Should a child be removed from the custody of his parents by the government, why doesn't the government also nullify their marriage?  They've proven to be as bad at parenting as Kolasinski posits that gay couples are, so why can they continue to be married?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 10:07:33 PM by theseoafs »

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6662
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2012, 10:29:27 PM »
I think the biggest thing missing in these arguments against the notions that omega is presenting is this: Even if everything  about how the primary purpose of marriage is or was procreation is true and accurate, many people don't give a crap. But it has been that way for centuries! We don't really care. We don't see change as an inherently bad thing.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Fourth Horseman

  • Posts: 67
  • Gender: Male
  • I know all about the honor of god, Mary Jane.
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2012, 11:56:36 PM »
This issue is not about whether gay marriage benefits the state or whether the purpose of marriage is to procreate. It is an issue of personal freedom. If you don't believe in a freedom as basic as marriage, then you aren't a true American.

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 552
  • Gender: Female
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2012, 07:59:52 AM »
Totally can't be bothered reading most of the posts in this thread, since the premise of the thread (the article) is rubbish to begin with, but...

Am I missing something here?

A thread (this thread) has been started that's:
1) on a topic that is currently the topic of another thread.
2) by a poster that was banned (albeit temp) for his actions on said topic.

The poster had, in the original thread, ad nauseum, stated his premise and argument on the topic.
The majority of the posters disagreed on the premise, and therefore arguement, as it had no historical or factual basis.
The original thread went on with the poster banned......


Yet here we are again, with a thread stating the same premise and arguement?

(1) He is putting a slightly different spin on the topic by arguing it strictly from a secular standpoint, and (2) He is brining new evidence to the table (the topic of this thread is, primarily, the article, which was NOT discussed in the prior thread). 

Random person's opinion =/= EVIDENCE.

            Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
 

Actually, from a utilitarian point of view, homosexuals not having kids is much better for 'society', since we live in a world of overpopulation and declining resources. Less people = more stuff to share around.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2012, 12:03:00 PM »
I think the biggest thing missing in these arguments against the notions that omega is presenting is this: Even if everything  about how the primary purpose of marriage is or was procreation is true and accurate, many people don't give a crap. But it has been that way for centuries! We don't really care. We don't see change as an inherently bad thing.

Examples of things in society that were considered "normal" in the past, but are no longer considered "normal:"

Women could not vote

Black people could not vote

Black people could not own property

Black people were the property of white people

Native Americans were forced to convert to Christianity or be killed

People suspected of witchcraft were burned alive

We executed criminals by chopping their heads off

We executed criminals by public hanging

Some mental illnesses were "cured" by removing the frontal lobe of the brain

Some physical illnesses were "cured" with bloodletting - the practice of cutting someone and allowing a portion of their blood to leave their bodies

etc
etc
etc

There are, of course, hundreds of other items that one could list here.  They are not all 100% analogous to gay marriage, but they support the idea that as society evolves and times change so do the concepts of what is considered "normal" and what is not.  It's called progress.  Mankind has been engaged in it since we first crawled out of caves and began to assemble structures to live in and formed tribes and groups that later evolved into the societies we live in today.  If you are opposed to gay marriage, that is your right.   You have the right to be against it.  But I think your rights end where the rights of others begin.  Given the fact that a marriage between Bill and Bob effects no one other than Bill and Bob, I guess I'd prefer that we all stay out of it and leave it up to Bill and Bob as to whether or not they want to exchange vows and be a committed couple.  I don't see how it's any of MY business or anyone else's business.

The reality is this:  The era of the struggle for marriage equality is coming to a close.  Poll after poll after poll after poll demonstrate the very clear and unmistakable trend.  I think the civil rights struggle is the closest issue to this one...... Whether or not anyone "believes in" gay marriage, there is going to be gay marriage.  How people feel about it, well, that's pretty much irrelevant to the facts on the ground.  Gay couples are going to marry, they are going to live together, they are going to adopt children.  From a legal standpoint, these marriages will, in fact, be valid.  Those people will be married.  If you're "against" gay marriage, isn't that a little bit like being "against" women or black people voting?  Think about it.  When civil rights first came for blacks, there was still a lot of segregation in the south.  They had water fountains for "whites only" and bathrooms for "whites only" etc.....even though the civil rights act gave black people the same rights as any white person, blacks were still discriminated against.   Hell, they're still discriminated against today!

I think we're seeing a very similar situation with gay marriage.  With the civil rights struggle for blacks, as time went by, society became more and more comfortable with blacks being integrated as equals.  Schools were integrated, public businesses stopped discriminating, and now we even have a plethora of interracial couples getting married and having children of mixed heritage.  Hell, my mother is 1/2 black (Cape Verdian) and half Italian and I was born almost half a century ago. 

20 years from now, I think those numbers you see in those polls I linked to will change drastically in favor of allowing gays to marry.  It tends to be a generational issue, but you'll still always have some folks who are against it, just like there are still some folks who are.....you know.....not in favor of mixed race marriages and stuff...

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3386
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2012, 12:10:01 PM »
The problem with Omegas premise and arguement are numerous.  First, there is still, after multiple threads and pages, no evidence that procreation is, or ever was the primary purpose for marriage.  Second, even if procreation was the primary purpose at one point, it is abundantly clear that the primary purpose has changed and evolved. 
That being said, it is perfectly legitimate to have a personal opinion that marriages primary purpose is procreation, and that gay marriage is "wrong" for lack of a better word.  But in the end, it will be a personal opinion only.  And one not really supported by the facts.
I think Kirk is correct.  Gay marriage is here, will stay, and will eventually gain close to full acceptance.  Eventually we will look back and wonder how we could treat people that way.  I personally look forward to that.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 12:20:43 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5215
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2012, 12:20:24 PM »
Gay couples are going to marry, they are going to live together, they are going to adopt children.  From a legal standpoint, these marriages will, in fact, be valid.  Those people will be married. 

I think you are likely 100% correct.

If you're "against" gay marriage, isn't that a little bit like being "against" women or black people voting? 

Not necessarily.  I think a larger number of people than you might think believe those issues have very little, if anything, in common, myself included.  However, I also think we've argued that point in other threads, and I'm trying to keep this one narrowly focused on what Omega posted, so I'll leave it at that.

With the civil rights struggle for blacks, as time went by, society became more and more comfortable with blacks being integrated as equals.  Schools were integrated, public businesses stopped discriminating, and now we even have a plethora of interracial couples getting married and having children of mixed heritage.  Hell, my mother is 1/2 black (Cape Verdian) and half Italian and I was born almost half a century ago. 

20 years from now, I think those numbers you see in those polls I linked to will change drastically in favor of allowing gays to marry.  It tends to be a generational issue, but you'll still always have some folks who are against it, just like there are still some folks who are.....you know.....not in favor of mixed race marriages and stuff...

All very true.  And in terms of the race issues, the changes both in actions and attitudes are correct ones that needed to happen.  But as far as comparing race issues with gay marriage issues, again, I (and many others) see it as apples/oranges.  I get that you (and many others) DO see them as similar issues.  Just want to point out again that that is not the ONLY view.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2012, 12:25:25 PM »
Oh, I know it's not the only view, believe me.  I am very aware of the opposition to gay marriage and I even kind of understand it to some extent.  Yeah, the civil rights comparison isn't perfect, but it's the closest major societal issue other than maybe voting rights that I can come up with.




Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #66 on: July 10, 2012, 12:25:58 PM »
By the way, I dig the shades, dude  :tup   Or are those glasses?  :lol

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3386
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #67 on: July 10, 2012, 12:26:28 PM »
All very true.  And in terms of the race issues, the changes both in actions and attitudes are correct ones that needed to happen.  But as far as comparing race issues with gay marriage issues, again, I (and many others) see it as apples/oranges.  I get that you (and many others) DO see them as similar issues.  Just want to point out again that that is not the ONLY view.

I wonder if the line dividing people thinking racial issues are analogous or not to the gay marriage issues are similar to the line dividing if you think gay marriage is ok or not.
In other words....
If you think gay marriage is wrong, are you more likely to think that race issues are not analagous?

Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5215
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2012, 12:40:00 PM »
By the way, I dig the shades, dude  :tup   Or are those glasses?  :lol

They are special Sith hipster glasses, thank you very much.  :zydar:

All very true.  And in terms of the race issues, the changes both in actions and attitudes are correct ones that needed to happen.  But as far as comparing race issues with gay marriage issues, again, I (and many others) see it as apples/oranges.  I get that you (and many others) DO see them as similar issues.  Just want to point out again that that is not the ONLY view.

I wonder if the line dividing people thinking racial issues are analogous or not to the gay marriage issues are similar to the line dividing if you think gay marriage is ok or not.
In other words....
If you think gay marriage is wrong, are you more likely to think that race issues are not analagous?

Not necessarily.  I suspect that if it were possible to have a good data set answering that question and you Ven Diagrammed it, you would definitely see some overlap.  But I suspect you would definitely have plenty that do not fall into that overlap just the same.  No matter what you may think of my own personal views on the subject, I think you would acknowledge that there are plenty out there who oppose gay marriage who approach the subject very differently than I do.  There are plenty who are just outright hateful and bigotted who cannot articulate any argument whatsoever for their position, and it's sad to me that that kind of thinking exists and that, because of my views, I (and others who think like I do) will be lumped into that group.  But the fact is that, on both sides of ANY issue, you have people who believe what they do for reasons that are well thought out and come from decent motives, and you have those whose views are simply shaped on hate, ignorance, or other problematic standpoints.  That's life.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2012, 12:42:56 PM »
Hey Bosk, just out of curiosity how do you feel about domestic partnerships with the same rights as heterosexual married couples?


Is it just the term "marriage" that gets you hemmed up?


I'm genuinely curious, it's not a trick question or anything.