Author Topic: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 14516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5187
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2012, 12:57:28 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.

Must...resist...going...offTOPIC!  aAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Okay, having failed...

Morally, I am opposed to it.  HOWEVER, legally, I think it has to be allowed.  Given the current state of the law and that our legal system views sexual preference as a protected class under most laws, I think the same rights have to be given.  It's a tricky issue for me, to be honest, and one where it is difficult for me to actually figure out what my position is, so it's even more difficult to provide an answer.  Backing it up a step and going to homosexuality in general, coming from a biblical view, I view the practice of homosexuality, but NOT the disposition of homosexuality, to be immoral, and I think the biblical teaching on the subject is crystal clear.  So that is the foundation I am operating from.  And there are lots of other things that are problematic in our society as well.  Living together unwed?  Yup.  Divorce for any and every reason?  Yup.  But what, if anything, should the government do about it?  Eh...I don't know.  I don't know that it's the government's business to get involved in such private issues, and I have a problem with the government getting involved.  With marriage, it is a bit different because it is the government creating a right.  But at least with "domestic partnerships," even though the government is creating a right that, morally, I do not think should exist, at least the government is not getting involved in twisting the meaning of an existing establishment that many hold sacred.  So it can avoid that problem, while still granting the same rights.  So that being said, I'm somewhat okay with it--or at least, less concerned.  Again, tough to answer, and I probably obscured things more than clarified, but hopefully you can understand what I am saying.  If anything, the difficulty I have in answering the question hopefully makes it clear how difficult an idea this is for me to grapple with.  And while I perhaps shouldn't have to offer this disclaimer, I still find it necessary to say that, no matter what one's sexual preference, gender, race, or what have you, mistreating ANY other human being is something I find reprehensible and is not something I support for any reason.
"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 #71 on: July 10, 2012, 01:08:51 PM »
Good answer, dude. 

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2012, 01:31:43 PM »
*adds libertarian rant about how marriage shouldn't be a state function, plus removal of any marriage benefits tax wise to nullify any such discrimination*

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 #73 on: July 10, 2012, 08:56:48 PM »
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. 

Well said.  You are 100% correct, of course.

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 6372
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #74 on: July 10, 2012, 10:05:47 PM »
*Looks at thread title*


*Looks at OP username*


*Understands*
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8970
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #75 on: July 10, 2012, 10:16:22 PM »
Omega is a user here.  If you disagree with him either explain why you do or ignore it.  Anymore negative comments will result in warnings

Offline Siberian Khatru

  • Posts: 65
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #76 on: July 10, 2012, 10:31:09 PM »
I actually believe that marriage is a completely spiritual thing. It's about two people coming together before God, some sort of spirituality, or whatever higher ideals they subscribe to, and pledging to give eachother their best while ceasing to be mere fuck buddies.  So I disagree with this idea that marriage can be approach from a world, secular point of view. Anyone two people can have kids, and raise them together. Marriage isn't about that. It's about two people coming together and binding themselves together before some higher power or ideal.

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 6372
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2012, 01:08:37 AM »
Omega is a user here.  If you disagree with him either explain why you do or ignore it.  Anymore negative comments will result in warnings

Yeah, my bad. It was not my intent to slander Omega in any way. I just feel like he is beating a dead horse.

Perhaps more eloquently:

I cant see the reason this thread was created other than re-igniting that same debate.
JMO, but I can certainly understand why some in this thread are posting about, or at, the thread starter for the reason I stated.
It seems clear that this thread, JMO of course, needs to be locked, as at the very least is a topic that already exists elsewhere,  was a topic that was obviously disruptive, and in some's opinion, is now an attempt to re-ignite a flame fest.
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.

Offline El JoNNo

  • Posts: 1778
  • Gender: Male
  • EMOTRUCCI
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2012, 08:01:58 AM »
Bosk1 already address why this thread was continuing. He also gave warning to those who want to play moderator.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3386
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2012, 08:42:20 AM »
Bosk1 already address why this thread was continuing. He also gave warning to those who want to play moderator.

With all due respect to Bosk1, and certainly not trying to play moderator as I am not suggesting any course of action, but the reason this thread was allowed to continue was the new "angle" introduced by the article and author....which has not been addressed in a post for quite some time.  It has floated back to a general discussion on gay marriage, with no focus on the article. 
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 6372
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #80 on: July 11, 2012, 09:18:23 AM »
Bosk1 already address why this thread was continuing. He also gave warning to those who want to play moderator.

No one is playing moderator, just defending the reasoning for my original post.
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.

Offline El JoNNo

  • Posts: 1778
  • Gender: Male
  • EMOTRUCCI
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #81 on: July 11, 2012, 09:37:24 AM »
Just giving you a heads up. The way it read it looked like you completely missed it.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5187
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #82 on: July 11, 2012, 10:02:29 AM »
I can't say I'm thrilled about it either.  But I usually try to err on the side of trying to allow discussion by all who are interested in discussiong and are willing to follow the rules, even if topic drift/duplication occurs.  If any of you felt strongly about a topic that had gotten out of hand and wanted a second try at discussing it, you wouldn't want someone who disagreed with you to persuade me to shut it down either.  So let's try to keep on topic and keep it civil and see where it goes.  Again, if you don't like it, don't participate.
"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 rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26497
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #83 on: July 11, 2012, 10:39:17 AM »
The fatal flaw in any kind of "first principles" argument (which Omega so loves) regarding marriage is that there is no *the* reason for getting married. Some people get married to have kids, but some people get married never wanting (or being able to) have kids. Some get married out of love, and some view the love part as "nice, but not necessary" (Indians have a saying "marriage comes first, love later"). Some people get married because their god commands them to, some because their parents told them to, some because everybody around them didn't want them to.
And some get married because cocaine is one helluva drug.
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.

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

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #84 on: July 11, 2012, 11:13:47 AM »
Absolutely correct, rumbo.  I can hold myself up as an example.  My wife and I never, ever intended to have children (and we did not have any) and I am friends with at least two other couples who did not have children and specifically planned it that way.  Those marriages are no more or less valid than any other marriage.  Child rearing is but one facet of marriage, not the primary reason for it.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #85 on: July 11, 2012, 11:22:07 AM »
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.

I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well.  There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.


Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4605
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #86 on: July 11, 2012, 11:26:05 AM »
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.

I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well.  There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.

Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26497
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #87 on: July 11, 2012, 11:30:09 AM »
And who cares about the Christian god? My ancestors' marriages were witnessed by the goddess Var.

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

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8970
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #88 on: July 11, 2012, 11:43:46 AM »
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.

I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well.  There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.
t
Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?

The only references I can think of were to Adam and Noah who were both commanded to be fruitful and multiply but this was during a time when there were few people on earth

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 #89 on: July 11, 2012, 11:45:08 AM »
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.

I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well.  There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.

Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?

I'm fairly certain that the answer is nowhere.  The Bible talks a lot about marriage, but it talks about the joining of two people to make one rather than the joining of two people to make several babies.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #90 on: July 11, 2012, 11:45:47 AM »
And who cares about the Christian god? My ancestors' marriages were witnessed by the goddess Var.

rumborak

well, Christians. 

Or more accurately; what Christians think they are today in the 21st century.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26497
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #91 on: July 11, 2012, 11:56:36 AM »
You can care about it all you want; the question is why should everybody else abide by your particular aspect of marriage? I think it's pretty obvious that gay couples are not seeking to get married with the blessing of the Christian god.

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

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #92 on: July 11, 2012, 12:34:51 PM »
You can care about it all you want; the question is why should everybody else abide by your particular aspect of marriage? I think it's pretty obvious that gay couples are not seeking to get married with the blessing of the Christian god.

rumborak
While true for many, there are lots of gay couples that would consider themselves Christian that do seek blessings from the Christian God.

The whole idea that allowing homosexuals to be married will strip the 'meaning' of marriage away from Christians is preposterous - Christians have done an outstanding job of stripping the meaning of marriage away from themselves by having a larger divorce rate inside the church than the rest of the world.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #93 on: July 11, 2012, 02:54:56 PM »
I'm sure I've posted this here before, but the concept of marriage being "sacred" by any means was definitely destroyed when we started allowing Elvis Presley impersonators to perform marriage ceremonies at drive-thru windows in Las Vegas.   :lol


thankyaveramuch....




Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2012, 03:44:36 PM »
To be fair to Omega here, it's not about the reason people GET married. It's the reason for HAVING STATE LICENSURE of marriage. And the article talks about this, and he makes a clear point that there should only be subsidies if a marriage can actually produce children. But then, to carry this across the board, if marriage through the eyes of the State only is about producing offspring then naturally sterile heterosexual people shouldn't be able to get married either, and people who have no intention of having children though want to get married shouldn't either.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2012, 03:46:35 PM »
To be fair to Omega here, it's not about the reason people GET married. It's the reason for HAVING STATE LICENSURE of marriage. And the article talks about this, and he makes a clear point that there should only be subsidies if a marriage can actually produce children. But then, to carry this across the board, if marriage through the eyes of the State only is about producing offspring then naturally sterile heterosexual people shouldn't be able to get married either, and people who have no intention of having children though want to get married shouldn't either.


Yeah, but the problem is, "producing offspring" is not a requirement for marriage. Period.




Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2012, 03:54:47 PM »
But if you're going to take the 'subsidy' stance, why not just grant marriages to couples that are pregnant or already have children?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2012, 04:10:30 PM »
To be fair to Omega here, it's not about the reason people GET married. It's the reason for HAVING STATE LICENSURE of marriage. And the article talks about this, and he makes a clear point that there should only be subsidies if a marriage can actually produce children. But then, to carry this across the board, if marriage through the eyes of the State only is about producing offspring then naturally sterile heterosexual people shouldn't be able to get married either, and people who have no intention of having children though want to get married shouldn't either.


Yeah, but the problem is, "producing offspring" is not a requirement for marriage. Period.




Yeah, which is my point. The current marriage requirements are not consistent with the author's idea of child subsidies either. However, a thing that he should be in favor of is what we have in Sweden, called barnbidrag which is a subsidy for the legal guardians of a children. They receive a fee every month for being the caretaker of a child. Perhaps necessary with such a low birth rate in Sweden if we're going to keep the pension system running.

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 #98 on: July 11, 2012, 04:13:55 PM »
Furthermore, if you're going to take that stance (which has not yet been evidentially supported, by the way), we have to wonder why the US even has to pay people to have children in the first place.  People are going to have kids anyway, and why do we need more children?  Isn't the world quickly heading toward overpopulation?  Aren't we already struggling with the number of immigrants we have?  Why not give subsidies to people who don't have children?

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #99 on: July 11, 2012, 04:15:36 PM »
Lol, let's not get sidetracked into the overpopulation argument. Truth be told, with the pension system we have (western world that is), it's going to crumble without a big enough work force - that is an ample about of new people. That's what's so disturbing about a very low birth rate like in Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, and several other European countries.

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 #100 on: July 11, 2012, 04:17:50 PM »
It's completely relevant if you're going to argue that marriage exists to encourage childbearing and help along parents.

EDIT: Sorry, posted this before jsem had edited his message (it initially only contained the first sentence).  I'm just bringing the point up for discussion, and not necessarily because I endorse it; I've posted all my thoughts on the matter in this thread.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 04:25:19 PM by theseoafs »

Offline Vivace

  • Posts: 664
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2012, 10:03:18 AM »

Morally, I am opposed to it.  HOWEVER, legally, I think it has to be allowed.  Given the current state of the law and that our legal system views sexual preference as a protected class under most laws, I think the same rights have to be given.  It's a tricky issue for me, to be honest, and one where it is difficult for me to actually figure out what my position is, so it's even more difficult to provide an answer.  Backing it up a step and going to homosexuality in general, coming from a biblical view, I view the practice of homosexuality, but NOT the disposition of homosexuality, to be immoral, and I think the biblical teaching on the subject is crystal clear.  So that is the foundation I am operating from.  And there are lots of other things that are problematic in our society as well.  Living together unwed?  Yup.  Divorce for any and every reason?  Yup.  But what, if anything, should the government do about it?  Eh...I don't know.  I don't know that it's the government's business to get involved in such private issues, and I have a problem with the government getting involved.  With marriage, it is a bit different because it is the government creating a right.  But at least with "domestic partnerships," even though the government is creating a right that, morally, I do not think should exist, at least the government is not getting involved in twisting the meaning of an existing establishment that many hold sacred.  So it can avoid that problem, while still granting the same rights.  So that being said, I'm somewhat okay with it--or at least, less concerned.  Again, tough to answer, and I probably obscured things more than clarified, but hopefully you can understand what I am saying.  If anything, the difficulty I have in answering the question hopefully makes it clear how difficult an idea this is for me to grapple with.  And while I perhaps shouldn't have to offer this disclaimer, I still find it necessary to say that, no matter what one's sexual preference, gender, race, or what have you, mistreating ANY other human being is something I find reprehensible and is not something I support for any reason.

In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion. What frustrates me the most is that this issue is not really an argument anymore. There are two sides, black and white, and most of the world doesn't want to see the grey area you have established. At least that's what I get from this thread and the last thread and most things I see in the media, from interviews, opinion pages in newspapers, facebook and columns. Marriage to the seculars is there's to define, not the so-called "religious moralists". The marriage debate is long past the debate section and now into civil rights, liberty and right and wrong, regardless of what previous definition or meaning it may have had. It's no longer what marriage meant, but what this generation wants it to mean right now as if an older definition of marriage is archaic and must be redefined in order to conform to the current views of society. The challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage? As Bosk mentioned, the crux of this whole issue is the government buckling under pressure from society in order to change the institution of marriage and define from a secularist point of view. Of course no religious institution is going to be to stop this especially since there is a separation of church and state, however what happens if secularists force the religious side to accept this new definition and like Catholic universities who are now forced to act opposed to their moralities or pay a fine, are now forced to accept what they find immoral or pay a fine? Is the pro same-sex movement on board to force their views onto the religious sect disregarding their rights to live and act according to their morals? Is this nation willing to move in a direction that is contrary to the separation of church and state, an action already in progress with Obama's healthcare mandate that might make this separation a moot point and therefore religions must adhear to the declarations of state policy regardless if those policies are considered immoral to them?

The next few years are going to be fascinating yet fearful as right now the borders are being drawn for secularism and religious. I would not be surprised to see similar outcomes that happened between the Mormons and the United States/Gentiles.

addition: Something also just occurred to me. Right now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority. That is, in the past religion was the authority until the Enlightenment came where an anti-religious movement opened the doors to a secularist majority and now a secularist authority. Given that it is only a matter of time before there is another movement that is anti-secularist, how will the secularist movement defend itself in order not to be taken down like the religious majority was with the Enlightenment? In what way will this movement be defined? Will society come full circle or is the upcoming movement something that is impossible to guess? As I said, we are living in a time of transition. For better or for worse, these will be trying times.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 10:25:12 AM by Vivace »
"What kind of Jedis are these? Guardians of peace and justice my ass!"

"Ha ha! You fool! My Kung Fu is also big for have been trained in your Jedi arts why not!"

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 #102 on: July 12, 2012, 11:59:22 AM »
In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion.

I'd say this is a very hasty argument to make.  Both religion and marriage predate recorded history, and you couldn't say reliably that one came before the other; almost as soon as hominids got to the proverbial scene, they had religious ideas.  This isn't to say that marriage definitely came afterward; however, you couldn't possibly support the view that marriage came before government and religion, especially since religion is (understandably) one of the first things we bothered to do.

Quote
The challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?

A slippery slope argument, you say?  How wonderful!

Here's the rub:  we "secularists", to the extent that that is in fact a group of people who share similar viewpoints, are actually logical human beings.  There is, in fact, no secularist agenda to speak of; what we want is for everybody to have equal rights, regardless of any competing religious viewpoints.

What we have found is that marriage offers people certain economic perks; as is well-documented in this thread, you're better off economically if you're married.  This is fine, except that there's an entire group of people that can't get married by definition - homosexuals.  By the very nature of marriage, this right is systematically denied to homosexuals who want to get married, and we "secularists" think that is gross.

How will we keep from re-redefining marriage in the future?  Namely because there's no logical reason to push for anything else.  As soon as you can marry someone of your own gender, things are equal; marriage is now defined as any consenting person forming a loving union with any other consenting person, which is perfect because the right of marriage is denied to nobody.  Polygamy or animal-human marriage don't come with the package because this definition is fine, and because polygamy and zoophilia have always been illegal in this country anyway.  Even "secularists" concede that there's no reason to redefine marriage to include these things, as there's no logical or social support for them.

Also, don't be scared of re-definition.  Contrary to your belief, marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life.  In fact, I recall a pretty significant change made to marriage not long ago which is, in my opinion, analogous to the situation we're in now.  And people didn't start having sex with goats once this decision was made, mind.

Quote
Right now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority.

Again, this is incorrect.  This is an overwhelmingly religious country, and our "authority" -- congress, executive branch, etc. -- is overwhelmingly more Christian than the country as a whole.  Perhaps what you're noticing is a growing acceptance of nonreligious ideas, but I'd argue that it's a good thing when people start to care more about equality than what they think their god might have to say on the topic.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2012, 12:12:24 PM »

Quote
For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?





I cannot begin to articulate how frustrating it is that this....this....... *deep breath* ......this.....um......  ::)  argument ::)  .....*more deep breaths* has to come up in every thread on this topic.   :facepalm:

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 #104 on: July 12, 2012, 12:15:23 PM »
^Yeah, that too. :lol