Author Topic: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 14718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« on: July 08, 2012, 08:27:33 PM »
Browsing through the interwebs on this fine night, I came across an article critical of same-sex marriage which happened to be articulated through a completely secular viewpoint. The article makes quite a convincing and powerful case against same-sex marriage, so do give it a thorough and fair read. The author, as I understand it, is apparently an atheist as well. Let me know your thoughts on the article. I'll also add that I noticed some spelling errors on my first read, so beware!


Adam Kolasinksi

            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.

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004


The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? 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.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear 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.

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 scoial 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.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. 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.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 27353
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2012, 08:29:09 PM »
Oh look another thread by you about this. Should be fun.


Wait, weren't you told not to post here anymore?


EDIT: Yea more of the same. "Gays can't have kids naturally so they can't get married because obviously marriage exists for no other reason than to have kids".

We've heard it.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26506
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2012, 08:32:30 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.

Thanks, next please. I believe we've heard enough of Mr. Kolasinksi's sad ethics.

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

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2012, 08:33:48 PM »
I don't want any drama. I just want to listen to serious and fair responses to the article I provided. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, please, shall we make an attempt to discuss this like fair-minded adults, everyone?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 27353
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2012, 08:35:00 PM »
Fine the article (like you) assume marriage exists for the sole purpose of having kids.


That hasn't been proven. Thus that shouldn't be taken seriously.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26506
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2012, 08:38:25 PM »
Unintelligent, unemployed and handicapped people do nothing to serve he state's interest of wealth creation. They should thus be denied most rights.

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

Offline j

  • Posts: 2794
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2012, 08:39:21 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.

Thanks, next please. I believe we've heard enough of Mr. Kolasinksi's sad ethics.

rumborak

Yeah this assertion is ridiculous.  The over-arching question ("why should the state endorse a particular marriage") is a valid one, but this guy doesn't even attempt to substantiate his claim.

-J

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2012, 08:55:02 PM »
I like how he uses the term "propagating society" versus "having children".  It allows him to ignore all the heterosexual relationships that don't and aren't intended to have children, while implying that gay marriage is a social malaise.
"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 Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 27353
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2012, 09:00:41 PM »
I like how he uses the term "propagating society" versus "having children".  It allows him to ignore all the heterosexual relationships that don't and aren't intended to have children, while implying that gay marriage is a social malaise.

This brings them to the argument of "Well those people could have kids  IN PRINCIPLE". It doesn't even make sense. Apparently since most men and most women CAN have kids, then all men and all women can marry each other, even if they can't.

It doesn't make any sense and is just used to hide bigotry against gays.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

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 #9 on: July 08, 2012, 09:28:45 PM »
It's the same old argument we've seen a thousand times (though the author's atheism was certainly unusual given the subject matter), and the argument is no more convincing this time around. Marriage is solely about reproduction, the author argues, and same-sex marriages cannot reproduce, making them pointless.

As we've discussed in this forum a few times now, marriage is not solely about reproduction and there's no evidence it ever has been.  From a practical historical standpoint, marriage has only been about starting a family and making new members of society very recently and in developed countries, and even then there's still a prominent romantic element at play.  Everywhere else, people are basically just getting married so they can have sex without shame and are having kids for lack of contraception.  (Even from an impractical religious standpoint, marriages are more romance than procreation; Genesis had Eve created as a helper for Adam because he was lonely, after all, and not because it was necessarily important that more humans be created. And don't get me started on Song of Solomon.)  It's just affirming the consequent and fewer educated people are being fooled by it with each passing day.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2012, 09:37:24 PM »
I don't want any drama. I just want to listen to serious and fair responses to the article I provided. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, please, shall we make an attempt to discuss this like fair-minded adults, everyone?

I just don't see that he's brought anything at all new to the table.  My argument with his whole article is that gay couples can adopt and thus raise children and thus propagate society.  He points out the importance of a child having a mother and a father, but also admits that there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about how gay parenting affects a child's development.  He tries to brush the second point under the rug by suggesting that the need for male and female parents is 'empirically verified,' but he also suggests that it is about more than anatomy.  So if it is about more than anatomy, then why can't one gay parent provide 'maternal' nurturing while the other provides 'paternal'?  If it is simply a matter of parenting roles and not anatomy, then surely either gender is capable of adopting these parenting roles.  To put it plainly: I know women more manly than I am.  If not because of our organs, why am I a better 'father figure' than them? 

Not to mention the fact that not all fathers and not all mothers have the same roles in raising children.  That sort of thing varies massively on a family-by-family basis. 

And this is completely ignoring the assertion that marriage should be reserved for couples that plan to have children.  Which is a weak assertion, I must say.  I haven't been to many weddings, granted, but as far as I know, there's nothing in the traditional marriage vows about promising to have and raise children. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

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 #11 on: July 08, 2012, 09:47:18 PM »
Oh, and Jaffa reminded me of the other thing I wanted to mention.  The argument that homosexual couples can't contribute to society falls apart if we show they can adeptly raise adopted/artificially inseminated children, and I commend the author for admitting that there's no real empirical support for his position on the issue.  He resorts to a classic logical fallacy, which we can effectively paraphrase as "a lot of people think you need a man and a woman to raise a child, so yeah, it's probably true".  It's ridiculous, of course.  People are under this impression in the first place because of religion.  We will do well to eliminate the use of gender roles as arguments in our logical discourse, because nothing good comes out of pretending everybody's necessarily the same as everybody else in their gender.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20386
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2012, 09:53:59 PM »
My childhood pediatrician chose to never get married or propagate society.... We should kill her.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2012, 10:07:24 PM »
Also, I have to say that the last paragraph of the article is really bugging me.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that the sole criterion for marriage should be 'sexual love,' so who exactly is he arguing with there?  I mean, the paragraph seems to imply that marriage is either about children or about sexual love.  Why can't it be about dedicated and commited companionship? 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21093
  • Bad Craziness
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2012, 10:15:26 PM »
Didn't take long for Mr. Kolasinksi's opinion to get thoroughly torched.  Here's my gallon of petrol to toss on the fire.

Not only is the assumption that gay people can't propagate society questionable, as many here have pointed out, but the truth is that calling societal propagation necessarily a good thing if it occurs with two heterosexual parents is incredibly simplistic.  His premise is that straight people raising children is a vital component of our society, and I would suggest that any people raising good children is the key (setting aside any overpopulation arguments for now), and that's not an automatic occurrence just because the parents are straight.  Lots of stupid, bigoted, self-centered straight people are raising stupid, bigoted, self-centered little assholes even as we speak.  I don't consider that a boon to society.  If we're to start basing civic considerations on the ability to add to society, then I'd say we should be looking for criteria a helluva lot better than man+woman. 

From that perspective, the entire foundation of his premise is baseless.  The fact that homosexuals can't do something that half the people screw up anyway seems like a wash to me.
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 skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11547
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2012, 10:38:07 PM »
Read the first few sentences.  Didn't bother reading the rest.  Continue with the flaming, everyone!  Anything I could add has already been said by more well-spoken people.

Also, this:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q0mkm/

:D

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2012, 11:30:00 PM »
I'm not taking any sides at all...honestly.   But I'm a little shocked (and for the record, I'm not exactly a n00b here...I know Omega's history, but let's be objective here).

This article *IS* being attacked with the same vitriol that the opposing side uses.   Most people here are not really articulating.    I think that, in particular, the point he brings up about having a male and female role model in the household is being completely blown off and dismissed with * PREJUDGMENT*...

As an outsider.... I think Omega (who I usually disagree with b/c I feel he's often far too antagonistic) has actually brought something from a new perspective to the table.  (I was surprised myself)   But almost none of the responses has had anything intelligent or thought out to say on the matter.   You're reacting with the same prejudice that you criticize....IMO, anyway.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8970
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2012, 11:40:37 PM »
This thread is going nowhere....

turn it around or I will turn the key

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 #18 on: July 08, 2012, 11:44:07 PM »
I don't think it's necessarily going nowhere. Omega posted an article, a lot of us found it dubious, and we've outlined pretty specifically exactly what is dubious about it.

EDIT:  Oh, one more thing!  I Googled the author's name and this was one of the first results.  It's a decent response; nothing revolutionary here, but it identifies the key problems in the argument.  I'm going to quote a section of the article which I think rang particularly true and whose objections haven't been covered in this thread yet.  Namely, A) marriage isn't just about childbearing or just about sexual love, as the article suggests, and B) if gay marriage leads to marital chaos, as the last paragraph describes, then we would have seen some of that chaos by now, no?

Quote
Quote
    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 can 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?

This slippery slope stuff is pretty ridiculous. Is there anything wrong with the marriage of two men and three woman? If so, thatís your basis for denying marital recognition. If not, then thereís no harm done. The same goes for the more incestuous examples.

But in all seriousness, if you think that marriage is about nothing other than sexual love and children, you either arenít married or you probably shouldnít be married. Thereís an element of stability. Of finality. Thereís a comfort in knowing that should something happen to you, somebody else will take care for you. In sickness and in health. In good times and bad. And thereís a warmth in knowing that you would do the same for somebody else. The marital bond, while voluntary, is a family bond.

Quote
Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than 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.

Yes. Marital chaos. Like in Iowa. Itís that secret sort of marital chaos that only manifests itself as Midwestern practicality.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 12:13:56 AM by theseoafs »

Offline j

  • Posts: 2794
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2012, 12:28:21 AM »
From that perspective, the entire foundation of his premise is baseless.  The fact that homosexuals can't do something that half the people screw up anyway seems like a wash to me.

As shitty a job as straight parents largely do raising their kids, it's hard to imagine that gay couples could do worse on the whole, even if they are lacking in some innate, gender-specific parental capacity.

-J

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2012, 02:57:43 AM »
I'm not taking any sides at all...honestly.   But I'm a little shocked (and for the record, I'm not exactly a n00b here...I know Omega's history, but let's be objective here).

This article *IS* being attacked with the same vitriol that the opposing side uses.   Most people here are not really articulating.    I think that, in particular, the point he brings up about having a male and female role model in the household is being completely blown off and dismissed with * PREJUDGMENT*...

As an outsider.... I think Omega (who I usually disagree with b/c I feel he's often far too antagonistic) has actually brought something from a new perspective to the table.  (I was surprised myself)   But almost none of the responses has had anything intelligent or thought out to say on the matter.   You're reacting with the same prejudice that you criticize....IMO, anyway.

Exactly who is this addressed to?  I feel like several of us have had reasonably well thought-out responses. 

As for his point about children needing both a male and a female role model, I thought I addressed it quite explicitly already. 

His own article states that "the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy".  He uses this to suggest that men and women play different parenting roles, and that children need both of those distinct parenting roles.  What he ignores is the idea that a man could play a 'woman's' parenting role or a woman could play a 'man's' parental role.  As he said, parental roles go beyond anatomy - it's not that a child needs one role model with a penis and one with a vagina.  It's about behavior, about the roles the parents take in raising the child.  So if a woman can behave the same way as a traditional 'father figure', why does it matter, then, that she is not anatomically male? 

And this is setting aside any argument about whether or not a child actually does need a 'mother figure' and 'father figure'.  I'm accepting for the sake of discussion that they do need these things, and I'm only asserting that parents of either gender can play either role. 

Again: it goes beyond anatomy.  His own words.  His assertion is that men and women are inherently different in parenting styles.  I challenge this assertion.  What about heterosexual men who are just feminine, or heterosexual women with masculine traits?  Are they also unfit to raise children because they don't adhere to their gender roles?
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3394
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2012, 05:49:01 AM »
It is merely his same argument against gay marriage in new wrapping. 

next.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2012, 07:23:01 AM »
I'm not taking any sides at all...honestly.   But I'm a little shocked (and for the record, I'm not exactly a n00b here...I know Omega's history, but let's be objective here).

This article *IS* being attacked with the same vitriol that the opposing side uses.   Most people here are not really articulating.    I think that, in particular, the point he brings up about having a male and female role model in the household is being completely blown off and dismissed with * PREJUDGMENT*...

As an outsider.... I think Omega (who I usually disagree with b/c I feel he's often far too antagonistic) has actually brought something from a new perspective to the table.  (I was surprised myself)   But almost none of the responses has had anything intelligent or thought out to say on the matter.   You're reacting with the same prejudice that you criticize....IMO, anyway.

Exactly who is this addressed to?  I feel like several of us have had reasonably well thought-out responses. 

As for his point about children needing both a male and a female role model, I thought I addressed it quite explicitly already. 

His own article states that "the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy".  He uses this to suggest that men and women play different parenting roles, and that children need both of those distinct parenting roles.  What he ignores is the idea that a man could play a 'woman's' parenting role or a woman could play a 'man's' parental role.  As he said, parental roles go beyond anatomy - it's not that a child needs one role model with a penis and one with a vagina.  It's about behavior, about the roles the parents take in raising the child.  So if a woman can behave the same way as a traditional 'father figure', why does it matter, then, that she is not anatomically male? 

And this is setting aside any argument about whether or not a child actually does need a 'mother figure' and 'father figure'.  I'm accepting for the sake of discussion that they do need these things, and I'm only asserting that parents of either gender can play either role. 

Again: it goes beyond anatomy.  His own words.  His assertion is that men and women are inherently different in parenting styles.  I challenge this assertion.  What about heterosexual men who are just feminine, or heterosexual women with masculine traits?  Are they also unfit to raise children because they don't adhere to their gender roles?


It was addressed to everyone...but I did attempt to use qualifiers like "most" and "almost" to exempt those who had given thought out responses. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 27353
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2012, 07:32:46 AM »
Jammin, no one responded with prejudice. It's just that we've had pages of this exact same debate before. So this isn't a new argument to us it's just omega repeating it but thinking its better this time because an atheist said it. No one here is being prejudiced and most of the responses are being logical. Perhaps you just agree with omega in this case and don't agree with us.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2012, 11:05:51 AM »

Jammin, no one responded with prejudice. It's just that we've had pages of this exact same debate before. So this isn't a new argument to us it's just omega repeating it but thinking its better this time because an atheist said it. No one here is being prejudiced and most of the responses are being logical. Perhaps you just agree with omega in this case and don't agree with us.
Ya, I don't really see how the authors beliefs matter one bit. It's a fallacy to think the source of an argument matters, and it seems to me that the arguments being given by this atheists are the same one's we've heard.

Quote from: EB
Lots of stupid, bigoted, self-centered straight people are raising stupid, bigoted, self-centered little assholes even as we speak. 

Ugh, thanks for reminding me.

Offline PlaysLikeMyung

  • Myung Protege Wannabe
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
  • Gender: Male
  • Maurice Moss: Cooler than you
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2012, 11:56:24 AM »
my opinion of omega hasn't changed

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5385
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2012, 12:30:04 PM »
Oh look another thread by you about this. Should be fun.


Wait, weren't you told not to post here anymore?


EDIT: Yea more of the same. "Gays can't have kids naturally so they can't get married because obviously marriage exists for no other reason than to have kids".

We've heard it.

Please leave the modding to the mods.  There's no reason for this kind of post whatsoever.

my opinion of omega hasn't changed

Same with this.  I think the rules about personal attacks are pretty clear.  There is no reason you need to post something like this about a forum member rather than responding to the article itself.
"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."

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3394
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2012, 12:42:24 PM »
But this thread IS the exact same topic that caused so much trouble, and got one poster banned (temporarily it seems).
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.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2012, 12:51:54 PM »
I suppose I'll respond at length with my reactions to the article as well. Afterward, I'll more or less let the thread be, perhaps with a few exceptions. This will likely get quite lengthy, so please bare with me. I write my thoughts on this as sincerely and as diplomatically as I am able to. So please, I only ask you to respond to this (if you so chose to) with the same courtesy and fair-mindedness that I hope to write this with. As I said, I don't want any drama:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The state (or governing authority, etc) recognizes, supports, and grants both financial and legal benefits to couples of the opposite sex united in marriage because the state recognizes the obvious: that marriage as traditionally understood between a man and a woman provides a social, financial and cultural forum for men and women to channel their own biological drives in unity with their shared love to produce the most biologically, culturally and emotionally well-nurtured children under the guidance and care of a loving couple. The state is aware that such a union between a man and a woman will not only provide children for the next generation of society and its continuation, but will also provide children who have been raised in the most ideal social unit, nurtured biologically, culturally, and emotionally with a mother and a father to act as role models of both sexes, united in love through the unitive action of procreation. Is having children the only purpose of marriage? No. As I said, there are other responsibilities and purposes attached to marriage, including the cultural, biological, and emotional nurturing of children, and further subordinate purposes such as the sharing of love of the man and woman united in marriage. 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.

So why does the state not extend the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to members of the same sex, or brothers and sisters, or fathers and daughters? Because the state does not recognize nor does it have the obligation to recognize relationships in which two people simply love each other. Brothers and sisters usually develop strong bonds. They love one another and often have deep, meaningful relationships that can last a lifetime. Their commitment to one another is significant. But they canít marry one another. Though they love each other, they state wonít recognize their relationship. The same is true of two brothers or two sisters. I have a male friend who Iíve known for over a decade. We have a long-term, committed relationship. We talk every week, we make sacrifices to visit one another, and weíre there to meet each others' needs. Weíre not sexually involved, but I routinely say I love him and he says the same to me. I canít marry him even though heís someone I love. Iím restricted. The state wonít recognize our relationship.

Fathers and daughters also have long-term, committed relationships. Thereís a special bond between them that develops and lasts for years. Fathers often say that the love they feel towards their daughter has a unique texture to it. They often say that it's taught them an aspect of love that, until they had a daughter, they never experienced. There are things that theyíve done and would do for their daughter that virtually no one else on the planet can make me do. And like many fathers and daughters, their special relationship could last half a century or more. But guess what? The state doesnít care about them as a couple. It doesnít matter how much they love each other. They canít get married.

There are dozens of more examples of pairs of people who develop strong, meaningful, and long-term relationships. These people love each other, but that doesnít mean the state is required to recognize them within the definition of marriage. So what do all these relationships (and many others) have in common? None of them produce the next generation. Committed male friends, siblings, and parent-child relationships donít have kids.

There is one kind of couple that, throughout all of human history, is known to produce children: heterosexuals. Long-term, monogamous, heterosexual unions as a group and by nature produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the most stable and advantageous environment for raising children. They not only stabilize society, they make society possible. That role canít be underestimated.

Notice that I said, ďas a group and by nature.Ē As a group, heterosexual couples have kids. There may be exceptions, but the groupís tendency is to produce children. Laws are designed to generalize for the group. ďBy natureĒ is a reference to the fact that heterosexual unions produce children by the natural function of their sexual activity. Unlike male friends, siblings, and other relationship couples, it is biologically natural for heterosexuals to produce children.

The government, that normally has a hands-off policy to most relationships, gets involved in sanctioning these long-term, heterosexual unions. It creates a group of privileges and protections for these male-female couplings because it recognizes their role in creating and stabilizing society.

But the government doesnít get involved in any other relationship pair. It doesnít legally sanction two male friends, siblings, or father-daughter relationships. Thatís because, though there are exceptions, they donít as a group and by nature produce the next generation. They might love each other -- deeply and for a long period of time -- but that is irrelevant to the government. The state has a concern to perpetuate and protect our civilization and that explains its vested interested in heterosexual unions.

So why does the government not sanction the relationship of two homosexual males? For the same reason it doesnít sanction the relationship of male friends, siblings, or a father and daughter. Homosexual couples donít as a group and by nature produce the next generation. Although, theoretically, homosexuals can adopt, this is the exception. Most same-sex lovers donít pursue parenting. Furthermore, children donít naturally result from their sexual activity.

Instead, the state must intervene and grant them children. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple. The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.

A common objection is that marriage canít be about children because not all married couples have kids. First, although thatís true, every child has a mother and father and a right to know them. These children have a vested interest in the union and stability of their parents. But thatís not something they can protect. Society needs to secure that right for kids so far as we are able.

Second, even if some marriages donít produce children, it doesnít nullify the natural tie of marriage to procreation. The purpose of marriage remains regardless of whether married couples actualize it or not. Books are meant to be read even if they collect dust on a bookshelf.

Third, marriages create the optimal environment for raising children. Same-sex marriage intentionally creates the condition where a child is denied their mother or father or both. This is not healthy, a claim that has been long noted by researchers. 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. Thatís 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.

At this point, many of you are likely to respond with: ďIsnít it better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to not be adopted at all?Ē which will be accompanied with two loaded scenarios:

    * Scenario A: The child lives in an institution, is routinely neglected, given poor nutrition, and often physically and sexually abused.
    * Scenario B: The child lives with two loving women who are lesbians, who have stable jobs, live in a house, and have lots of family in the area.

    "Wouldnít it be better for the child to be adopted by the lesbians and grow up under scenario B?"

Well, sure, when you construct the options that way, who will argue with you? I guess the child would be better off with the lesbians. So whatís that prove? Nothing.

I could construct two scenarios in a different way. What if the lesbians didnít have a stable relationship, couldnít keep steady jobs, experienced domestic violence in their home, and often used drugs. The other adoptive option was a married heterosexual couple (one a doctor and the other a teacher), who lived in the same home for 18 years, and who had already adopted a child.

Given those two options, wouldnít it be better for the child to be adopted by the heterosexual couple? Sure, but what does that prove? Only that you can construct any combination of scenarios designed to prove that a certain set of people would be better parents.

But you donít determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when itís justified to run a red light Ė like rushing a dying person to the emergency room Ė but that doesnít mean we should make running red lights legal. Thatís bad public policy.

Often one who is raised by same-sex parents will argue that his same-sex parents did a fine job of raising him. Maybe they did, but you canít generalize oneís personís experience for an entire group of people. Just because two homosexuals were able to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child (assuming they did), that doesnít mean homosexual couples Ė as a group Ė make the best parents.

Many single fathers have to raise children by themselves. They do the best they can given their circumstances. Iím sure some of these children will also declare themselves to be just fine. But does that mean we should promote single male adoption?

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.

The answer, again, is straightforward: 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.

Homosexual adoption, by design, will 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 offers no unique contribution to a child. A man could provide all the benefits of a woman.

Besides being counterintuitive, this deprives a son or daughter the distinctive benefits of being raised by both sexes. A compassionate and moral society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless children. We donít intentionally design families to deny children a mother or father. But thatís the result of same-sex parenting. Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier explore this idea and the suggestion that merely two loving adults are all thatís needed to raise kids: ďThe two most loving mothers in the world canít be a father to a little boy. Love canít equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men canít be a mother to a child. Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.Ē And these are just a few of the absurdities that arise when you jettison the commonsense notion that men and women are both unique and valuable in their role as parents.

Lastly, I'm inclined to concur with the author of the article in question with regards to the position that marriage is, nowadays, resulting in divorce and resulting in terrible parenting and raising of children precisely because the natural tie to procreation within marriage has been so downplayed and cast aside. Marriage nowadays is seen through a selfish lens by couples entertaining it. They seek marriage for selfish reasons and motivations to make themselves happy, all the while forgetting the main purpose of marriage which is enshrined in the notion of providing for the the good of the children and the next generation under a stable, loving, nurturing and unitive union between a man and a woman. Such a radical and selfish new re-conception of marriage is precisely what is to blame, I think, for many of the social difficulties which have become so commonplace today.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21093
  • Bad Craziness
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2012, 01:09:26 PM »
Possibly the longest post I've seen in P/R.  Wow.

I see a lot of circular reasoning in there, and like I said before, the entire thing is built on a fundamentally flawed premise.  I'm not feeling particularly logical at the moment, and I'm sure others will come along and fill in the blanks anyway, so I'll leave it at that.
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 rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26506
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2012, 01:11:58 PM »
A former boss of mine was particularly fond of the term "mental masturbation" for idle philosophizing that had long lost the sight of the overall picture. I can't say that term didn't immediately pop into my mind when reading several posts here.

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

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3394
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2012, 01:12:08 PM »
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?

 :huh:


« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 01:17:15 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26506
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2012, 01:20:11 PM »
Whether justified or not, it's pretty obvious everybody here is rather tired of seeing the flawed premises and reasoning regurgitated once again.

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

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 27353
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2012, 01:23:04 PM »
Some points about the argument and not about Omega.

1. You can't use the axiom that marriage's main purpose (not the only one) is to propagate society when you can't prove it other than saying "Well it obviously is". The sky is obviously blue, marriage isn't obviously for the main purpose of furthering society.

2. You can't compare homosexual relationships to you and your buddy. Are you and your buddy gay and in love with each other with plans to live together and commit your lives to one another? Didn't think so, they aren't the same thing and to be honest, saying a homosexual relationship is no different than a friendship between straight people is rather insulting to a whole group of underrepresented people.

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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5385
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2012, 01:25:16 PM »
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).  Yeah, in many respects, it IS a duplicate topic.  But I think in this case, it's actually better that he started a new thread.  He is trying to bring out a particular aspect of the argument that is different than the general topic of the other thread.  And while this will likely go off track a bit and turn into the more general discussion on same sex marriage and homosexuality, that's just kind of the nature of P/R.  It's always a judgment call as to whether to allow something to stand alone or be merged into other discussion, and it's not always an easy call.  But this is far from the first time we've had more than one thread on very similar topics.  So far, Omega isn't doing anything against the rules in this thread.  So the options on the part of other people posting in the thread are (1) post on topic, or (2) don't respond to the thread.  It's not that hard. 
"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."