I agree, I mean, just because someone posits an argument against something doesn't necessarily mean they're making the argument because of hatred or bigotry. Calling people bigots just because they're voicing an unpopular opinion stifles free thought.
Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter LoudSilence
- Start date
I agree, I mean, just because someone posits an argument against something doesn't necessarily mean they're making the argument because of hatred or bigotry. Calling people bigots just because they're voicing an unpopular opinion stifles free thought.
Beloved
Fictionally Destructive
- 253
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Where ever my master takes me
- Seen Nov 22, 2014
Clearly, you have not heard of the most recent cases which have overturned, or challenged, same-sex marriage bans in just the past few months. So, like Utah, are still fighting to keep the ban, but the fact of the matter is that the federal government has already declared that part of the constitution illegal because it discriminates against a set group of people. It is the State-by-State governments that do not want people to get married.
Remember, there are technically 2 governments in the United States: State and Federal. Each state is allowed to make laws of their own, however there federal government makes laws for the country. When striking down a ban in a state, the federal government must have a sound reason for it, and lately they have been striking down same-sex marriage bans one by one. Each one needs a different suit filed against it, and then the federal court has to then listen to both State and People, and either correct its ruling, or reaffirm it.
And 007_eleven, I wouldn't call you a bigot. Insensitive, maybe, but we can't help how we are raised. No, bigots are more like most of the GOP, The One Million Moms(which has far less than one million), most of Utah's government, and a lot of preachers, pastors, and even some rabbi.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen Apr 11, 2024
Let's not forget that there are many, many, many other countries around the Western world that have legalized gay marriages several years ago, with no side-effects of any noticeable kind. Essentially, this whole argument feels a lot like "the Government should deny rights to a particular group of people because they don't get anything directly out of it", which is really terrible.
Corvus of the Black Night
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
By that post's logic, infertile couples should have their marriages revoked at the moment that they are confirmed to be infertile. Seems a little hokey, doesn't it?
Beloved
Fictionally Destructive
- 253
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Where ever my master takes me
- Seen Nov 22, 2014
Welcome to the last defense most of the religious opponents of gay marriage are trying to use. I actually found a video on Youtube taken during a conference in which an opponent said marriage was meant to make kids, and the supporting official then asked about infertile couples, or those who did not want children, and the lady started stumbling. She ended up getting laughed at because her arguments were so weak that no one took her seriously after that.
You just articulated what it is I've been essentially trying to say, but couldn't quite figure out how to say it :)
Precisely. The whole concept of rights as we've come to understand them in the West is that your rights aren't contingent upon whether or not someone else benefits from you exercising them--least of all the government. Freedom of speech is a good example of a right that can easily be detrimental to the government and society as a whole even (*looks at Westboro Baptist Church*). But we still all recognize that they have a right to exercise their free speech regardless of how we or even the government feels about it.
Some people dispute that marriage is a right, but I would say it is because it's nothing but a contract, and we do have a right to enter contracts with one another so long as the conditions of it don't come at the forced expense of someone else's right.
ANARCHit3cht
Call me Archie!
- 2,145
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen Sep 25, 2020
No, I'm merely saying that everything isn't as black and white as you are painting it to be. The world is actually rather quite gray.
While it probably isn't the most heated example to have us up in arms, it is still one. We probably wouldn't rebel over it, but imagine this: If enough people are discontent, a mass protest will form. During this, economic production would slow. While the U.S. isn't exactly known for protests of this scale, I can tell you that such is in the works. While it might not currently be something that happens, every year, the LGBT community gains more and more support from various demographics. I doubt anyone would pick up a gun over gay marriage, but plenty have already picked up the picket signs. And like I said, that number grows every year. And while this discussions focuses specifically on gay marriage, the train of thought that you employ can be applied to many other aspects that the government reigns over. Who's to say they would merely stop there? Honestly, in case you haven't noticed... IT WAS SOCIETAL PRESSURE THAT EVEN ALLOWED DOMA TO BE REPEALED.
While that's understandable, I have to say that it is hardly a discussion. Merely two sides reiterating the same points over and over in hopes that maybe one day it will have been said with high enough of a caliber to get through someone's thick skull.
Call me full of myself, but I really hope people read my posts. Perhaps they would if my name was blue >>
By strict logic I suppose, but I don't think he would say that at all. The author is arguing from the government's perspective, sure. And an infertile couple wouldn't be useful for the state, sure. But marriage keeps people happy, and people don't like things being taken away from them. The article isn't about taking things away from people, it's about not giving them benefits. My interpretation is that the author sees marriage as a bet between the state and a couple that they will have babies. I think it's reasonable for me to say that. In this light it's just really bad taste to take away something you've already granted someone.
Depends that the word "should" means in this context. Most use "should" to express moral urgency or duty, like "the government should collect taxes in order to fund collective projects". But you can use "should" to express the probable effect of a cause, as in "the government should collect taxes, seeing that it would like to fund collective projects". He's probably implying "should" in a moral sense, because it's the mismatch between faulty logic with lack of evidence and his conclusion that comes across as bigoted, but it's still important to consider his argument for what it is.
- 2,138
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- The States
- Seen Nov 6, 2016
Married couples receive benefits in order to increase their likelihood to remain married. Essentially, it needs to be demonstrated that homosexual couples that receive benefits do so for the benefit of the state and a worthwhile investment. Agree.
The writer does make a good point only to the fact that "equal rights" advocates fail to make logical arguments a good deal of time. Mostly making emotional or specious appeals. But, the writer fails to then address, well, does homosexual marriage benefit or not benefit society.
"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."
Further, this is a false proposition. Advocates on EVERY ISSUE thrive on emotional appeals and social mobilization over logical appeals, it's the only way law is funded and passed in the United State unfortunately. The burden HAS been met time and again by social scientists, political scientists, political psychologist, ect. Two reasons largely are:
A) ADOPTION
David Popenoe's work only addressed "single parents and step parents." Of course a mother with less money and time to devote to her children then she would if there were two parents in the picture. The argument doesn't even demostrate those two people need to be of different sexes. Simply stating, "there is tons of evidence" and then citing a disparate body of work demonstrates that the writer is not to be regarded as credible. Further several studies have been put forth to show that same sex parents or equal wealth and health of heterosexual parents perform nearly the same in male homosexual marriages, and actually better in female homosexual marriages. Further, it is safe to say with further evidence that children in the foster care system and orphanages has SEVERE NEGATIVE consequences on mental/social development of children, that if more couples were to adopt them they would be better off. Especially given that adoptive parents must demonstrate sufficient income, background checks, psychological examination, ect. to become a parent, whereas most parents just have to have anatomical parts. In that vein, the writer fails to compare adoptive homosexual parents that have been rigorously screened by adoption agencies against the US Foster Care Parents. That is the only evidence needed to show that the child will live a better life, and therefore is a compelling argument given the great number of foster kids that have negative outcomes from their experiences. With that said, marriage institutions and benefits are crucial to maintaining homosexual marriages in the interest of adoptive children and their improved lives.
2) SOCIAL COHESION
As society give equal rights to citizens, they become more homogenized and reverent to long-withstanding law and customs. In the 70's the country observed sexual frustrated homosexual men having sex public, spreading STD's, dying of STD's, dying of drug overdoses, and social self-segregation that had negative consequences to the economy, healthcare system, among other things that last to this day!
Once provided with more protection, the first of which legalized homosexual sex and relationships. And then, workplace discrimination protection, crime protection, civil unions, among others things set into motion this social cohesion. We observed more gay characters on television, more gay parents and relationships, to which point the shame and social segregation still exist, but to a much lesser degree. Marriage is a landmark issue on this quest to social cohesion necessary for a less polarized state by which can function more cohesively and bolster the health of homosexual individuals.
As a result, the next generation of homosexual Americans will feel less and less dejected from society, follow traditions more closely, such courting, dating, marriage, having children, and doing so with less instances of drug use and unsafe sexual practices. These individuals with a framework of tradition will experience less anxiety and function more proficiently as United States citizens.
I am doing scholarly research on the effects of NOT having a longstanding framework by which a society and an individual lives their lives. These frameworks should only be drastically changed in order to homogenize a society rather than exclude a group. If so, that group will faction off and thus we have political polarization. Once their is cohesion, incremental changes that are longlasting and stabilized can be made to these frameworks.
Both conservatives and liberals fail to understand that we need INCLUSIVE long standing customs or some stable framework of mores, social customs, ect in order for a country to operate more efficiently. The consequences have been negative on our economic substructure. Thus, gay marriage, or homogeneity of homosexuals into the dominant political and social discourse will only help to address the issues of hyper-partisanship.
Now to qualify, some polarization is beneficial, to help commence the dialectical process rather than engage in a "group think" in which we all agree, and thus have not sufficiently questioned our decisions. However, with too much polarization, there is no ability to engage in the dialectical process either. Social cohesion is a requisite of having some middle ground and ability to debate policy more efficiently.
P.S. They just hired this guy to a program I have applied to XD...I will convert him to my way of thinking ;)
The writer does make a good point only to the fact that "equal rights" advocates fail to make logical arguments a good deal of time. Mostly making emotional or specious appeals. But, the writer fails to then address, well, does homosexual marriage benefit or not benefit society.
"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."
Further, this is a false proposition. Advocates on EVERY ISSUE thrive on emotional appeals and social mobilization over logical appeals, it's the only way law is funded and passed in the United State unfortunately. The burden HAS been met time and again by social scientists, political scientists, political psychologist, ect. Two reasons largely are:
A) ADOPTION
David Popenoe's work only addressed "single parents and step parents." Of course a mother with less money and time to devote to her children then she would if there were two parents in the picture. The argument doesn't even demostrate those two people need to be of different sexes. Simply stating, "there is tons of evidence" and then citing a disparate body of work demonstrates that the writer is not to be regarded as credible. Further several studies have been put forth to show that same sex parents or equal wealth and health of heterosexual parents perform nearly the same in male homosexual marriages, and actually better in female homosexual marriages. Further, it is safe to say with further evidence that children in the foster care system and orphanages has SEVERE NEGATIVE consequences on mental/social development of children, that if more couples were to adopt them they would be better off. Especially given that adoptive parents must demonstrate sufficient income, background checks, psychological examination, ect. to become a parent, whereas most parents just have to have anatomical parts. In that vein, the writer fails to compare adoptive homosexual parents that have been rigorously screened by adoption agencies against the US Foster Care Parents. That is the only evidence needed to show that the child will live a better life, and therefore is a compelling argument given the great number of foster kids that have negative outcomes from their experiences. With that said, marriage institutions and benefits are crucial to maintaining homosexual marriages in the interest of adoptive children and their improved lives.
2) SOCIAL COHESION
As society give equal rights to citizens, they become more homogenized and reverent to long-withstanding law and customs. In the 70's the country observed sexual frustrated homosexual men having sex public, spreading STD's, dying of STD's, dying of drug overdoses, and social self-segregation that had negative consequences to the economy, healthcare system, among other things that last to this day!
Once provided with more protection, the first of which legalized homosexual sex and relationships. And then, workplace discrimination protection, crime protection, civil unions, among others things set into motion this social cohesion. We observed more gay characters on television, more gay parents and relationships, to which point the shame and social segregation still exist, but to a much lesser degree. Marriage is a landmark issue on this quest to social cohesion necessary for a less polarized state by which can function more cohesively and bolster the health of homosexual individuals.
As a result, the next generation of homosexual Americans will feel less and less dejected from society, follow traditions more closely, such courting, dating, marriage, having children, and doing so with less instances of drug use and unsafe sexual practices. These individuals with a framework of tradition will experience less anxiety and function more proficiently as United States citizens.
I am doing scholarly research on the effects of NOT having a longstanding framework by which a society and an individual lives their lives. These frameworks should only be drastically changed in order to homogenize a society rather than exclude a group. If so, that group will faction off and thus we have political polarization. Once their is cohesion, incremental changes that are longlasting and stabilized can be made to these frameworks.
Both conservatives and liberals fail to understand that we need INCLUSIVE long standing customs or some stable framework of mores, social customs, ect in order for a country to operate more efficiently. The consequences have been negative on our economic substructure. Thus, gay marriage, or homogeneity of homosexuals into the dominant political and social discourse will only help to address the issues of hyper-partisanship.
Now to qualify, some polarization is beneficial, to help commence the dialectical process rather than engage in a "group think" in which we all agree, and thus have not sufficiently questioned our decisions. However, with too much polarization, there is no ability to engage in the dialectical process either. Social cohesion is a requisite of having some middle ground and ability to debate policy more efficiently.
P.S. They just hired this guy to a program I have applied to XD...I will convert him to my way of thinking ;)
Last edited:
Beloved
Fictionally Destructive
- 253
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Where ever my master takes me
- Seen Nov 22, 2014
There are a few studies out that that actually have same-sex couples being happier and staying together longer than the average heterosexual couple.
- 11
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 27
- Seen Dec 11, 2014
While at first his arguments may seem sound and logical, it is actually flawed in many points.
First off, his argument that the sole purpose of marriage to the government is the propagation of society because that is the purpose of a couple to the government is based off of the idea that any laws the government makes is for the benefit of the government, which is not true. The purpose of the government is to focus on the well being of its people while also listening to the voices of its people. A government should not ignore the interests and desires of its people.
Secondly, he says that a child can only develop properly if it is raised by both a mother and a father. According to this line of reasoning, single parents should seek out a new spouse as soon as possible because that is what will let their child have proper development. This idea of a child only being properly raised if done by two parents of opposite genders is extremely insulting to both single parents and those raised by a single parent, and is not necessarily true. I was raised by only my mother from a very young age, and I like to think I turned out pretty good; I certainly turned out better than most of my cousins, who were all raised by a mother and father.
Thirdly, the idea that allowing gay marriage will lead to any and every type of marriage being legalized is an example of a logical fallacy called a slippery slope. The definition of a slippery slope, according to to The Nizkor Project, is "The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed." An example from the same source is, "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
Fourthly, he assumes that the lowering birth rate is a result of the changing views of marriage. However, a far more logical reason is that humanity is merely following the trend of any population that has grown to the point that it has begun to exceed its resources. It's basic biology, not changing social norms, that are causing this decrease. I would go so far as to say this basic fact of biology may be what is causing some of these changing social norms.
Finally, the author says that allowing homosexual marriage will lower the birth rate. This doesn't make sense, because letting them get married isn't going to lower the birth rate any more than it already has been because these homosexual couples aren't going yo be any less sterile when married than they are now, and a bunch of straight guys aren't going to suddenly decide, "oh, I can get married to other guys now, I better stop making babies and go be homosexual!" That's completely ridiculous, so this argument has absolutely no logical basis, and thus must be disregarded.
First off, his argument that the sole purpose of marriage to the government is the propagation of society because that is the purpose of a couple to the government is based off of the idea that any laws the government makes is for the benefit of the government, which is not true. The purpose of the government is to focus on the well being of its people while also listening to the voices of its people. A government should not ignore the interests and desires of its people.
Secondly, he says that a child can only develop properly if it is raised by both a mother and a father. According to this line of reasoning, single parents should seek out a new spouse as soon as possible because that is what will let their child have proper development. This idea of a child only being properly raised if done by two parents of opposite genders is extremely insulting to both single parents and those raised by a single parent, and is not necessarily true. I was raised by only my mother from a very young age, and I like to think I turned out pretty good; I certainly turned out better than most of my cousins, who were all raised by a mother and father.
Thirdly, the idea that allowing gay marriage will lead to any and every type of marriage being legalized is an example of a logical fallacy called a slippery slope. The definition of a slippery slope, according to to The Nizkor Project, is "The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed." An example from the same source is, "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
Fourthly, he assumes that the lowering birth rate is a result of the changing views of marriage. However, a far more logical reason is that humanity is merely following the trend of any population that has grown to the point that it has begun to exceed its resources. It's basic biology, not changing social norms, that are causing this decrease. I would go so far as to say this basic fact of biology may be what is causing some of these changing social norms.
Finally, the author says that allowing homosexual marriage will lower the birth rate. This doesn't make sense, because letting them get married isn't going to lower the birth rate any more than it already has been because these homosexual couples aren't going yo be any less sterile when married than they are now, and a bunch of straight guys aren't going to suddenly decide, "oh, I can get married to other guys now, I better stop making babies and go be homosexual!" That's completely ridiculous, so this argument has absolutely no logical basis, and thus must be disregarded.
- 900
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 51
- Seen Jul 22, 2016
Elderly couples can get married. No children are likely to be born in such a union. Incarcerated individuals can get married, and since one or both are in jail, it is highly unlikely that any children will result from such a union. A couple where one or the other is infertile is unlikely to result in a child (though surrogacy is an option where one partner is not infertile and can procreate) can get married. A couple who do not wish to have children can get married.
All of this, plus the recognized history of the institution of marriage refutes your assertions. Your assertions are your beliefs, and your beliefs only. They are not reflective of reality.
The people who think that marriage is a religious institution know nothing about the inception of marriage as an institution and therefore their opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Marriage is not, nor ever has been, a religious institution in the United States, Canada, or countless other countries around the world.
If one studied the history of marriage they would discover that marriage was actually a financial transaction. It was about property and title and to ensure the continuance of their lineage. Religion got into the game quite late, and like so many other things usurped the institution of marriage for their own purposes.
But even there religion was only partially successful, for instead of controlling marriage the church was limited to being "permitted" to perform marriage ceremonies. Only, and ONLY, Holy Matrimony (which is not the same is marriage) is wholly owned and controlled by the church. The government doesn't give out Holy Matrimony licences. They give out marriage licences. A church could join two people in Holy Matrimony, but without a marriage licence issued by the government, it has no recognition outside of the church.
So the argument that marriage is a religious institution is so wrong it doesn't even merit attention. It's simply the opinion of the uninformed.
Last edited: