The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Off-Topic
Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Thread Tools
Old February 4th, 2014 (5:15 AM).
Corvus of the Black Night's Avatar
Corvus of the Black Night Corvus of the Black Night is offline
Wild Duck Pokémon
Gold Tier
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: With the Birds
Age: 24
Gender: Other
Nature: Impish
Posts: 3,429
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?
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

Old February 4th, 2014 (7:51 AM).
Beloved's Avatar
Beloved Beloved is offline
Fictionally Destructive
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Where ever my master takes me
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by daigonite View Post
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?
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.

FC: Unknown ATM
Friend Safari Type: Unknown
Pokemon: Unknown
PM if you add me so I can add you. Always looking for friends.
Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2014 (8:04 AM).
Sopheria's Avatar
Sopheria Sopheria is offline
響け〜 響け!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: 深き海の彼方
Gender: Female
Nature: Modest
Posts: 4,933
Originally Posted by Went View Post
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.
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.
Paired with Dragon and Koakuma

Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2014 (9:06 AM).
ANARCHit3cht ANARCHit3cht is offline
Call me Archie!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by LoudSilence View Post
So you think that the burden of welfare supersedes the need for a new generation of workers?
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.

Opinions are by definition not lies nor truths, they are perspectives. And keeping people content is desirable for the state, sure, but clearly we are content -- perhaps even complacent -- considering there is no hint of either rebellion or anarchy in the face of this and many other issues. Ignoring what they see fit but making us feel happy "overall" has always been the MO of the American government.

I would ask you to consider that same history and see how many things the government has done that we've been displeased with but not willing to do much beyond protests in the street. We are generally alright with the status quo, and thus the government does not feel a need to give us everything we want if it does not fall in line with the direction they wish to steer our country in. There is simply not enough societal pressure to do so.
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.

I was not wondering that. I am not the author of the article, nor am I in support of his argument.

All I asked was for perspectives on the key point (yes there was only one), and you have offered yours. I'm just continuing the discussion because I do not feel it has been properly answered.
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.
Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2014 (11:23 AM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 5,883
Originally Posted by ANARCHit3cht View Post
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 >>

Originally Posted by daigonite View Post
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?
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.

Originally Posted by Went View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2014 (11:45 AM). Edited February 4th, 2014 by Entermaid.
Entermaid's Avatar
Entermaid Entermaid is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Gender: Other
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 2,151
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:

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.

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
#Team Popplio & Brionne
Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2014 (3:42 PM).
Beloved's Avatar
Beloved Beloved is offline
Fictionally Destructive
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Where ever my master takes me
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 253
There are a few studies out that that actually have same-sex couples being happier and staying together longer than the average heterosexual couple.
Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2014 (6:20 PM).
Mareeep's Avatar
Mareeep Mareeep is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 11
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.
Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2014 (4:10 AM). Edited February 8th, 2014 by Dakotah.
Dakotah's Avatar
Dakotah Dakotah is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 903
Originally Posted by Aashutosh Kumar View Post
The purpose of Marriage is mostly to have children and to continue the family Line! This has been accepted by the society and these rules strengthens it!
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.

Originally Posted by LoudSilence View Post
What I meant was marriage is frequently considered a religious institution, and people usually want equality within that framework (for the sake of).
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.
Personal Website
YouTube Channel

Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto

"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:21 PM.