| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/2/2001; 10:05 PM Ok, here's another one from Nitcentral... The debate is relatively sane over there, so I thought I'd bring it over here, too, so that other people could look at it.
Given that the US is a secular country (see the First Amendment), and civil (non-religious) marriage is legal and recognized in all 50 states, is there a good secular reason to ban gay marriage?
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Sean McMains on 2/2/2001; 11:00 PM Is there a good secular reason to ban gay marriage? There are two secular arguments that I think are worth examining: 1. Public Health: the gay community tends to, as a whole, engage in sexual acts with more partners than the hetrosexual community does. (I know, vast generalization, and not true in many specific instances.) Male homosexuality by its nature is also prone to spread disease more readily than other forms of sexual contact because of the tissue damage it can cause. But if we take this approach, then one needs to consider banning straight sexual promiscuity as well. And, for that matter, the gay people considering marriage probably aren't the ones who are most at risk for disease either, since they presumably have fewer partners. So, it's hard to argue this angle convincingly. 2. Children: there still hasn't been enough research to really settle this, but there's certainly a chance that children who are adopted by gay couples would have a different experience growing up than children who have a parent of each gender. But then there are also many Fathers and Mothers who make home life very hard on their children, so it becomes hard to draw this line by gender as well. The solution I've heard that satisfies me most as a Christian and a citizen is this: that we make a clear distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. A civil marriage could be entered into by two consenting adults of whatever gender, and would be afforded the same legal status that marriage is today. The religious marriage would be another thing altogether -- it might should even have a different name -- and would be recognized as a marriage in accordance with the religious principles often used to argue against legalizing gay marriage. What do others think? Sean
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 2/3/2001; 12:53 AM What I find most interesting about your idea, Sean, is that at least in Oregon this is already sort of kinda the status quo. That is, it's perfectly possible to have two separate marriage ceremonies, one secular and one religious. (In fact, it's possible to skip the religious one entirely.) I know, because when I got married I was practicing a form of Buddhism that's not very common--the nearest priest is in Pinole, California. He is not legally sanctioned to perform marriage ceremonies in Oregon. So we got a legal marriage in a judge's quarters in September, and then got the religious ceremony in the Buddhist temple the next January. No matter how many times I told myself that the legal ceremony wasn't the important one, I was as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof! I kept saying "I do" too early. Is it really so important to give this legal ceremony a different name? Is the concept of marriage really so rigid it can't incorporate change?
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 2/3/2001; 12:55 AM ScottN wrote: >Ok, here's another one from Nitcentral (http://www.nitcentral.com)... > >The debate is relatively sane over there, so I thought I'd bring it over >here, too, so that other people could look at it. > >Given that the US is a secular country (see the First Amendment >(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1)), and civil (non-religious) >marriage is legal and recognized in all 50 states, is there a good secular >reason to ban gay marriage? ... >Remember, you can't drag out the Bible to prove your point on this one! Why are counties in Tennessee where you can buy beer but not wine? Oh sure those counties probably have some secular justification for the law, but bottom line its religious in nature. Why is homosexual marriage not recognized by any state? Because a large majority of Americans think homosexuality itself is immoral, whether due to Biblical reasons or otherwise (and don't blame me, I'm the messenger. Anybody else been following what happened with gay issues in Vermont?) I mean take it back a step further. Why do we need the state to recognize marriage in the first place, regardless of whether we're talking about heterosexual or homosexuals or whatever? Marriage is an essentially religious ceremony, and why should it deserve special sanction by the state? We don't ask the state to certify circumcisions, baptisms, etc., why marriage?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 2/3/2001; 1:06 AM At 11:16 PM 2/2/01 -0500, Sean wrote: >1. Public Health: the gay community tends to, as a whole, engage in sexual >acts with more partners than the hetrosexual community does. (I know, vast >generalization, and not true in many specific instances.) Male >homosexuality by its nature is also prone to spread disease more readily >than other forms of sexual contact because of the tissue damage it can >cause. But if we take this approach, then one needs to consider banning >straight sexual promiscuity as well. And, for that matter, the gay people >considering marriage probably aren't the ones who are most at risk for >disease either, since they presumably have fewer partners. So, it's hard >to argue this angle convincingly. First, I think it is all but inevitable that eventually gay marriages will be recognized in the United States. I would be very surprised if 50 years from now gay marriages aren't recognized. Our culture is way past the point where anyone can stop the inevitable move toward recognizing that. That being said, the debate over homosexuality is really a debate over the degree to which human sexuality is best channeled for the good of society. Specifically, in most cultures that I am aware of there are a wide range of taboos and other controls on sexuality designed (well, they're not always literally designed) for one purpose -- to channel sexual activity into procreation. The strong anti-homosexual bent is clearly directed at the perceived danger of non-procreative sex. On the one hand, the game is over and in some ways the conservatives were right -- the sexual revolution was in many ways an unmitigated disaster (one need only look at the AIDS figures in Africa to see the results).
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 2/3/2001; 2:14 AM That being said, the debate over homosexuality is really a debate over the degree to which human sexuality is best channeled for the good of society. Specifically, in most cultures that I am aware of there are a wide range of taboos and other controls on sexuality designed (well, they're not always literally designed) for one purpose -- to channel sexual activity into procreation. The strong anti-homosexual bent is clearly directed at the perceived danger of non-procreative sex. Frightening, isn't it? I often think of the contrast between most of my semi-promiscous heterosexual friends, and two gay friends who have been together for almost 20 years. They are two of the most morally sound, caring and decent people I have ever known. So I'm always a little blown away that there even IS a debate over homosexuality. I've said it before, people, and I'll say it again: "Homosexuality: If you don't like it, don't do it!" It's that simple. As for me, I'm a heterosexual man, and in my entire life I've never had sex with the purpose of having babies in mind. Oooh, what a sinner I am! I should be ashamed, but strangely, I'm not. Not in the least little bit. In fact, I'm so happy about my life, I'm often caught SMILING, which is proof that I went insane many years ago. Yes, it's true, folks, non-procreative sex will make you go insane. You know what I don't like? When people get married, and then cheat on each other. That really sucks, doesn't it? Not me, man. I'm going to ask my new girlfriend to marry me on the 17th of this month. And if she says yes, and we get married, I will DIE before I'll cheat on her, and I have every belief she feels the same way. Isn't that cool? That's the ticket, baby. What were we talking about again, homosexuality? Hey everybody, seriously: Leave those gays alone. I catch you messin' with 'em, I will be messin' with YOU! If they want to get married, I suggest you bring some rice, and wish them well. God knows I will. (These comments were NOT an attempt at actual debate, nor were they meant to inflame, enrage, or engorge. They do not reflect the opinions of the owners of this site, or any other site, except of course MY site, which for the record is http://www.carelessabandon.com )
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/3/2001; 3:07 AM Why do we need the state to recognize marriage in the first place Because there are all sorts of legal implications to marriage, such as next-of-kin, tax law, spousal privilige, etc... Because marriage is written into the entire legal system of the US.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/3/2001; 3:10 AM Oops, I forgot the big one -- $$$. There's a major inheritance issue there. A spouse has special rights should the other spouse die intestate.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Sean McMains on 2/3/2001; 9:47 AM Not me, man. I'm going to ask my new girlfriend to marry me on the 17th of this month. And if she says yes, and we get married, I will DIE before I'll cheat on her, and I have every belief she feels the same way. Isn't that cool? That's the ticket, baby. Good for you, Richard! Bravo! Sean
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 2/3/2001; 11:58 AM Thanks!
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 2/3/2001; 4:48 PM Best wishes, Richard. ScottN, I think what Brian is trying to get to is, why does society reward marriage in this fashion? I think it's because marriage, in general, helps to make a more stable society. Promoting long-term stable relationships between consenting adults is a good thing. For example, married couples would seem to be more stable socially, and tend to make long-term decisions instead of short-term ones. Take buying a home instead of renting: Habitat for Humanity promotes people owning a home, one they are paying for and have earned. The organization's experience shows that when people own their own home, they take better care of it and get more involved in their community. They mow the lawn. It bugs them when drug dealers shoot each other down the street. That sort of thing. Note that scientifically speaking I'm kind of blowing smoke here because I have seen no research that compares marriage versus non-marriage and the results of those kinds of decisions on the neighborhood or the culture. Might be an interesting field to look into, that. Assuming that as a society we do value long-term commitments between consenting adults, that actually argues in favor of gay marriage. I strongly feel (again, no data) that if gays were treated as normal by the majority of society and the media, including having the same marriage rights as straight couples, things like promiscuity in the gay community would drop like a stone. I mean, really, if suddenly everyone you and everyone you knew was told you couldn't get married, that you were an abomination and a perversion, if you were discriminated against in the workplace, if the American Dream made a specific exception for you--no settling down and raising kids for you--that would be a horrible situation to try and live a stable life. I'm not a big fan of social forces dictating behavior, but when social forces actively work to treat you like scum, that's gotta have some effect on you and the way you live your life, doesn't it?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 2/3/2001; 6:47 PM Mark wrote: >Assuming that as a society we do value long-term commitments between >consenting adults, that actually argues in favor of gay marriage. I >strongly feel (again, no data) that if gays were treated as normal by the >majority of society and the media, including having the same marriage >rights as straight couples, things like promiscuity in the gay community >would drop like a stone. Yes this is pretty much my thinking. The conservative anti-gay marriage argument seems to be that by allowing gay marriage society will be sanctioning undesirable sexual activities. The problem with this is even if you agree that homosexuality is problematic, our culture is way past the point where you could put that genie in the bottle. As someone else pointed out, extreme promiscuity is as much a heterosexual phenom. as much as it is a homosexual phenom. except for a very small number of people. It would be better to convert the homosexuals into good married conservatives rather than continue current approaches. And in my opinion a lot of the current problems conservatives complain about would have been a lot less difficult if conservatives had practiced a policy of benign neglect towards the gay community earlier in the previous century. I think a case can be made that police repression directed at homosexuals is as responsbile for the creation of a gay movement as such as anything else.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/3/2001; 10:46 PM The conservative anti-gay marriage argument seems to be that by allowing gay marriage society will be sanctioning undesirable sexual activities. But again, is there a secular reason why such activities are undesirable, when they are in a committed, monogamous relationship such as marriage?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 2/3/2001; 11:33 PM At 11:05 PM 2/3/01 -0500, Scott wrote: >The conservative anti-gay marriage argument seems to be that by allowing >gay marriage society will be sanctioning undesirable sexual activities. > >But again, is there a secular reason why such activities are undesirable, >when they are in a committed, monogamous relationship such as marriage? The secular reason would be the same as the religious reason -- the view that homosexuality is just wrong. While there are certainly a lot of people who oppose homosexuality for strictly religious reasons, there are also plenty of relatively secular individuals who oppose it just because they think it immoral and/or disgusting. I suspect, for example, that Allen Iverson wasn't expressing any deep seated religious views the other day in Indiana. From personal experience, the people I've talked to who oppose gay marriage oppose it for much the same reason they would oppose something like polygamy. Inevitably whenever I ask someone to explain why they oppose polygamy, most people respond with straightforward "just because it's wrong" type answers. Like bans on homosexual marriages, bans on polygamy has more to do with maintaining social stability by controlling the ways in which sexual expression is recognized. Like homosexuality, though, even if that made sense at one point, we are way past the line where it makes sense anymore in America (though there is going to be a slew of polygamy prosecutions in Utah as that state tries to polish its image prior to the upcoming Olympics there in 2002).
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 2/4/2001; 1:22 AM Hrmph. While the discussion at nitcentral is doing it's typical circles around and around ("gay marriage will lead to more child rape!", I kid you not), this bit about social stability and polygamy gives me pause. Can the same argument for gay marriage increasing social stability be made for polygamy? I personally can easily see how gay marriage promotes the exact same social stability that straight marriage does. Again, you're rewarding the kind of people you want in your society, those most interested in living stable lives. Settling down, paying taxes, working hard at their jobs, that sort of thing. But when the relationship moves from one-to-one to one-to-many (or many-to-many), does that promote the same social stability? Desmond Morris (he of The Naked Ape) has made the point several times that humans seem to have evolved for long-term pairbonding. That is, one person with one other person. This would seem to argue against promoting polygamy, as it's less stable than pairbonding. And at this point I really wish I had access to some kind of research to back that up. I personally have never seen anyone have a successful "open" relationship, but I'm just me, not a peer-reviewed published research study.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 2/4/2001; 12:23 PM And at this point I really wish I had access to some kind of research to back that up. I personally have never seen anyone have a successful "open" relationship, but I'm just me, not a peer-reviewed published research study. Sometimes we really don't need research of any kind, because we have this wonderful thing called instinct. My instincts tell me you will never see anyone have a successful "open" relationship, because of our basic human need to bond and feel trust with one special person. Show me a man who claims to have two happy wives, and I'll go interview the wives, thank you very much, and I'm guessing I'm going to uncover some resentment, and negative feelings regarding that relationship. Hell, show me a man who claims to have one happy wife, come to think of it, but that's another issue. If two people are completely honest, and trusting of one another, and there's never a possibility of "interlopers," because one carries the other with them in their heart at all times, then it doesn't matter, gay or straight, those two people have a basic feeling of security that promotes a very healthy lifestyle. I CHALLENGE ALL TO DISPROVE THAT STATEMENT!
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Peter on 2/26/2001; 7:39 AM The secular arguments against gay marriage are basically that it is immoral and perverse. It is unnatural in the sense that no animals would ever dream of doing it, and it is an entirely sterile masturbatory activity. It is perverse and the vast majority of people think this, religious or not. It certainly is not at all equal to a loving relationship between a man and a woman. I am not interested in Scott's arbitrary restrictions on my criticisms of his ideas. He says gay marriage is acceptable and necrophiliac marriage is not because one is consensual and the other does not include consent. I say that consent is very important, but no more than the idea of childbirth and fertility. If we allow gays to barge in on normality and marry like ordinary people, and get rid of the man-woman idea, why the hell should we keep the consent idea? What if someone gave their consent before death? The truth is that in the real world, nearly everyone has moral objections to gays, and religious or not, these should be considered. All normal athiests would want their kids to grow up normal, and not end up meeting their "lovers" in toilets. All parents would hate their sixteen year old daughter to be bedded by some man, but their horror would be ever so much greater were their son being bedded by him. Homosexuality is a miserable, disease ridden excuse for a relationship. Whatever daft PC arguments anyone can produce cannot overcome this truth. Peter.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 2/26/2001; 8:32 AM In article <Conversant-46532@dns2.macrobyteresources.com> , Peter <augustuscaeser@hotmail.com> wrote: >All normal athiests would want their kids to grow up normal, and not end up meeting their "lovers" in toilets. (emphasis mine) >Whatever daft PC arguments anyone can produce cannot overcome this truth. (emphasis mine) >Peter. Again, a note from the owner of this here place: I have zero tolerance for namecalling. Don't.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Sean McMains on 2/26/2001; 10:47 PM It is unnatural in the sense that no animals would ever dream of doing it... Peter, this just flat isn't true. That animals engage in homosexual contact is one of the points that people in favor of homosexuality cite with regularity to prove that it is natural. Of course, I expect more and different things of people than I do animals. But let's argue our opinions factually. Sean
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Peter on 2/26/2001; 10:54 PM I am afraid I do not believe this is true. I hate to quote Hitler, but as he always said "Even animals do not do such things". Why do you think otherwise? Peter.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Sean McMains on 2/26/2001; 11:00 PM > I am afraid I do not believe this is true. I hate to quote Hitler, but as he > always said "Even animals do not do such things". Why do you think otherwise? Well, mostly because I've seen it. And because I know others who are trustworthy who have seen it too. And because I've had male dogs rub up against my leg, adding the sin of anthriality, to coin a term. ;-) Sean
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/27/2001; 12:06 AM 1. "Immoral" is not a secular reason. 2. Homosexuality in animals: See: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl. See also this web article, And this article from Science News. Oh, here are the references and sources for the Science News article. Now give me your documentation that homosexuality does not occur in animals.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Aradia on 2/27/2001; 1:37 AM Observations: Peter does not have a good secular reason. Other than his [CENSORED FOR INFLAMMATORY CONTENT] say-so. Instead, he tries to get people to agree to his POV by trying to appeal to people's emotions. Thus, he uses the words "normal" and "daft" and "wicked" and other such inflammatory terms. After all, it's too easy to fall in the trap of, "If I believe such-and-such, I must be abnormal/daft/wicked. I need to alter my thinking." It's a good move when you're in front of people, and you're offering the chance to think for them. It's a bad move when an entire group gangs up on you because you don't listen to them. "Listen to what I say, look at what I do. I shall only see and hear you. You shall care about me; I could care less about you." That's Peter's style. He has no secular reasoning. He has no factual reasoning. He has no logical reasoning. And he has no unemotional reasoning.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 2/27/2001; 2:27 AM "Censored", indeed. Milady like picking on her future ruler. "Immoral" is not a secular reason Depends. If the morality is based on a particular religion, no. But as Brian pointed out, all human societies attempt to control reproduction. That can be as much a secular control as a religious one. I still see very little harm in homosexual marriage and much good. It sends a message I'm sure Peter disagrees with: gay people are just people and we really don't care what you do. Go live the American Dream, you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. I have no data at all to back this up but it's still my gut feeling that most of the promiscuity in the gay community is because society has basically told them they can't have a normal life. So, surprise! They don't have a normal life. If gay relationships were treated by society as common and boring most gay relationships would turn out common and boring. I prefer common and boring for many things.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Peter on 2/27/2001; 11:52 AM Well Scott, as I said, you need not restrict reasons fro laws to secular ideas, unless you live in a communist dictatorship. But in any case, Morgan for one would certainly disagree that athiests are entirely without morals, and I would too. Just about everyone I know is unreligious, but they all have moral objections to homosexuality. Machiko has revealed the truth of what this argument is about. No one really believed that only the greatest bible-thumping right winger could object to gays. We all know that the vast majority of people find them amusing, and their behaviour repulsive. What you want is a reason you consider to be "good", not just any reason. As, of course, you refuse to make any real distinction between good and evil, in terms of individual actions, then of course there can be no debate. Just please do not pretend there are no reasons, just because you disagree with them. Peter.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/28/2001; 12:27 AM Well Scott, as I said, you need not restrict reasons fro laws to secular ideas, unless you live in a communist dictatorship. I would hardly call the U.S. a communist dictatorship. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you can't pass a law based on religion.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 2/28/2001; 12:29 AM Oh, and I'm still waiting for documented evidence against homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Eoghainn Oniongardail on 8/14/2001; 2:29 PM ScottN wrote> >But again, is there a secular reason why >such activities are undesirable, when they >are in a committed, monogamous relationship >such as marriage? No. And, even when gays are not in a "committed, monogamous relationship such as marriage", they should have the same rights as others in this society. As long as non-gays have such rights, then gays and bisexuals should, too. It is such a simple issue. I don't see why anyone has a problem with this.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 8/31/2001; 3:55 PM Furthermore, Peter, look at the subject of this discussion. I'm asking if there's a secular reason. I know the religious arguments... I'm looking for non-religious ones.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 9/1/2001; 1:36 PM >Furthermore, Peter, look at the subject of this discussion. Just FYI, Peter's account is still suspended due to namecalling. I've been trying not to make a big deal about it, because I'm hoping to convince him to be more polite and rejoin the discussion. But at this time he can't answer you.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Simon on 10/12/2001; 5:20 PM This response is primarily aimed at the speculation as to the need for state sancification of marriage. There are many important reasons for it that are not at all religious or ceremonial in nature, but very practical. Legally married couples can be responsible for each others debts, certain binding legal contracts, and other entirely secular transactions and relationships. Marriage is a legal procedure in this sense of the word, and for legal reasons it needs to be registered, administered, and recorded in accordance with the rule of law. Removing the legal aspect of a marriage would cause problems that I can't even begin to address. People could get "married", run up debts in each others' names, and then disavow having ever been "married" or blame the spouse and there would be no accountability. Consider a couple that wants a divorce. Law and the legal system help to protect the concept of marriage, as well as the individuals involved. There is no wrong in the state certifying certain religious insitutions to perform legally binding marriages; it is well and proper that it should do so, provided the individuals from that religious institution meet whatever set requirements and conditions set forth by the state. Separation of church and state, however, demands that the religious institution retain the right to perform a marriage based on its own norms, rules, and regulations. It would be entirely improper for the government to require religious institutions to allow homosexual marriages. It is the right of each individual, to include the members of a religious organization, to believe what he or she wants to believe about marriage, and if church XYZ doesn't believe in homosexuality, requiring it to perform a homosexual marriage is simply not within keeping with the principles of democratic society. Religious organizations have every right to set their own rules. However, the idea of a secular or legal marriage, that is, entering into the binding agreement regulated by applicable law, should not be regulated on the basis of religion. The difficulty separating the religion from the legal agreement comes from the very deep Judeo-Christian tradition of western civilization, which has come to equate the two concepts as one and the same, NOT as separate aspects of a single thing. That is, it in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is not two separate ceremonies or agreements entered simultaneously; it is a single agreement with both legal and religious ramifications. The trouble with the concept of homosexual marriage in our society is, in a sense, trouble with the concept of marriage. Major religions that don't allow gay marriage aren't going to change their minds on the issue anytime soon, and it would not be permissible to force them to; doing so would set a very unhealthy precedent. The only other option is to separate the religious pretext from the legal agreement, and that would require almost a societal re-thinking of the concept of marriage. It would require re-defining a very old custom, and any anthropologist will tell you that old habits die hard. Marriage has been thought of in terms of this duality for thousands of years; changing that custom requires more than a few simple penstrokes from a legislator. In any case, no one has a constitutional right to marriage. Marriage has not always even been regulated by the state and has not always been a governmental function. In the very early days of American history many states did not legally sanction or register marriages; as with so many things in American history, regulation came when the loose and unbinding rules were consistently abused. They were introduced to regulate and restrict the activity of private organizations - religious clergy and their churches - so their activities were conducted in such a way as to prevent other legal problems. The legal aspect of marriage began as a restriction of a religious freedom and was met with resistance in our early history. People in many states viewed legally sanctioned marriage procedures with disdain and mistrust. In that sense, it is not one of the responsibilities of government to ensure that anyone who wants a marriage can get one. It isn't a right. The concept remained that it was a religious procedure, regulated for the sake of preserving sanity in society and to prevent abuse that could clog the legal system and otherwise create problems. I haven't seen too many secular reasons to deny homosexual marriages, but then, marriage is not a purely secular ceremony in the western tradition and definition of the word. Our regulation of the religious rituals has led to a de facto state ceremony that can be considered apart from the religious pretext, but it is important to bear in mind that this happened as an outgrowth of regulation of religious rituals; the state monitoring what religions did; not vice versa. I would argue that in the case of western civilization, the conept of purely secular marriage is foreign, and as hard as old traditions are to break, new traditions are to create.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 10/12/2001; 6:52 PM Interesting thoughts. However, in the US, one can be married in a civil ceremony, performed by a Justice of the Peace (a judge). Why should the state ban such marriages between persons of the same sex, given that the reasons against it tend to be religious in nature?
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Simon on 10/12/2001; 7:54 PM That's true; a justice of the peace can perform a legal marriage. The thrust of my essay was to point to the problem of definition inherent in this kind of question, and the definition requires some historical perpspective. The fact that the law creates the legal condition of marriage between a man and woman does not equate to a ban against homosexual marriages; it is simply the absence of a law to creat the legal condition of marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or whatever. Using the word ban is, I think, a little heavy. Assault rifles are banned; they used to be allowed, that didn't go too well so they were banned. Pedophilia is banned. Murder is banned. Homosexual marriages aren't banned; they simply haven't been instituted, and there is nothing in America's legal sytem, history, or traditions to suggest that it must or should. . . from a purely secular standpoint. In most states, the law doesn't say "homosexual marriage shall be illegal". In most states, the definition of marriage in the legal lexicon is a legal condition established between a man and woman wherein they are responsible for each others' debts. The language doesn't account for homosexual marriages because, as mentioned in my essay, they are not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage, and not part of the traditional western concept of marriage. The law isn't based really on morality; otherwise, might adultery be a criminal offense? The law is the civil complement and control lended to what originated as a religious concept. The ability of a justice of the peace to perform a state approved legally binding marriage stemmed from the necessity to regulate. We still haven't made the cultural leap to completely secularize the idea. I personally am neither a proponent nor opponent to the idea. Also, remember, the concept of marriage didn't come about through secular institutions. That was the thrust of the essay; the legal definition followed the religious definition, not vice versa. My argument was simply that we haven't completely culturally separated the religious from secular aspects of marriage, and so the secular rules mirror the religious rules from which they are derrived. We haven't created the new rules that would create the condition of legal marriage between two homosexual individuals. The lack of creation of a legal condition does not equate to a ban on it, or an infringement of someone's rights.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 10/12/2001; 8:43 PM An interesting question arises, though... Vermont has approved "civil unions", which are essentially gay marriages. Now, given the "full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the Constitution, wouldn't other states be required to honor them?
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Simon on 10/12/2001; 9:19 PM I'm honestly not knowledgable enough in jurisprudence to adequately address that question. I'm not familiar with Vermont law or with the civil union law there, as defined by Vermont law. Therefore, what follows is pure speculation on my part, and I'm not supporting or rejecting the ideas, just trying to lend some speculation as to the quesion you posed. Honoring or recognizing another state's laws doesn't mean adopting them. Again we run into the problem of definition. Faith and credit would apply in the case of a uniformly defined condition, like marriage, and it is likely for this reason that Vermont law stopped short of calling this civil union a marriage and instead called it something else, in effect, creating a new legal condition without (guessing here) precedent in the legal lexicon. I'm not sure that the existance of that condition in Vermont means that Ohio has to extend the same obligations and rights to civilly united people that they would get in Vermont. It's not a legal condition in the new state. Married people have different rights and privileges from State-to-State; tax rules change, rules about wills, inheritance, and other such things all change from State-to-State. This, mind you, is purely speculation - I'm not a lawyer, ya know. . . BTW, this is a pretty neat site, I'm having a ball. . .
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 10/12/2001; 9:42 PM At 09:59 PM 10/12/01 -0400, ScottN wrote: >An interesting question arises, though... Vermont has approved "civil >unions", which are essentially gay marriages. Now, given the "full faith >and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) >(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1) of the Constitution, >wouldn't other states be required to honor them? No, states wouldn't be required to do so, for two reasons. 1. The Supreme Court has held that states don't have to give full faith and credit to the actions of other states if those actions go against legitimate public policy interests of the other state, and the Supreme Court has also consistently held that outlawing homosexuality has legitimate public policy ends. 2. The above legal argument was rendered irrelevant in 1996 when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Note the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1 which rarely gets quoted, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Defense of Marriage Act explicitly says that if a state decides to allow gay marriages, a) such a union does not qualify as a marriage for federal purposes and b) other states can refuse to recognize such unions. The exact text is: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State , territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State , territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." At this point, there would have to be an explicit repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act for gay marriage to be legitimized nationwide, and the odds of that happening any time soon are very small.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 10/13/2001; 12:03 AM Simon, Glad you're enjoying the site. I have some minor problems with your arguments, though. It seems that you're arguing that "it's always been this way, so there's nothing wrong with banning gay marriages", and the reason "it's always been this" way is religious. By that argument (carefully trying to avoid points in The Game), one might argue that civil rights laws were unnecessary because "it's always been this way". The original question (and you've come the closest to answering it, BTW) is the title. I'm looking for a reason NOT ROOTED IN RELIGION that gay marriage should be banned (or not be allowed, semantically different, but essentially the same thing). Keep up the good posts! I like them!
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Simon on 10/13/2001; 1:55 AM Well, you kinda miss my point. And, I'm not defending the "because that's how it's always been" reason. My point was to note that gay marriages are not banned; they simply haven't been established, and that isn't just a semantic difference. It's a major difference. You're talking about creating an institution out of thin air, not modifying an existing one; marriage, by our cultural understanding of the word, is a male-female activity, and that's just the plain and simple truth. You won't find too many societies in mankind's long history where same sex marriages were really common. You're talking about creating out of thin air a legal relationship. That's not just an issue of semantics. It's the difference between existance and non-existance. The difference between having an apple and not having an apple. Besides, semantics are important, especially when you're talking about laws, rights, and constitutionality. My argument was partially that looking for exclusively secular reasons against instituting gay marriages can't be done unless you secularize marriage. We haven't really done that yet. If you want to secularize marriage than you're talking about something else altogether, because in the western tradition, marriage is not purely secular. Culturally, it's just not purely secular. You can't legislate cultural change. If there is a valid secular reason, that's it - you just can't create a law that re-defines a cultural attitude and expect it to stick. Another purely secular reason is the argument that marriage is not a protected right. It therefore is at the discretion of the states to define and regulate. It isn't a protected right to marry someone any more than it is a protected right to get a free vacation to Hawaii every year at Christmas time.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: gwendy joysen on 3/3/2004; 6:00 PM The answer to the subject question is simply "No." There is not a non-religious reason to ban gay marriage...as long as you specify that you are requesting rational, intelligent, scientifically based reasons. In response to the comment < "My point was to note that gay marriages are not banned; they simply haven't been established." > Not true. Gay Marriage is banned in 38 states as a reaction to the inevitable. More importantly, the "marriages" - the unions between two consenting same gender adults, have exisited for as long as we have. The arguement isn't that gay marriages have never existed, it is that they have never been recognized by heteros, nor protected or respected by government. The only reason we are even discussing this is because gays are the minority. That's really the bottom line. As with all minorities, Gays must rely on the compassion, understanding of justice and rational intelligence of others who differ from them, in this case heterosexuals, in order to ever attain the same legal protections. << "It(marriage) isn't a protected right to marry someone any more than it is a protected right to get a free vacation to Hawaii every year at Christmas time. " >> Marriage is protected by the laws of this country and almost all other countries on this planet. To say you do not have the right to marry is to say you do not have the right to life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Buuuut, by the government underwhich we live, we are granted those rights and the protection of the law to experience them without the infraction of others trying to control us. Therefore, yes, marriage is a legally protected right and should be extended to all, not just breeders. Marriage was once a legal contract of a man's ownership of his woman. Marriage changed because people were marrying for love instead of ownership and because women as well as men started fighting for the rights of women to be respected as fully human, not property. The definition of marriage changed. Gay couples have been married for who knows how many centuries. I know a married gay couple who have been together for 50 years. And unlike the few heterosexual married couples I know who have been together for almost that long they stay together for love, not because "god hates divorce." Anyway, this gay couple is married whether bigots respect them or not. They are married. There are so many "married" gay couples now that the culture HAS changed and the law must change to meet it. It doesn't matter what the readers of this site decide, gay marriage will be acknowledged by the law because it must be.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 3/3/2004; 6:38 PM gwendy, your post reads like poetry to me. I agree with every single word, with all my heart. That was beautiful. I can't believe this discussion has been going on for three years! gwendy, are you leaving any original works here at the site? If not, please do.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 3/3/2004; 6:40 PM Oh and you can't "secularize" marriage. Some people are married only by civil union, and have already "sercularized" THEIR marriages, but that doesn't stop anyone else from invoking the name of God for their union. Thanks to everybody for saying your stuff!
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Webber on 3/4/2004; 4:17 PM Yeah, using the Right's logic, Atheists can't get married either. Of course this shouldn't be a surprise, since our current President is the son of a man who once said that Atheists shouldn't be ocnsidered citizens. Yep, George H.W. Bush, in a speech available on the public record, in so many words called Atheists Un-American. As both an American AND an Atheist, I was understandably offedned by that.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 3/7/2004; 12:47 PM since our current President See, Brian? That wasn't so hard, was it? [Mark, feel free to Dump this one].
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Webber on 3/7/2004; 6:27 PM Scott: Tell me something. Why are you so gung-ho about people accepting his legitamacy, when there are perfectly reasonable questions about it? I can understand the Bushies having an irrational fear of reason, but why do YOU, who doesn't like Bush any more than I do, seem to think that the fact that he hasn't been drawn and quatered yet alone makes him the legitamte winner of the 2000 election?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 3/7/2004; 8:45 PM Because, as I've said elsewhere, it looks like ad hominem, sour grapes, and weakens your argument; not to mention the fact that his opponent in 2000 (Mr. Gore) has accepted him as president.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Webber on 3/7/2004; 11:00 PM It's not ad hominem beucase it's true. Sour grapes you say? Fine, they are, but not wihtout good reason. Tell you what. Let's go find someone, kill their cat, then come back in 4 years and see if they're still sour about it. Weakens my argument? I beg to differ. I think it only reinforces my point about how poor a job Bush is doing by reminding people that he shouldn't be doing it in the first place. As for Gore, well I didn't vote for him either and this is part of it. He caved in to the Right far too often in his carreer. This is just another example. And please, do not try to drag that whole "it was 4 years ago" argument into it. Some little punk broke my nose 8 years and I'm still bitter, and all things considered, stealing an election in an alledged democracy is a smidge worse than snapped cartilage.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 3/8/2004; 10:37 AM Brian Webber wrote:
Not quite, Brian. First, this wasn't in a speech, it was at a press conference held at O'Hare in 1987. Second, to date the only account of the statements by Bush related to atheists comes from then-American Atheist Magazine midwest bureau chief Robert Sherman who didn't record Bush's comments. Frankly, Sherman's reporting is suspect, especially given that he makes statements like this on his web site about the alleged exchange between him and Bush,
That statement had me ROTFLMAO, and suggests that Sherman is not much of a journalist. Anyway, if Sherman ever finds a tape or someone else who was there who corroborate's his transcript, then it might go a long way to explaining the horrible Bush-era progroms against atheists, but until then the evidence that Bush actually said this is pretty shaky.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 3/8/2004; 2:17 PM melissa smith wrote,
Nope. While that claim is commonly made, it is simply not true. It is based on a gross misreading of divorce and marriage statistics from particular years. Specifically, the error is in assuming that if in, say, 1995 there were twice as many marriages as divorces that this must mean the divorce rate among married couples is 50 percent.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: lindsay on 3/8/2004; 6:24 PM Even so... the divorce rate is increasing right?? anyway, i'm sorry i didn't have time to read the actual essay, but i have something i want to say to the responses... idk where the bush topic came up, but to the gay marriage, i believe it should be allowed. I am a cristian, and usually a conservative, but on some things i have a liberal attitude, and this is one thing that i believe should be allowed, not because i think it is right by my religion, but by politics. I try to separate religion and politics, and most of the time it comes out right. I know i won't have a same sex marriage, but if someone chooses to have one, go ahead. it doesn't offend me. I think it's unnatural, but i have some gay friends, and they are fun to hang out with. plus, i agree that having two loving parents is better than just one or none at all. i was just rambling.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 3/8/2004; 7:45 PM lindsay wrote: "Even so... the divorce rate is increasing right??" No. The divorce rate in the United States peaked in the late 1970s. The divorce rate in the U.S. fell in the 1980s and 1990s. Part of that is due to the aging population (marriages most likely to end in divorce are those between people under 40) as well as the rise in cohabitation -- if I live with a woman for three years and then we split up, it's not record as a divorce. The marriage rate is also declining. In 1980, 21.2/1,000 people in the United States were married. In 2002, only 15.6/1,000 people in the United States were married. At that rate, we'll need gays to start marrying soon because heterosexuals are opting out.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Seth Dillingham on 3/8/2004; 8:05 PM On 3/8/04, Brian Carnell said: >The marriage rate is also declining. In 1980, 21.2/1,000 people in the >United States were married. In 2002, only 15.6/1,000 people in the >United States were married. At that rate, we'll need gays to start >marrying soon because heterosexuals are opting out. You're sure that's out of 1,000, and not out of 100? Only 1.5% of the population is married? That's very weird. Where'd you get those stats?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 3/8/2004; 8:42 PM "You're sure that's out of 1,000, and not out of 100? Only 1.5% of the population is married?" My bad. The source I got that from used awkward phrasing, and I misinterpreted the figures. Those figures are the percentage of eligible people who *get married* ever yyear. So in 2002, 1.56 percent of people over the age of 15 actually got married.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 3/10/2004; 12:00 AM This site http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html says: Since 1990: 1991, 0.47% 1992, 0.48% 1993, 0.46% 1994, 0.46% 1995, 0.46% 1995, 0.43% 1997, 0.43%, 1998, 0.42%, 1999, 0.41%, 2000, 0.41%, 2001, 0.40%, (Mostly from NCHS, some from Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the U.S., which often differs from NCHS by 0.01%) They add that the oft quoted 50% rate comes from Census projections, and one of the things they say is: About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women's first marriages may end in divorce for these age groups. The likelihood of a divorce is lowest for men and women age 60, for whom 36 % of men and 32 percent of women may divorce from their first marriage by the end of their lives. A similar statistical exercise was performed in 1975 using marital history data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). Projections based on those data implied that about one-third of married persons who were 25 to 35 years old in 1975 would end their first marriage in divorce. Lindsay, Brian corrected you on the Divorce rate increasing, but I want to mention that I enjoyed your post, and agree with you wholeheartedly. If you drink, I will toast you on your next shot, and if you don't, I will name a star after you. (It will have previously been named, but probably something stupid like 1X-11, or something)
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: soccerpumpkinman on 12/18/2004; 6:05 PM hi for my final exam in one of my classes i have to debate (with a team) the reasons why gay marriages should not be legalized. i have read all of the arguments here and almost all of the ones against gay marriages are weak bacause they only tlak about the moral reasons that it should not be allowed. does anyone have any reasons that are not religiously, or morally based on?
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 12/19/2004; 7:21 PM soccerpumpkinman wrote: >hi for my final exam in one of my classes i have to debate (with a team) the reasons why gay marriages should not be legalized. i have read all of the arguments here and almost all of the ones against gay marriages are weak bacause they only tlak about the moral reasons that it should not be allowed. does anyone have any reasons that are not religiously, or morally based on? > How is an argument weak, all other things being equal, because it discusses the *morality* of a practice? Sheesh, I can just see these folks next -- does anyone have any arguments against murder that are not based on religious or moral reasoning, because all of these religious/moral arguments against murder are inherently weak?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Webber on 12/20/2004; 12:23 AM Carnell: I think I'm gonna smakc the next schmoe who thinks it's OK to even sort of equiveqate(sp?) homosexuality with murder. It got old before it was even new.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 12/20/2004; 4:14 PM Brian Webber wrote: >[Talkback about Offtopic: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? by ScottN] >---------------------------------- > >Carnell: I think I'm gonna smakc the next schmoe who thinks it's OK to even sort of equiveqate(sp?) homosexuality with murder. It got old before it was even new. > Thank you, Mr. Webber, for again completely missing the point.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Webber on 12/20/2004; 5:02 PM I don't think I did. No one on the pro-gay marriage side I know of EVER brings murder up in the context of the discussion. That's a tactic generally reserved for the Rapture Right.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 12/20/2004; 5:31 PM Brian Webber wrote: >[Talkback about Offtopic: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? by ScottN] >---------------------------------- > >I don't think I did. No one on the pro-gay marriage side I know of EVER brings murder up in the context of the discussion. That's a tactic generally reserved for the Rapture Right. > Please google on "reductio ad absurdum" and please re-read my post.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 12/21/2004; 4:23 PM Brian Carnell asks, innocently: How is an argument weak, all other things being equal, because it discusses the *morality* of a practice? Sheesh, I can just see these folks next -- does anyone have any arguments against murder that are not based on religious or moral reasoning, because all of these religious/moral arguments against murder are inherently weak? This is pure nonsense. Gay marriage victimizes no one. Murder always has a victim. The two things are not related in any way, shape or form. Religious/moral arguments against murder are not weak. Religious/moral arguments against gay marriage ARE weak. Do you see how that forces your analogy into the realm of the absurd? I would like to take this one step further. In my OPINION, (only an opinion, and not to be taken as anything more,) even attempting to prevent gay marriage in any way, shape or form is immoral. Doing so will make God punish you. Preventing gays from marriage goes against God's will. God wants us to LOVE each other. God likes marriage. The opposite of gay marriage is gay sex out of wedlock. Parse that all you want. Equating gay marriage with murder is still insane.
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 12/21/2004; 5:29 PM Richard Davidson wrote: >[Talkback about Offtopic: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? by ScottN] >---------------------------------- > >Brian Carnell asks, innocently: > >How is an argument weak, all other things being equal, because it >discusses the *morality* of a practice? > >Sheesh, I can just see these folks next -- does anyone have any >arguments against murder that are not based on religious or moral >reasoning, because all of these religious/moral arguments against murder >are inherently weak? > >This is pure nonsense. Gay marriage victimizes no one. Murder always has a victim. The two things are not related in any way, shape or form. Religious/moral arguments against murder are not weak. Religious/moral arguments against gay marriage ARE weak. Do you see how that forces your analogy into the realm of the absurd? > > >Parse that all you want. Equating gay marriage with murder is still insane. > You really should have bothered to read what I wrote. Nowhere did I equate gay marriage with murder. And the argument is *not* that any given argument against gay marriage is weak. The argument put forth by the original poster -- as I make abundantly clear above -- was that arguments against gay marriage that rely on moral or religious grounds are inherently weak *BECAUSE* they rely on moral or religious claims, which is patently absurd. " i have read all of the arguments here and almost all of the ones against gay marriages are weak bacause they only tlak about the moral reasons that it should not be allowed." By that standard, the claim that "murder always has a victim" is a baseless argument against murder because it relies solely on any number of underlying moral claims (actually "murder always has a victim" is lousy because it is tautological, but regardless, making someone the victim of a murder is only bad once we accept a number of *moral* claims about the victim in question).. Contrary to the poster, the *moral* reasons for or against gay marriage are the *only* relevant arguments. Or to put it a bit more bluntly, what's an argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on appeals to morality? Here's one: I just don't like gay people, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Here's an argument in favor of gay marriage that doesn't rely on appeals to morality: I really like gay people, so they should be allowed to marry. I suppose someone might come up with some oddball argument for or against gay marriage that doesn't touch on the morality of gay marriage directly -- if we allow gay marriage, sales tax revenues will fall 2%, so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry -- but I doubt we'll find any such arguments that are meaningful. So, *again*, how is an argument weak, all other things being equal, because it discusses the *morality* of a practice?
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 12/21/2004; 9:38 PM Brian, you absolutely DID equate gay marriage with murder. Here's how: 1. This is a thread about gay marriage. 2. A poster asks "does anyone have any reasons that are not religiously, or morally based on?" 3. You respond "How is an argument weak, all other things being equal, because it discusses the *morality* of a practice?" 4. You add "Sheesh, I can just see these folks next -- does anyone have any arguments against murder that are not based on religious or moral reasoning, because all of these religious/moral arguments against murder are inherently weak?" You don't have a point. As usual, you are diluting the discussion with the ridiculous. In short, you don't have a coherent argument against gay marriage, so you play word games. You are equating gay marriage with murder. That cannot be debated. You have done exactly that, and then said you didn't. No one "missed the point." The point is, you are putting murder and gay marriage on equal footing as both being arguable only based on moral considerations.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 12/21/2004; 11:25 PM >You don't have a point. As usual, you are diluting the discussion with the ridiculous. In short, you don't have a coherent argument against gay marriage, so you play word games. May I never make the foolish decision to ask for help with my homework in this forum. Honestly, I think Brian picked the murder example out of his hat. The original poster wanted an argument against gay marriage that is not based on moral considerations. But what argument can there be for or against anything that is not predicated on moral considerations? Is there a good argument against stealing....or against public nudity...or against requiring child seats...or against anything whatsoever that *isn't* based on moral arguments? I don't think so. I think morality guides us each, but that we each have a different definition of "moral" than each other. (My definition does not include religion, for example. Or the Bible. Or a magical superhero in the sky. Just saying.) I'd imagine Brian is in favor of gay marriage, considering he's generally libertarian (small "l" in his leanings). Don't let his specific example distract you.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 12/21/2004; 11:30 PM "Religious/moral arguments against murder are not weak. Religious/moral arguments against gay marriage ARE weak." But soccerpumpkin did not say "Religious/moral"; soccerpumpkin said "moral". When Brian means moral I am positive he does not mean religious.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Mark Morgan on 12/21/2004; 11:32 PM Although perhaps soccerpumpkin did. We do not know, and perhaps never will.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Richard Davidson on 12/22/2004; 3:13 AM Well, all righty then. As a photographer, I just want to point out that if any gays want to marry, I'll be more than happy to photograph the wedding, at the same price as I charge for heterosexual couples. I will NOT photograph murders, though!
Re: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: Brian Carnell on 12/22/2004; 5:29 PM Mark Morgan wrote: >"Religious/moral arguments against murder are not weak. Religious/moral arguments against gay marriage ARE weak." But soccerpumpkin did not say "Religious/moral"; soccerpumpkin said "moral". > >When Brian means moral I am positive he does not mean religious. > I personally do not prefer religious arguments. Saying, "gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong" is not a particulary convincing argument to me. However, so far I have yet to see any convincing argument for the foundations of morality that are any better -- its just that we are better able to see that the religiously oriented are expressing a preference rather than making any sort of argument for why we should prefer their version over another. So, we can immediately see the problem when we ask the religious opponent of gay marriage, "Why do you think gay marriage is wrong?" The answer is typically something like, "Because the Bible says it is wrong." But consider the utilitarian who might argue that gay marriage is a good thing because it promotes the general welfare and brings the greatest good for the greatest number of people (though the utilitarian could as easily make the opposite argument). Well, why adhere to the view that we should promote the greatest good for the greatest number? It all seems to come down to different preferences, IMO. The non-religious types are just better at dressing up the weaknesses in their foundations than the religious people are. For the moment, I think murder is wrong and gay marriage is good, but I think the foundations for those views are built on quicksand. Personally, I feel a bit like the folks who privately don't believe in God but publicly are theists because they believe that it is important that other people believe in God in order for morality to obtain. There doesn't appear to be anything to distinguish right and wrong, but I have no problem pretending that there is and hope that others will continue playing along as well.
RE: Is There a Secular Reason to Ban Gay Marriage? By: ScottN on 12/22/2004; 9:51 PM I'm not saying that religious people have to sanction gay marriage in their church. If you look at my original post, waaaaay up at the top, I'm pointing out that the US, in its fundamental document describing the powers of and restrictions on the government, CANNOT take any religious point of view into account (that would be "respecting an establishment"). Given that marriage is written into the US civil code (and most States' codes), with implications for inheritance, bankruptcy, taxes, contracts, etc...; and further given that civil marriage (by a Justice of the Peace, etc...) has no religious component, what is the secular reason for banning such marriages between gays? If a religious institution is opposed to such marriages, then certainly it would be free to not perform such marriages, but their religious beliefs should not affect the law.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|