Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[Pangloss]

ROFL!

 

You guys have created quite a stir here at SFN World Headquarters. Mooey is running around in circles screaming "We're smarter than that! We're smarter than that!", swansont is shoving pushpins in cute little Pangloss and iNow dolls (I think mine's head is about to fall off), and somebody keeps crank-calling blike at 3am and saying "He's yelling fire in a crowded theater!" and hanging up.

[mooeypoo]

People of the thread, hear yee hear yee.

 

The thread has taken a bit of a swing to another type of questions, some of it became questionably uncivil. Pangloss has taken the immediate action of closing the thread and leaving - as a last remark - my previous post that explains the general issues that caused some discontent on the thread.

 

A main issue you all should remember is that this argument is specific, and is not about the whole picture. We are arguing specifically about valid logical reasonings behind opinions, and not necessarily general issues regarding homosexuality and gays in general.

 

When the topic shifts, emotions flare up, and the thread becomes a place of discontent rather than a civil exchange of views.

 

We are going over the thread now and will reconsider deleting the above posts. We know you took the time to write them, and none of us - not Pangloss, myself, or any other moderator - mean to disrespect your efforts. This has been an attempt to restrain a rampant subject, on the verge of getting very personal, very emotional, and very uncivil.

 

Give us a little bit of time to examine which posts should and shouldn't be reinstated.

 

Also, take the closure time to gather your breath and consider that this is - for many of us - a personal subject, and see if it is possible to present your views in a more civil manner, regardless of their content.

 

We are all entitled for our opinions. It's not about WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it. Please take this temporary-closure time to think about that.

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This post is not meant to be a strict summary, but rather a general reminder of the points made. I'm not going to pretend to be able to summarize a 300 post long thread, but we do need some sort of interlude here or the thread is going to go very badly.

 

I again remind all of you that the important issue here is the attitude by which you explain your positions. We are all entitled to have our positions, but we should make sure we are being civil and considerate. That is also part of the forum's rules of conduct. Please try to follow them.

 

The thread's question is a very specific one: "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?"

The subject is very complex, and this thread concentrates ONLY inside the scope of the question.

 

The main idea is to examine the motives behind people's opinions. The matter of them having the right to hold these opinion is not under debate; we are all entitled to our opinions and to speak about our opinions. However, the discussion is specifically about finding relevant secular reasons that are rational and not emotional. The contention of this thread is that there are no such reasons to be found. The thread is meant to test this hypothesis by asking people to give examples of relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

 

JillSwift summarized this idea very nicely:

Interjection: Not having a rational reason for holding an opinion does not default to meaning the opinion is bigoted. A learned behavior is often unquestioned, and in that sense is nothing more than a default position. This is where folks will say "I don't like it, but I don't know why."

Maybe by debating here, we can all find out "WHY". Whether we change our beliefs or not is really not relevant for the specific discussion.

 

 

Remember, we're talking about motivations behind the opinion, not motivations to act. Actions, in the scope of this thread, are irrelevant.

 

There are a few main issues that frame this debate.

• First, we are debating a specific question. It has no bearing (at the moment) on whether or not an action should be taken to change the laws, or whether or not people should actively support gay marriage. The question is simply meant to examine the reasoning behind opposing gay marriage.
  
• Second, the debate is meant to examine reasons behind opinions, not to judge the people holding those opinions. Because we concentrate on a very narrow, very specific aspect in this (otherwise quite complicated) issue, the conclusions must remain in the realm of the question itself. We're debating the rationality of reasoning behind specific opinion. We should not extend that to say a general statement about the person holding such opinion, because we quite frankly don't know.
  

 

The thread started "with a bang" - a statement that was blunt and strong. That isn't to say that it doesn't have merit, or that it didn't take a slight turn in subject. In general, the claim was not yet disproven, as the reasonings put forth were either shown to be inconsistent, stemming from religious views or irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.

 

That, however, does not mean the subject is forever true. It will be enough for someone to present a single relevant secular reasoning that is rational and consistent to show that the premise of the thread is wrong. This, however, still needs to be shown.

 

Also, we should take into account that we all hold irrational beliefs; some of us care about trying to change them, some don't, but either way, the discussion at hand is meant to serve as a way to examine our own personal reasonings behind our own opinions. If it leads to any of us reconsidering our values, all the better. The process of considering our values is what makes us thinking, moral people.

 

Whether we agree about the conclusion is a completely different issue.

 

So, here is a brief and general list of the claims that were brought forth. I am not sure if it's complete, but it doesn't have to be. The discussion will be reopened and anyone could bring up any claimj they want. The purpose of this post is to summarize, briefly, this massive 11-page 300-posts thread.

 

• Marriage is a term made for "Man" and "Woman".
  This claim was shown to be inconsistent, because the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly since it's creation, both socially and legally. For one, marriage refered to a sort of buying-rights of the woman; that obviously changed. Also, the legal definition excluded "colored" people. That, too, has changed.
  Further, this claim is irrelevant for the scope of the debate, as was shown before, because legal definitions are not, by themselves, reasoning to hold an opinion, as the next point discusses.
  Lastly, the definition is based on religion, which makes this a non-secular reasoning.
  
• Gays are legally excluded from the definition of marriage by the law, therefore gay marriage should be opposed.
  (I simplified the claim; please correct me if you think I oversimplified it)
  This is irrelevant for the scope of this debate. We are discussing motivation behind opinion, not action. The claim, thereofre, is inconsistent, because if it were true, people should have agreed with all laws, and never change those laws. Historically, that is shown to be false. Also, it's irrelevant as a reason, by itself, to hold an opinion, and is therefore irrelevant for the scope of this debate.
  
• Gays cannot reproduce, therefore should not be encouraged to marry.
  This is a claim holding two other claims within it. First, that gays cannot reproduce. This claim is inconsistent: there are many other couples that cannot reproduce and are still allowed to marry and get the equal rights. Second, allowing for gay couples to marry does not equal "encouragement". Those couples already are living in a binding relationship - the term 'wedding' and the rights that come along with it are an addition to that existing situation.
  
• Marriage in general should be abolished. Let's just call it "civil union" for everyone.
  This is irrelevant for the scope of this debate. It's shifting the argument. The question isn't how one can find a practical solution to the problem, the question is what motivation one can find behind an opinion. This claim just shifts the question from one definition to another.
  
• We can create a new definition for gays only.
  Again, that is shifting the question. If one thinks that a new definition should b efound, it implies the person is not opposing gay marriage, but rather trying to find a practical solution for it. That is beyond the scope of the debate.
  If the idea of a separate definition stems from a notion that "Marriage" is strictly between a man and a woman, then we should go back to point #1. Finally, this suggestion means that gay couples should be excluded from the rest of society in this definition. This must be supported by a valid reason, otherwise it's not relevant or rational.
  Finally, the proble with definitions - particularly one of 'marriage' is that they STEM from religious viewpoint. If that's the case, then this reasoning is not secular.
  Jill did a good job summarizing the idea of definitions in this post, answered by Mr Skeptic's post and about 5-6 following posts.
  
• Marriage is the legal establishment of an intent to produce children
  This claim is inconsistent. If it were so, then infertile couples would not have recieved marriage certificate. Nor would couples with some genetic abnormality that can be passed on to the next generation. Obviously, the state does not see marriage as that type of establishment.
  
• There are physical differences between gay couples and straight couples.
  Yes there are (though probably less than many thing), but there are also physical differences between men and women, that does not make it a valid reason to oppose equality between the sexes. The claim is irrelevant and inconsistent.
  
• There were some claims about child safety and psychology for children being raised by gay couples.
  This claim was shown to be completely false by peer reviewed articles and quite a large number of research papers. There was no significant difference between children raised in straight or gay homes. The claim is based on false data, and is therefore irrelevant.
  Here's my post with 4 peer-reviewed research papers and 3 extra links on the matter: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=515005&postcount=156
  

 

The reasons given are not judged by their superiority to one another, only by their relevancy and secular nature. Those are two conditions that should apply to a reason for it to flip the contention of the thread.

 

In post #182, StringJunky makes a very good point:

Mooeypoo: I hope it is clear from my earlier posts my personal opinion on this matter but I am just highlighting one or two realities...I am minded to take the position of Devil's Advocate sometimes to see how an opposing view may stand up. I hope it helps to ultimately strengthen the case not weaken it.

The purpose here is to debate and examine our views (and others' views). If we continue this debate under the assumption that we're all here to exchange views rather than to attack views, we will have a much better discussion.

 

It was a hard task going over the thread and trying to summarize the points made. I am quite sure I missed points and/or missed counterpoints or explanations. Please feel free to correct me or point out if a claim that seemingly was shown to be irrelevant/non-secular wasn't shown to be so, and we can solve the remaining issues.

 

However, I urge you all to remember this is a delicate subject touching many of us personally. Please try to make sure your replies are civil and respectful so we can all learn from one another.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Thread reopened.

 

The deleted posts were reinstated. Again, you are all asked to review the code of conduct and try to be careful of the attitude you choose to show when posting.

Edited September 22, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Mooeypoo is made of awesome.

 

(Needed to be said, and yes that is an official mod comment.)

[A Tripolation]

Mooeypoo is made of awesome.

 

(Needed to be said, and yes that is an official mod comment.)

 

Agreed wholeheartedly.

And since all of my arguments are highlighted above, and each of them discounted with a rational vehemence, I guess that means I'm out.

[The Bear's Key]

Looks as if everything should be on track with mooey's great job of summarizing the entire thread.

 

Marriage has also been a matter of arrangement, often by nobles over their peasantry, certainly between noble families as matters of union and guaranteeing noble heirs, and also between families outside nobility as matters of business and union as the nobility faded. Marriages have been arranged in other cultures traditionally for much the same reasons. Marriage has only within the past 150 years or so become a matter of love.

Here's an excercise for the opposition that might shed better insight onto how traditions must sometimes change. The reason why it'd possibly offer more insight is because you'd have to place yourselves in different shoes.

 

Ok here goes.

 

Reading over JillSwift's post above, how would've you convinced the people of that era of the need for change or more enlightened thinking? Keeping in mind such people are likely to use tradition as the main defense in their arguments.

 

It's more of a question to reflect on personally, but if you feel like answering it -- why not? I'd definitely be interested to see a good answer to that.

 

Holy freakin crap. The kind of argument I like, that in one fell swoop can expose how the weaker other reasonings are possibly built on heated feelings and/or ingrained passions of speculative origin, no matter how even if the roots of those might be strongly perpetuated by certain figures in government, religon and media and believed on a national level.

Fixed.

 

Just to let people know, no disrespect was intended to those in opposition here, as to anyone reading the post it might've originally came across that I meant people here.

 

But such isn't the case, for "perpetuated" I meant on the level of political machinery.

[iNow]

Click the link for a larger view:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_same-sex_marriage_debate_g/samesexmarriage.php

 

[walkntune]

http://www.home60515.com/4.html

 

Why do you feel the state should pass laws that support behavior that has health consequences? Sure Two consenting adults can engage in such behaviors and take risks but why should the state support it? If you are opposed to a behavior because of the health issues and welfare of others are you still considered a bigot? It bothers me that it is taught and supported in some schools as an alternative lifestyle to children.What's the difference between this or teaching them about smoking or drinking or any other abuse that has health consequences? How can this bring any benefit to our society?

[mooeypoo]

If you want to make the case that homosexuality has health issues, I suggest you find a source that is peer reviewed and not the mythical creation of a deluded web author.

 

If you had read this - and other - threads before hurrying to respond with such an assault on reason, you would see that the peer reviewed sources, the ones that actually go by scientific evidence and empirical tests, have shown this statement to be blatantly wrong.

 

This debate was relatively civil and involved intelligent claims, and avoided personal attacks, bigotry and unsupported logical fallacies. Let's keep it this way.

 

~moo

 

~moo

[A Tripolation]

http://www.home60515.com/4.html

 

Why do you feel the state should pass laws that support behavior that has health consequences? Sure Two consenting adults can engage in such behaviors and take risks but why should the state support it?

 

Oh...this should be fun.

 

/me pops some popcorn and waits for the beating.

[walkntune]

the ones that actually go by scientific evidence and empirical tests

Oh I see, Maybe you can point to the right one. Hopefully it's not next to the same one that says sugar plays no part in ADD in children meanwhile schools were being paid for there support of children getting on redilin and candy and soda machines were popping up all across the nation. Just because information is suppressed doesn't make it false.

[mooeypoo]

Oh I see, Maybe you can point to the right one. Hopefully it's not next to the same one that says sugar plays no part in ADD in children meanwhile schools were being paid for there support of children getting on redilin and candy and soda machines were popping up all across the nation. Just because information is suppressed doesn't make it false.

Look. This thread is 300 posts long. You seem to expect me to forgive your insistence to IGNORE all the posts in here, some of which actually answer the claims you made and claims you probably intend to make, and suggest that because I don't jump at the opportunity to repeat myself (and others) then you must be right.

 

You put forth a claim in a 300+ post thread, you are the one in need to prove it. Your resource was a random website; that's not good enough. Find peer reviewed articles, or stop being rude and - at the very least - readthe thread you insist on resurrecting.

 

~moo

[iNow]

at the very least - readthe thread you insist on resurrecting.

I'll take the hit on that one, Moo. The resurrection was mine, as I wanted to share the graphic below.

 

As for the poster above, I really have no interest going around in circles with a kid who thinks homosexual activity results in illness the same way that cigarettes and alcohol do. Some comments are just so silly that they really are not even deserving of correction. Going to the mat with such a blatantly ridiculous claim would imply that our readership is too dumb to see how stupid such an assertion truly is.

 

In essence, I'll treat his claim the same way I would someone claiming that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. With a disheartened shake of the head...

 

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_same-sex_marriage_debate_g/samesexmarriage.jpeg

[walkntune]

HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases

Mucous membranes of the rectum.

 

Among the diseases with which anal sex is associated are HIV,[27] human papilloma virus (HPV) (which can increase risk for anal cancer)[28] typhoid fever[29] and various diseases associated with the infectious nature of fecal matter[citation needed] or sexual intercourse in general. Among these are: amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; human papillomavirus; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8);[30] lymphogranuloma venereum; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis.[31][32][33]

 

The high concentration of white blood cells around the rectum, together with the risk of cuts to the rectum and that one of the functions of the rectum is to absorb fluid, increases the risk of HIV transmission because the HIV retrovirus reproduces within the immune system's T-cells/CD4 cells. Use of condoms and other precautions are a medically recommended way to lessen risk of infections. Unprotected receptive anal sex is the most risky sexual behavior in terms of HIV transmission.[34][35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex

As for the poster above, I really have no interest going around in circles with a kid who thinks homosexual activity results in illness the same way that cigarettes and alcohol do. Some comments are just so silly that they really are not even deserving of correction. Going to the mat with such a blatantly ridiculous claim would imply that our readership is too dumb to see how stupid such an assertion truly is.

 

I come in here for honest interests of debate and get called rude.You are insulting to me as a person and not my arguments and get away with it. I guess you have to love the integrity.

Still searching through peer reviews but thought I would put wikepedias in here for now.

[mooeypoo]

You *are* being rude, walkntune. We've discussed your claims in this thread multiple times, and you ignore it on purpose, as if that would make you right.

 

You are obviously not here for honest debate; if you were, you'd be going over the thread, and making comments on anything that *WASN'T* already discussed.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Still searching through peer reviews but thought I would put wikepedias in here for now.

 

Are the numbers in brackets just decoration then? Wiki is supposed to cite reasonably reliable sources.

[mooeypoo]

Those also are also quite irrelevant, though, seeing as anal sex is not limited to gay couples (by far) and that gay couples aren't limited to anal sex (by far).

[Mr Skeptic]

I guess smoking is irrelevant since deaths are not limited to lung cancer and lung cancer is not limited to smokers.

[D H]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_same-sex_marriage_debate_g/samesexmarriage.jpeg

They really need to fix the font on that graphic. The c's turn into o's. "dogs and oats living together" dang near made me spew on my screen. It's late, and I'm hundreds of pages into writing, what can I say.

 

Let's take the argument that marriage exists because children need a stable family, a mother and a father. What then to do then about those heterosexual partners that either cannot or will not have children? Annul their marriage? Pester them with visits from men in black suits to get busy and have a baby?

 

Personally, my wife and I, along with my daughter-in-law's parents, would really appreciate it if the IRS or some other agency would pester our kids with phone calls that ask "when are you going to give your folks grandchildren?" Our requests seem to fall on dead ears.

 

 

The "children need a mother and a father" argument might be valid. Children with only one parent do tend to fare worse in many ways than those with two parents. Many a study has shown this. Has anyone done any studies on the outcomes of children with a two mothers, or two fathers? I suspect that the real factor that makes children from stable families perform better economically/psychologically/criminologically/whatever ility you like is not that a child has "a mother and a father"; it is that a child has two parents (period).

 

Even if this is the case, is the difference so significant as to rule out gay marriages? Even if this is the case, there are certainly other avenues of redress that do not require discriminating against an entire class of people. That "even if" begs the question. Those who make this claim need to prove it, and really prove it. Discrimination is in general repugnant. I want to see solid evidence that gay marriage does indeed cause dogs and oats to live together.

 

 

The real reason to ban gay marriages is of course that you gay people are scary, very scary -- you might make my children or my spouse turn gay (that should be on the chart, BTW).

[walkntune]

You *are* being rude, walkntune. We've discussed your claims in this thread multiple times, and you ignore it on purpose, as if that would make you right.

I went through the posts "again" because you accused me of being rude so I figured this point was argued and I missed it but once did not find the post you mention. I did notice one brought up about health issues and it was argued that two consenting adults have a right to take their chances thus why I wrote

Sure Two consenting adults can engage in such behaviors and take risks

in my first post in here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Those also are also quite irrelevant, though, seeing as anal sex is not limited to gay couples (by far) and that gay couples aren't limited to anal sex (by far).

 

Also wanted to point out that i don't believe a marriage actually becomes a marriage technically until it has been consecrated through sex and I don't believe being oral would constitute having sex. If you don't believe me ask Bill Clinton.

[uncool]

So being unable to have sex would mean you can't get married?

Really?

=Uncool-

[Severian]

So being unable to have sex would mean you can't get married?

Really?

=Uncool-

 

No, being unable to have sex would mean you are married.

[walkntune]

So being unable to have sex would mean you can't get married?

Really?

=Uncool-

 

The word matrimony actually breaks down from latin into the words matyr and mony. Matyr means" mother "and mony is state of being.This is usually done through the mating process.

Now we have stretched the meaning of the word marriage to encompass unions of ideas, things and people but it changes the meaning of the word marriage to no longer mean matrimony.While I read a post where someone mentioned marrying a desk or a chair, I can't see where that meaning would not fall into this category either.

 

The English language has adapted that notion to encompass unions of ideas, things, and people

[Dudde]

No, being unable to have sex would mean you are married.

 

Wiser words were never spoken.

 

As for

 

I did notice one brought up about health issues and it was argued that two consenting adults have a right to take their chances thus why I wrote

 

...

You really can't try to deny a marriage for a certain sex practice (sodomy/"anal"), because then you need to monitor heterosexuals to make sure they're not engaging in the same. Since we know they are doing the same thing in vast quantities, I see no foundation to base any more faith in the argument you're bringing up.

 

Besides that, not all homosexual couples have sex to begin with, some of them are quite old and just want to live out the rest of their lives together.

 

This is usually done through the mating process.

 

Unless you can make a stand on the argument that it's the "only" way it can be done, or feel like making the assertion that the original creators of the word only meant mating, this is entirely irrelevant. Eggs are usually eaten cooked, but I've eaten them raw before - people usually call their parents by Mom and dad, but there are a great many exceptions to this -

 

Now we have stretched the meaning of the word marriage

 

I thought you were talking about the word matrimony. Are you claiming we're using both words wrong? Don't words usually evolve with society based on need? I don't remember gay always meaning homosexual, nor a certain derogatory term aimed at gays used to mean something completely different.

 

EDIT:

I forgot to add - matrimony is usually describing the state of being married, as your paragraph suggests in a way - so then it really depends on the definition of marriage. Which really hasn't changed until recently, in desperate attempts at keeping gays from marrying.

[iNow]

The flaw in the reasoning here is this. It's the engaging in sex practices unsafely which make people more prone to health risks. It's not the fact that they are homosexual, and not all homosexual sex acts are risky, nor are those acts restricted to homosexuals.

 

Why is this so hard, people?

[walkntune]

I forgot to add - matrimony is usually describing the state of being married, as your paragraph suggests in a way - so then it really depends on the definition of marriage. Which really hasn't changed until recently, in desperate attempts at keeping gays from marrying.

Yes you are correct on this. Matrimony was describing a certain state of the usage of the word marriage. And that state is (state of being a mother).

Unless you can make a stand on the argument that it's the "only" way it can be done, or feel like making the assertion that the original creators of the word only meant mating, this is entirely irrelevant. Eggs are usually eaten cooked, but I've eaten them raw before - people usually call their parents by Mom and dad, but there are a great many exceptions to this -

There is only one way to be a mother and you have to be female.

You really can't try to deny a marriage for a certain sex practice (sodomy/"anal"), because then you need to monitor heterosexuals to make sure they're not engaging in the same. Since we know they are doing the same thing in vast quantities, I see no foundation to base any more faith in the argument you're bringing up.

No, I agree.I don't believe the sex practice should be encouraged to children at all whether homosexual or heterosexual.

As far as denying the use of the word marriage as in to encompass unions of ideas, things and people I can care less.

Just don't take the definition of holy matrimony because as I have explained

1 You have to be a mother

2 It actually does mean the state of being a mother.

(Now I believe the word marriage is derived from taking a bride or young woman but admit I am still searching on this.)

Don't words usually evolve with society based on need?

Hmmmmm! What's your definition of need?

or feel like making the assertion that the original creators of the word only meant mating,

No they actually meant "the act of being a mother" but somehow I believe men will be mothers before this is over with.

This is usually done through the mating process.

And notice I did say usually!

Personally I agree with a post I read about secular marriage being a little on the absurd side. I don't see any meaningful definition outside of spiritual context and it's just a dumb piece of paper and law stating to be joined together for life.Hey, whatever we can do to control people right?

It's an interesting topic. No better understanding of the origins of politics than through experience.

My understanding of the definition of politics

Poly means many and a tic is a blood sucking insect.

 

Why is this so hard, people?

Good try!

 

Conversation is interesting but fruitless.