The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

PostmodernProphet said:
homosexuality is an abnormal reaction to members of the same sex, just as alcoholism is an abnormal reaction to alcohol.....only a fool would pretend anyone has suggested exterminating homosexuals.....I suspect the very fact you believe it to be true is an detrimental effect brought on you by having a homosexual in the family.......
Click to expand...

I posted the information about the man who suggested exterminating homosexuals. It is the same man who provided the "research" data that SM posted.

You may suspect all you like. But there have been no detrimental effects from having a homosexual in the family.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?......how does it give something to someone without costing someone something?......and, can we harness it and run the world on it?.....
Click to expand...

As a married couple, I can make legal choices for my wife, make medical decisions for her if she is unable, and if I adopted a child she would automatically have parental rights. Please point out who loses anything when those are granted to someone.

As a married couple, my wife and I have the final word in the disposal of each other's remains after death. Does that cost anyone anything?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not if it's a marital benefit and one couple is married and the other isn't.....then it isn't wrong, it's simply logical....unless you're suggesting it isn't a marital benefit, that it's a committed relationship benefit.....
Click to expand...

If one couple chooses not to marry, then that is logical. When one couple is not allowed it is wrong.
 
WinterBorn said:
If one couple chooses not to marry, then that is logical. When one couple is not allowed it is wrong.
Click to expand...

except that it is also logical that two people of the same sex cannot marry, since the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman....it is forcing a new definition of marriage on society which is wrong.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except that it is also logical that two people of the same sex cannot marry, since the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman....it is forcing a new definition of marriage on society which is wrong.....
Click to expand...

Wrong according to whom? It may be morally wrong according to most religious organizations, but that cannot be used as the basis for our federal laws. Other than religious beliefs, there is nothing wrong about it. With the sole exception of children, a gay couple provides the same benefits to our society that straight couples do. And since our population is far from too small, having children is not an issue.

I still say the best solution is to either remove all gov't sponsored benefits, or have separate definitions for religious organizations and state recognized unions. But that doesn't seem to sit well with folks either, especially when the straight couples and gay couples both have to have the state recognized unions to get the benefits.
 
WinterBorn said:
Wrong according to whom?
Click to expand...

you don't consider it wrong to impose one's morals upon society by law?.......you surprise me......as I have pointed out already, the definition of marriage has been the same for all people since before this country began.....the religious, the secular, the lame (mind and body), the sane, the black, the white, the brown, the ocher and the chartreuse.......changing that definition because you believe it is a better moral choice is just that, imposing your morality on everyone.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you don't consider it wrong to impose one's morals upon society by law?.......you surprise me......as I have pointed out already, the definition of marriage has been the same for all people since before this country began.....the religious, the secular, the lame (mind and body), the sane, the black, the white, the brown, the ocher and the chartreuse.......changing that definition because you believe it is a better moral choice is just that, imposing your morality on everyone.......
Click to expand...

I am not imposing my morality on anyone. If they choose to believe that homosexuality is immoral, they are welcome to do so. I also don't buy the "its always been that way" excuse. That excuse has been used for oppression of women, minority races, the poor, and to justify child labor. The fact that something has been wrong for hundreds of years does not mean it isn't still wrong.

Any religion that does not want to have gay marriages should never be forced to do so. But, by the same token, any religion or religious organization that wants to marry gays should be allowed. And the gov't benefits should be bestowed on couples who fit a basic description of a committed, loving relationship.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am not imposing my morality on anyone.
Click to expand...
you mean because we haven't let you?....

If they choose to believe that homosexuality is immoral, they are welcome to do so. I also don't buy the "its always been that way" excuse. That excuse has been used for oppression of women, minority races, the poor, and to justify child labor. The fact that something has been wrong for hundreds of years does not mean it isn't still wrong.
Click to expand...
"the fact you aren't doing what I think is right doesn't mean I can't make you do what I think is right".......

Any religion that does not want to have gay marriages should never be forced to do so.
Click to expand...

how about, any person who does not want to recognize a gay marriage should never be forced to do so......
 
WinterBorn said:
And the gov't benefits should be bestowed on couples who fit a basic description of a committed, loving relationship.
Click to expand...

so it's your position that the purpose of government benefits is to foster committed, loving relationships?.......do we make them file an affidavit with their tax returns stating they still love each other, then?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you mean because we haven't let you?....


"the fact you aren't doing what I think is right doesn't mean I can't make you do what I think is right".......



how about, any person who does not want to recognize a gay marriage should never be forced to do so......
Click to expand...

They can believe what they want. People were not forced to believe blacks were equal. Students are not forced to believe the Theory of Evolution. But to continue to discriminate based out outdated and prejudiced information is certainly not right.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so it's your position that the purpose of government benefits is to foster committed, loving relationships?.......do we make them file an affidavit with their tax returns stating they still love each other, then?......
Click to expand...

I am describing the reason people marry. I am sure there are exceptions.

What else would you base it on besides a loving, committed relationship? Child bearing?

My point is that gay couples offer the same benefits to society that straight couples do, and that allowing gay marriages would have no effect on your marriage or mine.

Whatever other reasons are given against the gay marriage, must also be held against straight couples.
 
The is no secular case against gay marriage. There are only people that object to gay marriage for religious grounds searching for a secular justification for their religious beliefs.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you don't consider it wrong to impose one's morals upon society by law?.......you surprise me......as I have pointed out already, the definition of marriage has been the same for all people since before this country began.....the religious, the secular, the lame (mind and body), the sane, the black, the white, the brown, the ocher and the chartreuse.......changing that definition because you believe it is a better moral choice is just that, imposing your morality on everyone.......
Click to expand...
It most certainly has not been the same.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am describing the reason people marry.
Click to expand...

but that isn't the issue.....what is the reason the government gives money and benefits to people who marry.....do the American taxpayers have a vested interest in whether two people have a loving, caring relationship?....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
?????....obviously it has.....look what happened when the Mormons tried to change it back in the 1800s.....
Click to expand...
It has not. Charlemange, hero of the catholic church, was noted for having multiple legal wives. Divorce has and has not been permitted. Interracial marriage has and has not been permitted. But the definition has never been unchanged as to who can and cannot marry.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but that isn't the issue.....what is the reason the government gives money and benefits to people who marry.....do the American taxpayers have a vested interest in whether two people have a loving, caring relationship?....
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe they do. It helps create our society.

What would be the reason you contend the gov't has a vested interest in marriage?
 
Beware The Battle-Cattle said:
It has not. Charlemange, hero of the catholic church, was noted for having multiple legal wives. Divorce has and has not been permitted. Interracial marriage has and has not been permitted. But the definition has never been unchanged as to who can and cannot marry.
Click to expand...

odd, I don't recall Charlemagne being around "since this country began".....the definition of one man and one woman has been in place as long as this country has......
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, I believe they do. It helps create our society.

What would be the reason you contend the gov't has a vested interest in marriage?
Click to expand...

I think I stated it several pages ago.......to deal with issues effecting children......paternity, inheritance, custodial rights.......

if I recall correctly it was Napoleon who introduced the concept of the state keeping record of marriage rather than the church......I doubt very much his goal was insuring loving, caring couples.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top