Are there any secular arguments against gay marriage? - General

I became interested in finding secular arguments against gay marriage and WOW are they hard to find. I even headed over to debate.org where someone specifically asked for secular reasons to not allow gay marriage and the first thing people did was quote from the bible, pathetic. Before we start I just want to be clear that I don't have any problems with anyone's sexuality (sad I even have to say that really) I just like to do brain "exercises" from time to time, as well as forcing myself into apposing viewpoints, because sometimes I'm wrong, and I need to be able to tell when I'm just closing my mind off to different viewpoints. Anyway, back to some things I thought up myself; 1. Married couples get penalized in taxes when both work, most gay couples tend to make more money on average than straight ones because both partners work meaning homosexual marriages would get penalized for marrying. We can't stop discriminating against gays because we'd just discriminate against them in a different way :v: 2. Polygamy is another form of marriage that isn't allowed, and arguments against polygamy boil down to "It's icky, and also against monogamy and therefore against my personal beliefs" but I haven't heard of gays supporting the polygamist's right to marriages. It seems like everyone is ok with denying marriage to people they don't agree with, why give homosexuals marriage and not polygamists? 3. Since so many people seem to have a problem with calling gay marriage "marriage" why don't we call them "civil unions", the point for homosexuals is to obtain the legal rights afforded to married couples right? Why not take all the rights granted to heterosexuals but call it something else, win-win. And before you click on that box why don't you use your superior intellect and give me a better secular argument against gay marriage instead?

Pretty sure there's a debate section for shit like this In any case no there aren't any viable secular arguments against it (nor obviously any viable religious arguments)

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46120451]Pretty sure there's a debate section for shit like this In any case no there aren't any viable secular arguments against it (nor obviously any viable religious arguments)[/QUOTE] I considered that, a debate doesn't have one side. Don't be a defeatist, use your imagination.

[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46120343]2. Polygamy is another form of marriage that isn't allowed, and arguments against polygamy boil down to "It's icky, and also against monogamy and therefore against my personal beliefs" but I haven't heard of gays supporting the polygamist's right to marriages. It seems like everyone is ok with denying marriage to people they don't agree with, why give homosexuals marriage and not polygamists?[/quote] Polygamy seriously fucks up the tax code and pretty much any law involving property or custody over living things. A man with three women and seven kids from the group of them combined divorces [I]one[/I] of his wives. How do we split up this family, and how do we decide appropriate child support considering he's still got two more wives to support? If that man dies with no will, how do his wives split up his estate? If a woman with two husbands (one husband also has another wife) goes into a coma, who has the right to make decisions for her? If a man married to two women who are married to another man each, who are married to another woman each, all live together, and one of these women has a baby, what legal custody rights and obligations do any of these adults have over the child? So basically you're employing the slippery slope fallacy, because polygamy has much larger challenges than "it's like a man and a woman together except for two penises or two vaginas". [QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46120343]3. Since so many people seem to have a problem with calling gay marriage "marriage" why don't we call them "civil unions", the point for homosexuals is to obtain the legal rights afforded to married couples right? Why not take all the rights granted to heterosexuals but call it something else, win-win.[/QUOTE] Equal but different is not equal, especially when the main argument against truly equal is an appeal to a Bronze Age mythology and a book that was edited over a span of centuries. Secular arguments against same-sex marriage pretty much amount to homophobia and a hypothetical policy that prioritizes growing the population and families over small details like civil liberties and the happiness of certain sections of the population.

[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46120463]I considered that, a debate doesn't have one side. Don't be a defeatist, use your imagination.[/QUOTE] You want us to invent reasons to oppose gay marriage? Why? It's a very straightforward affair, if there was anything advocates of preventing it could reasonably hold against it, you would know, because they WOULD

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46120451]Pretty sure there's a debate section for shit like this In any case no there aren't any viable secular arguments against it (nor obviously any viable religious arguments)[/QUOTE] That's just plain ignorant. Here's an argument written by Princeton professors on just that topic: [URL]http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155[/URL]

Some secular thinkers believe that "marriage" is more about the ability to procreate and argue against same-sex "marriages" based on that. Plenty of secular ideologies do or could quite easily incorporate that kind of thinking. It's not purely a religious pov

[QUOTE=sgman91;46121164]That's just plain ignorant. Here's an argument written by Princeton professors on just that topic: [url]http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155[/url][/QUOTE] Oh Princeton professors? Homosexuals get your coats then There are people dotted internationally in high positions who are pig ignorant bigots. Of course there'll be opposition somewhere in academic circles. If there's a single strong point in that paper, please quote it, because I absolutely don't have time to read it all. The overview mentions principles and "the moral reality" of marriage, so I wouldn't hesitate to assume that it's bullshit the whole way through. And if they have confused morals with tradition and prejudice it's not exactly secular either [QUOTE=luverofJ!93;46121213]Some secular thinkers believe that "marriage" is more about the ability to procreate and argue against same-sex "marriages" based on that. Plenty of secular ideologies do or could quite easily incorporate that kind of thinking. It's not purely a religious pov[/QUOTE] But you're not really fooling anyone by masking homophobia behind semantics, it's as bad as a religious offense on gay marriage.

They'll find a reason.

Well biologically speaking, two healthy individuals who are in homosexual relationship instead of making babies is bad for the community. That is, if you ignore modern baby-making science (sorry I have no clue what's the word in English, artificial insemination?), heterosexual couples who don't make babies and the small detail of Earth's massive overpopulation. So even if it doesn't make sense anymore, homophobia used to have a reason to exist. It's like greasy food still tasting good even though obesity is a bigger problem (in first world countries) than starvation. Homosexuality really shakes up a few cultural norms. For example, in Finland it's completely common to have common saunas in swimming halls or in the army where you're nude with a bunch of strangers of your gender. Mixed saunas (with strangers) are a lot less common, mostly because of possible sexual tension. This arrangement is based no homosexuals (or pedophiles) existing. Actually this was kind of crappy argument, because I've been in a mixed sauna with young attractive girls and I managed to "control my urges" so I think gay guys will manage as well. Disclaimer: I think it's okay to be gay.

Well, it's pretty gay.

Does arguments against the institution of marriage itself count?

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46120877]You want us to invent reasons to oppose gay marriage? Why? It's a very straightforward affair, if there was anything advocates of preventing it could reasonably hold against it, you would know, because they WOULD[/QUOTE] It's called inducing a change of perspective, and it's a part of creative problem solving. It isn't about coming up with something useful we can actually use, it's just a brain work-out, I chose anti-gay marriage specifically because it's hard. Also, no they haven't come up with good ideas because quality ideas require quality thoughts, and at least from what I've seen, the people actually against gay marriage have turned off their brains. [QUOTE=proboardslol;46122548]Does arguments against the institution of marriage itself count?[/QUOTE] Sure does, the mental exercise is about denying marriage rights to a certain section of the population; I never said we had to care about collateral damage. I also never thought of it either, so kudos to you.

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46121321]Oh Princeton professors? Homosexuals get your coats then[/QUOTE] I say that only to make it clear that they aren't some Baptist pastors from the backwoods of South Carolina. They are fully accepted professors in the secular world. [QUOTE]There are people dotted internationally in high positions who are pig ignorant bigots. Of course there'll be opposition somewhere in academic circles.[/QUOTE] Ironic that this clearly relates to one of their points, namely, that making homosexual marriage equal to heterosexual marriage would make the view held by essentially all of humanity, through all of its history, a bigoted view. This is not comparable to any other single position. The arguments against slavery, for example, were found throughout human history. On the other hand, while homosexual relationships existed at many points, no society recognized them as equal to heterosexual marriages. With that said, this is probably the weakest point presented in the paper. [QUOTE]If there's a single strong point in that paper, please quote it, because I absolutely don't have time to read it all. The overview mentions principles and "the moral reality" of marriage, so I wouldn't hesitate to assume that it's bullshit the whole way through. And if they have confused morals with tradition and prejudice it's not exactly secular either[/QUOTE] The paper is a cohesive whole. It builds on itself throughout. So to quote a single argument without the previous arguments would be a disservice. It's only 30 pages and I suggest you read the entirety of it. This article has been called by many the best single argument for not recognizing gay marriages. If you don't have time for 30 pages of thoughtful argumentation, then you probably shouldn't pretend to have an informed position.

I remember my old principle once said that (In his stupid opinion) if anyone can get married, he thinks it makes marriage less special overall. I rolled my eyes at that just typing it.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;46121213]Some secular thinkers believe that "marriage" is more about the ability to procreate and argue against same-sex "marriages" based on that. Plenty of secular ideologies do or could quite easily incorporate that kind of thinking. It's not purely a religious pov[/QUOTE] People still manage to have tons of children without marriage.

[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46120343] 3. Since so many people seem to have a problem with calling gay marriage "marriage" why don't we call them "civil unions", the point for homosexuals is to obtain the legal rights afforded to married couples right? Why not take all the rights granted to heterosexuals but call it something else, win-win.[/QUOTE] This is what happened here. We were told it wouldn't lead to gay marriage. l. o. l.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46123555]I say that only to make it clear that they aren't some Baptist pastors from the backwoods of South Carolina. They are fully accepted professors in the secular world.[/QUOTE] Doubt they'll be "accepted" by any sensible person who discovers that they're against gay people marrying each other but whatever [QUOTE=sgman91;46123555]Ironic that this clearly relates to one of their points, namely, that making homosexual marriage equal to heterosexual marriage would make the view held by essentially all of humanity, through all of its history, a bigoted view. This is not comparable to any other single position. The arguments against slavery, for example, were found throughout human history. On the other hand, while homosexual relationships existed at many points, no society recognized them as equal to heterosexual marriages. With that said, this is probably the weakest point presented in the paper.[/QUOTE] I think you'd be hard put to it to find a more despicable and cretinous argument than that, I can't imagine why you would want to bring it up when you're trying to defend these people and their paper [QUOTE=sgman91;46123555]The paper is a cohesive whole. It builds on itself throughout. So to quote a single argument without the previous arguments would be a disservice. It's only 30 pages and I suggest you read the entirety of it. This article has been called by many the best single argument for not recognizing gay marriages. If you don't have time for 30 pages of thoughtful argumentation, then you probably shouldn't pretend to have an informed position.[/QUOTE] It's not an issue I care about in anything more than an offhand way, and I am also busy all the time. There should be salient points that you can distill from those 30 pages. The overview was suggestive of the worst side of the institution of prejudice, and you've strengthened that impression very much with everything you've said about it, so I really don't see a reason to make time to read it all. If it's more of what I've seen already it would just be frustrating to read. If it's really worthwhile make a tl;dr or bullet points for the benefit of everyone viewing the thread?

[QUOTE=Suakeli;46122098]Well biologically speaking, two healthy individuals who are in homosexual relationship instead of making babies is bad for the community. That is, if you ignore modern baby-making science (sorry I have no clue what's the word in English, artificial insemination?), heterosexual couples who don't make babies and the small detail of Earth's massive overpopulation. So even if it doesn't make sense anymore, homophobia used to have a reason to exist. It's like greasy food still tasting good even though obesity is a bigger problem (in first world countries) than starvation. Homosexuality really shakes up a few cultural norms. For example, in Finland it's completely common to have common saunas in swimming halls or in the army where you're nude with a bunch of strangers of your gender. Mixed saunas (with strangers) are a lot less common, mostly because of possible sexual tension. This arrangement is based no homosexuals (or pedophiles) existing. Actually this was kind of crappy argument, because I've been in a mixed sauna with young attractive girls and I managed to "control my urges" so I think gay guys will manage as well. Disclaimer: I think it's okay to be gay.[/QUOTE] This is a good counter argument. Not enough to sway me to that side by any means, but still a honestly valid argument.

That isn't and was never a valid argument, because it relies on the delusion that homosexuality is a choice. There's no reason to discourage one marriage alongside any other, gay couples/people will always be gay and can't conceive inside or outside of matrimony. If anything a married and therefore more solidly established gay couple are more likely to adopt or foster children.

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46129491]Doubt they'll be "accepted" by any sensible person who discovers that they're against gay people marrying each other but whatever.[/QUOTE] They wrote the article in 2012 and are still professors at Princeton. So yes, even after these so called "sensible" people learned about their beliefs on the subject they continued to accept them as full time, respected, faculty. I know it's hard to imagine that sensible people actually disagree with you. [QUOTE]I think you'd be hard put to it to find a more despicable and cretinous argument than that, I can't imagine why you would want to bring it up when you're trying to defend these people and their paper[/QUOTE] No you! How about you try and make an actual argument for once? [QUOTE]It's not an issue I care about in anything more than an offhand way, and I am also busy all the time. There should be salient points that you can distill from those 30 pages. The overview was suggestive of the worst side of the institution of prejudice, and you've strengthened that impression very much with everything you've said about it, so I really don't see a reason to make time to read it all. If it's more of what I've seen already it would just be frustrating to read. If it's really worthwhile make a tl;dr or bullet points for the benefit of everyone viewing the thread?[/QUOTE] "I don't care enough to learn more," isn't good enough. If you have no desire to become educated on the topic, then don't pretend to have an educated opinion. You don't get to come in here proclaiming facts as if anyone who disagrees with you is a Neanderthalic idiot while also caring enough to read a single short paper on the exact topic in question. Hell, it isn't even in technical language. [editline]2nd October 2014[/editline] You obviously have no desire to discuss. All you seem to want to do is mock and sit on the highest possible horse that you can build for yourself.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46129902]They wrote the article in 2012 and are still professors at Princeton. So yes, even after these so called "sensible" people learned about their beliefs on the subject they continued to accept them as full time, respected, faculty.[/QUOTE] I've got class in a bit but I'll read the 43 page document you linked, that you unlikely read yourself. It seems so far in to be biologically based on the concept of reproduction, which raises the question "Can sterile people get married?" The introduction to the paper reads as such: [quote] What is marriage? Consider two competing views: Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its in herent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children con tributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.1 Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a un ion of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recog nize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.2 It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal under standing of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the worlds major religious traditions have his torically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing,3 this sug gests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natu ral institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, us ing arguments that require no appeal to religious authority.4 Part I begins by defending the idea which many revision ists implicitly share but most shrink from confronting that the nature of marriage (that is, its essential features, what it fun damentally is) should settle this debate. If a central claim made by revisionists against the conjugal view, that equality requires recognizing loving consensual relationships,5 were true, it would also refute the revisionist view; being false, it in fact re futes neither view. Revisionists, moreover, have said what they think marriage is not (for example, inherently opposite sex), but have only rarely (and vaguely) explained what they think marriage is. Consequently, because it is easier to criticize a received view than to construct a complete alternative, revisionist arguments have had an appealing simplicity. But these arguments are also vulnerable to powerful criticisms that revisionists do not have the resources to answer. This Article, by contrast, makes a positive case, based on three widely held principles, for what makes a marriage.•[/quote] Sounds logical, but is going to dive head first into biological reproduction as a basis for marriage, which is no good since you would therefore require all married couples to procreate, and disallow sterile marriage. That or it's going to start making assertions it simply won't be able to substantiate with facts.

this entire thread is a trainwreck and I hope the flames raise higher

[QUOTE]sgman91 posted: No you! How about you try and make an actual argument for once? Actually you were the one who presented the argument in the first place. Although it was implied, you provided a source and suggested it was legitimate, someone questioned the legitimacy and asked for evidence that it was. It's called burden of proof. As far as I am aware they didn't suggest specifically that your source was wrong, just expressed skepticism.[/QUOTE] No, they don't have to read it, if you don't explain it to them, then it's just as lazy, also your statement then becomes a fallacy. If they suggest you're wrong however, then they must also prove that you are wrong before you are wrong. So basically until someone proves you wrong, or you prove yourself right, the source you provided is not useful in the conversation. Also I love OP's intention here. Few people think from the other side of the argument. It's the best way to know your position or opinion back to front and be on top of what you stand for without looking like an idiot spurting what the internet told you (like me posting from your logical fallacy.com) Edited: [QUOTE]glitchvid posted: I've got class in a bit but I'll read the 43 page document you linked, that you unlikely read yourself. It seems so far in to be biologically based on the concept of reproduction, which raises the question "Can sterile people get married?" The introduction to the paper reads as such: Sounds logical, but is going to dive head first into biological reproduction as a basis for marriage, which is no good since you would therefore require all married couples to procreate, and disallow sterile marriage. That or it's going to start making assertions it simply won't be able to substantiate with facts.[/QUOTE] Ok so I'm reading it and in the first couple of pages, they've made an appeal to tradition (this goes against the view we've always had for marriage!!!!) [QUOTE]Revisionists do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Their goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in our law10 and replace it with the revisionist conception.[/QUOTE] which is fallacious, just because throughout history that's always been the view doesn't make it right (additionally, same-sex unions have existed in formal ceremonies since ancient greek times, and it was then that Christianity stepped in and said no, so actually, before large scale organised religion we were ok with same-sex marriage, then Christianity said no). Then they say: [QUOTE]More decisively, though, the analogy to antimiscegenation fails because it relies on the false assumption that any distinction is unjust discrimination. But suppose that the legal incidents of marriage were made available to same‐sex as well as opposite‐sex couples. We would still, by the revisionists’ logic, be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial unions. After all, people can find themselves experiencing sexual and romantic desire for multiple partners (concurrent or serial), or closely blood‐related partners, or nonhuman partners. [B]They are (presumably) free not to act on these sexual desires, but this is true also of people attracted to persons of the same sex.[/B][/QUOTE] So despite the subtle suggestion that gay people should just not act on their sexual desires (that is bigotry) in bold, they're trying for the slippery slope fallacy. They then go on to claim that marriage isn't just a legal contract because if it was then they can't get it wrong because it's a law... and so if something is just law, then it is right? I guess? [QUOTE]First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable contours—not “just a contract.” Otherwise, how could the law get marriage wrong?[/QUOTE] Yeah! Because if it's only law, then there is no way to get it wrong! Slavery was just law, so it's not wrong! The point I'm making is laws can be wrong, injust, unconstitutional, as anti same-sex marriage laws often are. They then use that claim to state that since marriage extends beyond law as a set of moral obligations, the state can't confer marriage on things that aren't same sex marriage and so therefore don't actually help their point (a man and his two best friends, a woman and an inanimate object). They seem to be trying to say that the moral connections of a heterosexual marriage can't be had in a same sex one. They don't discuss this further but it seems they're saying that gays can't love each other romantically. Ok I read a bunch more and it just gets tedious the kinds of claims they're making. Each is almost as refutable as the next. For the most part they're using straw man arguments, the case for incest and polyamory etc are all just ways to deter from the main point. Meanwhile they continue to go down the biological route - it's about the children! If you accept their arguments, state sanctioned marriage should be disbanded and replaced with seperate contracts to recognise legal rights for marriage and everything else should be performed by a religious institution because it's all inherently spiritual. They also absolutely neglect the impact rejecting same sex marriage has on young, depressed and irrational teenagers who are growing up LGBTQI, those kids need every little bit of sunshine they can get. I needed to edit so things got a little stuffed.

Saying the "natural" state of marriage isn't between two people of the same sex is not a good argument. Natural as defined by what? The bible? Marriage is man-made so it can be whatever we want it to be. I wonder if people who are against gay marriage consider how their children with think of them even 20 years from now. It's pretty much a losing battle so they might as well save face while they can.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46131245]~I read it and it was all bullshit~[/QUOTE] Gasp!

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46131245] Also I love OP's intention here. Few people think from the other side of the argument. It's the best way to know your position or opinion back to front and be on top of what you stand for without looking like an idiot spurting what the internet told you (like me posting from your logical fallacy.com) [/QUOTE] Thank you for realizing what I'm trying to do, I see a few people on here are upset about it and it really wasn't my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. I thought I made it clear this was educational but I guess I need to improve the way I word my OP so less people get offended. Sorry everyone that ended up mad. Anyway, one of the hypotheses that I was trying to make an argument for is that homosexuals aren't "natural" in Darwinist evolution. I figured it made sense on the surface, males that won't reproduce can't pass on their genes. That fell apart quick though, and I learned something I actually didn't know before and I figured it would be worthwhile to share with FP. This article [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf"]here[/URL] explains that (I'm no Doctor, so it may be best to just read the article instead of me trying to summarize it for you, it isn't too long) there are genes passed down maternally that seem to make it more likely that females in that family tree have an increased fecundity (higher birth rate) while males in the same line have an increased predisposition to homosexuality. So basically homosexuality is "natural" in humans, as apposed to being solely a societal construct. Goodbye counter-argument to "but 450 species besides humans have homosexuals" :suicide:

I don't think there was a counterpoint in the first place, or that that has any relevance anyway. I mean something you CAN say is that homosexuality is not an ideal endpoint in an evolutionary arc, if prolificacy is the mark of a successful species. However that's a completely standalone statement that you can't move in any direction, you can't use it in any argument. It has absolutely no bearing on OUR species, let alone on marriage.

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46140433]I don't think there was a counterpoint in the first place, or that that has any relevance anyway. I mean something you CAN say is that homosexuality is not an ideal endpoint in an evolutionary arc, if prolificacy is the mark of a successful species. However that's a completely standalone statement that you can't move in any direction, you can't use it in any argument. It has absolutely no bearing on OUR species, let alone on marriage.[/QUOTE] I was going to go somewhere down the line of, homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by society and needs to be treated as such. My idea was that if I could fail to explain why human homosexuals exist in regards to evolution that homosexuality could be seen as some kind of detriment. The research however, refutes this.

The only argument I ever heard that made me go "Yeah that makes sense" was the fact their are laws iirc in states that only apply the laws and everything else that comes with marriage when its a man+women since they were never written with gay marriage in mind. So to avoid cute legality shit if a man+man or women+women were married with those laws in place they just dont put them through those marriage channels and call it something else. Its not like these laws cant or wont change, its just im sure its a really long process for something like this to be written correctly, but it has been the only time I could agree with what the other side had to say about gay marriage since it actually makes sense.