Are there any secular arguments against gay marriage? - General

What do you think a "dowry" was? What was a woman in those days but another form of labour, child production, and property? It was religious. It was still these things. No, those "standards" did nothing to prevent paedophelia at all, why would they? Can you cite an age related marrying claim? Can you cite laws that say this? Your arguments are pretty hollow. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] And no, even you know that my comment has nothing to do with sanctioning paedophelia. I'm strictly talking about marriage and you're redefining marriage as a protection plan for women and children when historically this is not the case. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] Children do not have the capability of informed decisions. In a modernistic reasoning, this is why you can't marry a child. Curiously, you can't point to a reason why marriage traditionally protects children from rape. What about boy love in Ancient Greece that was relatively okay? Traditional, but wrong?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46158824]What do you think a "dowry" was? What was a woman in those days but another form of labour, child production, and property? It was religious. It was still these things. No, those "standards" did nothing to prevent paedophelia at all, why would they? Can you cite an age related marrying claim? Can you cite laws that say this? Your arguments are pretty hollow. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] And no, even you know that my comment has nothing to do with sanctioning paedophelia. I'm strictly talking about marriage and you're redefining marriage as a protection plan for women and children when historically this is not the case. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] Children do not have the capability of informed decisions. In a modernistic reasoning, this is why you can't marry a child. Curiously, you can't point to a reason why marriage traditionally protects children from rape. What about boy love in Ancient Greece that was relatively okay? Traditional, but wrong?[/QUOTE] As much as I don't advocate pedophilia, the idea that children can't make informed decisions is absurd. People like to say that homosexuality and pedophilia are fundamentally different, so there is no reason to worry. Under ten and I'll concede, but children 13-17, at least in the United States are the equivalent of 16-20 year olds of the past. So the other argument is that it is not allowed on the basis of tradition. Well, if we don't protect our tradition then as we've seen it will slip away. Also the business of ancient Greece, (if that is even true, as there is a debate for it) is not the tradition that we practice in the United States. It is not the tradition that we have in our religion or the tradition that has influenced our laws.

So how does a tradition become right enough that there is a "slippery slope" unless you know, you're being arbitrary, which is fine, but it doesn't make traditionalism a good argument.

[QUOTE=Last or First;46158623]How are they forcing their morals on others? They just want their love to be treated like everyone else's. Do you count having people not discriminate against them as "forcing their morals"? To me, it seems more like they're appealing to a moral truth of "treat people equally under the law" rather than a moral truth of gay marriage. They wouldn't care about gay marriage if straight couples couldn't get married either.[/QUOTE] Gay people are not banned from getting married. There's nothing in the law that says that. The argument isn't whether gay people should be able to get married, but if marriages between two people of the same sex fits within the idea of what marriage even is. Traditionally, and throughout essentially all of human history, the answer has been no. In a sense, being gay has nothing to do with the argument. The same exact arguments against same sex marriage would apply to two male friends who wanted to get married as to two homosexual lovers who want to get married. By arguing for the changing of the foundational idea of what marriage is they are appealing to a moral truth about marriage, not simply equality.

Children are absolutely not fully capable of fully uniformed and rationed decisions. Even teenagers, primarily due to hormonal imbalances. Curious as to why you dropped the marriage arguments.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159111]So how does a tradition become right enough that there is a "slippery slope" unless you know, you're being arbitrary, which is fine, but it doesn't make traditionalism a good argument.[/QUOTE] Why does tradition need to be right? It holds us to standards of some sorts, which I believe is beneficial to the overall integrity of mankind. If it's arbitrary then why isn't pedophilia okay? If anything the 18 number is arbitrary, especially because kids are growing up sooner. Also I haven't dropped the marriage arguments yet. Marriage may have been introduced for property rights or diplomacy, but it certainly evolved into a sacred practice protected by tradition. Women were treated far better in the last three hundred years, when the laws that we have, or had, were codified.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46159119]Gay people are not banned from getting married. There's nothing in the law that says that. The argument isn't whether gay people should be able to get married, but if marriages between two people of the same sex fits within the idea of what marriage even is. Traditionally, and throughout essentially all of human history, the answer has been no. In a sense, being gay has nothing to do with the argument. The same exact arguments against same sex marriage would apply to two male friends who wanted to get married as to two homosexual lovers who want to get married. By arguing for the changing of the foundational idea of what marriage is they are appealing to a moral truth about marriage, not simply equality.[/QUOTE] By arguing we should change an outdated definition we are deciding we want to change it. There's nothing that says this can't happen in a rational environment. Why is tradition always better than change? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46159132]Why does tradition need to be right? It holds us to standards of some sorts, which I believe is beneficial to the overall integrity of mankind. If it's arbitrary then why isn't pedophilia okay? Also I haven't dropped the marriage arguments yet.[/QUOTE] Why is it beneficial? Why are old things more valid than new things? What defines an old way as "better" than a new way other than that it was already done like that? Should we then still be ancient pagans as they were the real source of tradition?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159152]By arguing we should change an outdated definition we are deciding we want to change it. There's nothing that says this can't happen in a rational environment. Why is tradition always better than change?[/QUOTE] The traditional way isn't better because it's traditional. It's simply important to recognize the difference between fighting against inherent discrimination and fighting to change what something is by definition. The proponents of gay marriage are not saying, "Our current idea of marriage is wrongfully discriminating against gay people." They are instead saying, "We believe that our current idea of marriage is incorrect and that we have a better idea of marriage. This new idea also includes gay people." The burden of proof is on those trying to change the status quo, not on those defending it.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46159132] Also I haven't dropped the marriage arguments yet. Marriage may have been introduced for property rights or diplomacy, but it certainly evolved into a sacred practice protected by tradition.[/QUOTE] So why was a dowry so essential until the last century or so where romantic marriage appeared for the first time as a serious prospect? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] No in either case they're subjectively decided. You are not of an actually objective view point. Sgman your view of marriage is not an objective one. Traditional doesn't mean objective.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159182]No in either case they're subjectively decided. You are not of an actually objective view point. Sgman your view of marriage is not an objective one. Traditional doesn't mean objective.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why this is relevant at all to what I said.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159182]So why was a dowry so essential until the last century or so where romantic marriage appeared for the first time as a serious prospect? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] No in either case they're subjectively decided. You are not of an actually objective view point. Sgman your view of marriage is not an objective one. Traditional doesn't mean objective.[/QUOTE] Marriage has had romantic aspects for the last 400 years. Dowrys existed, but the concept of marriage evolved with the growth of the middle class. During this time we codified our laws against certain types of marriage, some of which we still stand by today.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46159206]I'm not sure why this is relevant at all to what I said.[/QUOTE] Because you're saying burden of proof is on the other side exclusively. That's not true unless you really have the objective view point. You don't, so it's not a valid criticism. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46159231]Marriage has had romantic aspects for the last 400 years. Dowrys existed, but the concept of marriage evolved with the growth of the middle class. During this time we codified our laws against certain types of marriage, some of which we still stand by today.[/QUOTE] For what reasons should we continue that tradition? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] So why shouldn't we change the tradition if you're aware the tradition already changed? Purely arbitrary.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159429]Because you're saying burden of proof is on the other side exclusively. That's not true unless you really have the objective view point. You don't, so it's not a valid criticism. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] For what reasons should we continue that tradition? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] So why shouldn't we change the tradition if you're aware the tradition already changed? Purely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] We should continue the tradition because each time we've loosened it, we've gotten closer to the point of allowing people to marry whatever they wish. I'm not advocating that we should ban interracial marriages or the practice of divorce. These have now become accepted. But for right now I feel we are on a crash course of progressivism.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46159823]We should continue the tradition because each time we've loosened it, we've gotten closer to the point of allowing people to marry whatever they wish. I'm not advocating that we should ban interracial marriages or the practice of divorce. These have now become accepted. But for right now I feel we are on a crash course of progressivism.[/QUOTE] okay, so it was okay to progress from the point women were property, but it's not okay to progress to the point where willing adults can marry each other(And the slippery slope argument about paedophelia and beastiality holds NO water here and has no value as an argument as it is has no basis in anything but your hatred of "Progress" whatever that means). it seems to me you have no reason as to why adults shouldn't be able to marry each other besides that you don't like it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159429]Because you're saying burden of proof is on the other side exclusively. That's not true unless you really have the objective view point. You don't, so it's not a valid criticism[/QUOTE] That's just not how it works. You don't have to reprove every social activity every time someone proposes a new idea. The new idea has the burden of proof to show that it is better than the currently accepted norm.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46160003]That's just not how it works. You don't have to reprove every social activity every time someone proposes a new idea. The new idea has the burden of proof to show that it is better than the currently accepted norm.[/QUOTE] that's assuming the current social norm has value, and of course it has value if you're a traditionalist. i'm asking you why is your view set the base one that doesn't have to be challenged? it's not objective, so it's certainly not a strong criticism. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] "Reprove" says it like all current concepts of tradition are proven to be true and the best, we KNOW that isn't how our societies are so how can you make such a blanket statement prevailing tradition as an unquestionable force of social good? Yeah, you're right, that's just not how it works.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46159858]okay, so it was okay to progress from the point women were property, but it's not okay to progress to the point where willing adults can marry each other(And the slippery slope argument about paedophelia and beastiality holds NO water here and has no value as an argument as it is has no basis in anything but your hatred of "Progress" whatever that means). it seems to me you have no reason as to why adults shouldn't be able to marry each other besides that you don't like it.[/QUOTE] No the other progress was perfectly okay, but I think it's a good idea to stop at the point when we allow people who have a mental disorder to marry. And yes it is a mental disorder. It's even less natural than pedophilia and absolutely pointless from a biological perspective. It's a product of social conditions. You shout that slippery slope has no basis yet you have nothing to refute my evidence that we have been going down a slope for a while now.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160239]No the other progress was perfectly okay, but I think it's a good idea to stop at the point when we allow people who have a mental disorder to marry. And yes it is a mental disorder. It's even less natural than pedophilia and absolutely pointless from a biological perspective. You shout that slippery slope has basis but have nothing to refute my evidence that we have been going down a slope.[/QUOTE] What is there to refute? You're not doing anything but making strawman claims that gay people, paedo's, and anyone who isn't straight is in possession of a "Mental disorder". I don't have to disprove that when no medical science or psychology journal worth a damn agree with you. Tell me this, and think about this for a minute for real. The slope of tradition has been changing for literally the entire time "Tradition" has existed. Things change, and grow, and change, and grow, and change, and grow. So at what point on that given slope do you say "This is far enough forever" without a strong reason as to why all the change up to then has been the right change, and why change from then would be the wrong change? So far, you've been saying that if we let gay people marry, then we'll let people marry kids. You based this on marriage being in defense of children, but it's never been in defense of children as child brides have been a common aspect of culture even in the west in the last half millenia. So clearly your argument is baseless and doesn't actually hold any water, so why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? Why does the change of tradition stop here? Why is "this" far enough, but 100 years ago, it wasn't far enough? 500 years ago? Why is it that "this" right here is the optimal point of moral decline before we go too far? You have to give well cited reasoning to this for anyone to take you seriously.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160239]No the other progress was perfectly okay, but I think it's a good idea to stop at the point when we allow people who have a mental disorder to marry. And yes it is a mental disorder. It's even less natural than pedophilia and absolutely pointless from a biological perspective. [B]It's a product of social conditions.[/B] You shout that slippery slope has no basis yet you have nothing to refute my evidence that we have been going down a slope for a while now.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior[/url] Explain to me the social conditions of dolphins, dogs, lions, turtles, etc. that gave rise to homosexual behavior.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46159119]Gay people are not banned from getting married. There's nothing in the law that says that. The argument isn't whether gay people should be able to get married, but if marriages between two people of the same sex fits within the idea of what marriage even is. Traditionally, and throughout essentially all of human history, the answer has been no. In a sense, being gay has nothing to do with the argument. The same exact arguments against same sex marriage would apply to two male friends who wanted to get married as to two homosexual lovers who want to get married. By arguing for the changing of the foundational idea of what marriage is they are appealing to a moral truth about marriage, not simply equality.[/QUOTE] That's why I specified "They just want [B]their love[/B] to be treated like everyone else's." And the difference between friends getting married and gay lovers getting married is, well, the second has love in it. And traditionally marriage was a trade agreement. So what? [QUOTE=MillySoose;46159823]We should continue the tradition because each time we've loosened it, we've gotten closer to the point of allowing people to marry whatever they wish. I'm not advocating that we should ban interracial marriages or the practice of divorce. These have now become accepted. But for right now I feel we are on a crash course of progressivism.[/QUOTE] One thing being bad doesn't mean another thing is bad. If you don't want animal or child marriages, then protest against those. Hell, people actually had to fight to [I]raise[/I] the required age for marriage over the years. I doubt we'd regress on that without some huge event that shook apart the country's government.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160239]No the other progress was perfectly okay, but I think it's a good idea to stop at the point when we allow people who have a mental disorder to marry. [/QUOTE] This just in, you must get tested for mental disorder before getting married, this would no doubt stop more heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. [QUOTE=MillySoose;46160239] And yes it is a mental disorder.[/QUOTE] That is very much debatable, for sake of argument I'm going to accept that homosexuality is a mental disorder; that doesn't make it wrong, see my argument above. [QUOTE=MillySoose;46160239] It's even less natural than pedophilia and absolutely pointless from a biological perspective. It's a product of social conditions. You shout that slippery slope has no basis yet you have nothing to refute my evidence that we have been going down a slope for a while now.[/QUOTE] [Citation Needed] [Citation Needed] And slippery slope is a logical fallacy, when you say that "we've gotten closer to the point of allowing people to marry whatever they wish" that is indeed a slippery slope. Aside from you lack of actual substance to argument, even if it WAS found to be non-natural, that has no bearing on weather or not it should be allowed; eating cooked meat isn't natural, but it's not illegal. Furthermore it being "pointless from a biological perspective"; so is protective sex, so are sterile marriages. Should we redefine marriage as something "Only a man and women in perfect mental health that plan on having children can do"?

[QUOTE=glitchvid;46160340] Should we redefine marriage as something "Only a man and women in perfect mental health that plan on having children every time they have sex" can do?[/QUOTE] FTFY

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46160286]What is there to refute? You're not doing anything but making strawman claims that gay people, paedo's, and anyone who isn't straight is in possession of a "Mental disorder". I don't have to disprove that when no medical science or psychology journal worth a damn agree with you. Tell me this, and think about this for a minute for real. The slope of tradition has been changing for literally the entire time "Tradition" has existed. Things change, and grow, and change, and grow, and change, and grow. So at what point on that given slope do you say "This is far enough forever" without a strong reason as to why all the change up to then has been the right change, and why change from then would be the wrong change? So far, you've been saying that if we let gay people marry, then we'll let people marry kids. You based this on marriage being in defense of children, but it's never been in defense of children as child brides have been a common aspect of culture even in the west in the last half millenia. So clearly your argument is baseless and doesn't actually hold any water, so why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? Why does the change of tradition stop here? Why is "this" far enough, but 100 years ago, it wasn't far enough? 500 years ago? Why is it that "this" right here is the optimal point of moral decline before we go too far? You have to give well cited reasoning to this for anyone to take you seriously.[/QUOTE] Homosexuality is not a normal way of thinking. And it isn't just because it's a minority vs majority thing. There is absolutely no natural benefits to it. It was only reclassified by some people as a sexual identity thing for the sake of political correctness. And there was a referendum and it almost got classified as a mental disorder again. We can say this is far enough because at this point in history we can classify what is natural or not from science and logic. And this tells us that homosexuality is not natural. (You can go off on how animals do it sometimes, but this has absolutely no biological function) However, it also tells us that love between adults and children is. But I don't want to accept that and neither do you. If we don't protect our traditions that is the grave we are digging. also in reply to the guy who was talking about eating cooked meat: No that isn't a mental disorder because it's not linked to any personality change.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160467] also in reply to the guy who was talking about eating cooked meat: No that isn't a mental disorder because it's not linked to any personality change.[/QUOTE] That was in response to your appeal to nature (A logical fallacy). I have already refuted all your points, you can actually either refute mine, or just ignore it and make an echo chamber. P.S: Look into Pica, it's pretty interesting.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;46160547]That was in response to your appeal to nature (A logical fallacy). I have already refuted all your points, you can actually either refute mine, or just ignore it and make an echo chamber. P.S: Look into Pica, it's pretty interesting.[/QUOTE] That's because I was responding to some other guy in the body of my post. I'll get to you now. First of all it is an appeal to nature. But that doesn't mean it's right either. In my opinion we shouldn't allow the perpetuation of a mental disorder. Should murderers be allowed to murder? Killing people is natural so what is the problem? Somewhere we have to make a decision about these things. Then you say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, which is another argument. But you accepted that it was for the sake of argument. Maybe we can talk about that, but I'll get to your next point first. Pedophilia is certainly more natural than homosexuality. All that it is, is another form of heterosexuality that for whatever reason has been demonized. (again I don't support pedophilia) It used to be widespread and actually has biological function (after a certain age, but that is still considered pedophilia) Human existence is contingent upon heterosexuality which I would say makes it and all forms of it natural.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160804]That's because I was responding to some other guy in the body of my post. I'll get to you now. First of all it is an appeal to nature. But that doesn't mean it's right either. In my opinion we shouldn't allow the perpetuation of a mental disorder. Should murderers be allowed to murder? Killing people is natural so what is the problem? Somewhere we have to make a decision about these things. Then you say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, which is another argument. But you accepted that it was for the sake of argument. Maybe we can talk about that, but I'll get to your next point first. Pedophilia is certainly more natural than homosexuality. All that it is, is another form of heterosexuality that for whatever reason has been demonized. (again I don't support pedophilia) It used to be widespread and actually has biological function (after a certain age, but that is still considered pedophilia) Human existence is contingent upon heterosexuality which I would say makes it and all forms of it natural.[/QUOTE] Whether something is "natural" or not doesn't matter. The problem with murder and pedophilia is that those hurt people. How does homosexuality hurt people?

[QUOTE=Last or First;46160838]Whether something is "natural" or not doesn't matter. The problem with murder and pedophilia is that those hurt people. How does homosexuality hurt people?[/QUOTE] It's debatable whether people under 18 can consent. It's imaginable that a 17 year old could, you must admit. But that's considered pedophilia. A homosexual marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but allowing it is perpetuating a mental disorder which can bring about homosexuality in other people. I said it before, homosexuality is a product of social conditions. I've seen this happen to my gay friends who became gay not because they were born that way, but because they were bullied or never had a gf/bf. Maybe they were born bisexual or were "tricked by society" into liking people they didn't like. One of my siblings, who is gay, only liked boys when she was growing up. Now she's bisexual. I don't believe she started liking girls into much later in life.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160467]Homosexuality is not a normal way of thinking. And it isn't just because it's a minority vs majority thing. There is absolutely no natural benefits to it. It was only reclassified by some people as a sexual identity thing for the sake of political correctness. And there was a referendum and it almost got classified as a mental disorder again. We can say this is far enough because at this point in history we can classify what is natural or not from science and logic. And this tells us that homosexuality is not natural. (You can go off on how animals do it sometimes, but this has absolutely no biological function) However, it also tells us that love between adults and children is. But I don't want to accept that and neither do you. If we don't protect our traditions that is the grave we are digging. also in reply to the guy who was talking about eating cooked meat: No that isn't a mental disorder because it's not linked to any personality change.[/QUOTE] homosexuality is not a mental disorder because it serves no biological purpose. marriage, sex, by your definition, serves no biological purpose unless kids come out of it, so sterile people, and people who don't want kids also can't get married, but this is okay because they're not gay. at best this is thinly veiled homophobia. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46160913]It's debatable whether people under 18 can consent. It's imaginable that a 17 year old could, you must admit. But that's considered pedophilia. A homosexual marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but allowing it is perpetuating a mental disorder which can bring about homosexuality in other people. I said it before, homosexuality is a product of social conditions. I've seen this happen in my gay friends who became gay not because they were born that way, but because they were bullied or never had a gf/bf.[/QUOTE] Okay, so answer me this, how did a generation of straight parents raise a generation that has many more openly gay people than ever before, if they require gay parents to exist? You can not just "adopt" gay sexuality, you either are or you aren't, but it is a product of your upbringing and your life, but it doesn't have anything to do with who around you is a "gay influence". [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46160804]That's because I was responding to some other guy in the body of my post. I'll get to you now. First of all it is an appeal to nature. But that doesn't mean it's right either. In my opinion we shouldn't allow the perpetuation of a mental disorder. Should murderers be allowed to murder? Killing people is natural so what is the problem? Somewhere we have to make a decision about these things. Then you say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, which is another argument. But you accepted that it was for the sake of argument. Maybe we can talk about that, but I'll get to your next point first. Pedophilia is certainly more natural than homosexuality. All that it is, is another form of heterosexuality that for whatever reason has been demonized. (again I don't support pedophilia) It used to be widespread and actually has biological function (after a certain age, but that is still considered pedophilia) Human existence is contingent upon heterosexuality which I would say makes it and all forms of it natural.[/QUOTE] Should we allow certain people to control other peoples lives because those same people think other people can't manage it on their own? You seem to agree with that idea, and even believe that you have the capability, and requirement, responsibility even, to be the "Morally correct" person. Is paedophillia "More natural" if it's man on boy? You just said it was, so what differentiates it? You're horribly misinformed, and I doubt you've ever actually known anyone who was a functional adult and gay.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46160922]homosexuality is not a mental disorder because it serves no biological purpose. marriage, sex, by your definition, serves no biological purpose unless kids come out of it, so sterile people, and people who don't want kids also can't get married, but this is okay because they're not gay. at best this is thinly veiled homophobia. [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] Okay, so answer me this, how did a generation of straight parents raise a generation that has many more openly gay people than ever before, if they require gay parents to exist? You can not just "adopt" gay sexuality, you either are or you aren't, but it is a product of your upbringing and your life, but it doesn't have anything to do with who around you is a "gay influence".[/QUOTE] No I explained this. It's because it's not natural and is linked to changes in personality (in this case it IS the change in personality.) Also I never said that people would adopt being gay from their parents or from being around gay people. I believe that gay people are born straight and develop a liking for the opposite sex through social conditions. If they live in a society where homosexuality is accepted then they would be more inclined to subconsciously consider it.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160951]No I explained this. It's because it's not natural and is linked to changes in personality (in this case it IS the change in personality.) Also I never said that people would adopt being gay from their parents or from being around gay people. I believe that gay people are born straight and develop a liking for the opposite sex through social conditions. If they live in a society where homosexuality is accepted then they would be more inclined to subconsciously consider it.[/QUOTE] that is clearly not true as most of the gay people today grew up in a time period where they were highly ostracized and treated like shit. Clearly you're wrong.