Are there any secular arguments against gay marriage? - General

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161279]Why not? If the gene for homosexuality is recessive and the gene for heterosexuality is not, couldn't we use Punett squares?[/QUOTE] cough cough cough. Its the exact same gene that also encourages increased promiscuity unilaterally among the entire animal kingdom.

I'm glad we have millysoose to disprove modern science with his highly informative posts

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46161366]I'm glad we have millysoose to disprove modern science with his highly informative posts[/QUOTE] Way to justify your position [I]without actually saying anything[/I]. You still haven't shown me any evidence that it's genetic and can't give me any proof that the recessive theory is true.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161383]Way to justify your position [I]without actually saying anything[/I]. You still haven't shown me any evidence that it's genetic and can't give me any proof that the recessive theory is true.[/QUOTE] But I never said it was genetic. I said it was more than that. Can you read please.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46161408]But I never said it was genetic. I said it was more than that. Can you read please.[/QUOTE] I've been arguing with like 5 people at once if you've noticed. The entire scientific part of my arguments was directed at the notion that it was genetic. What is your explanation for it then? You made a post in the last thread saying is more complicated, but didn't actually elaborate on it. It's either a: genetic/predetermined b: determined by social conditions during early growth c: a choice Both b and c would put it up for consideration as being a mental disorder. And I don't see you could argue a without it being genetic.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161435] It's either a: genetic/predetermined b: determined by social conditions during early growth c: a choice[/QUOTE] Oh my god this is hilarious The current literature heavily suggests that most human traits are a mix between genetic influences and the environment.

It's been shown to be the result of a myriad of things and conditions. From circumstances in the womb, to the specific events in ones young life. It certainly more complicated than you've made it seem.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161435]I've been arguing with like 5 people at once if you've noticed. The entire scientific part of my arguments was directed at the notion that it was genetic. What is your explanation for it then? You made a post in the last thread saying is more complicated, but didn't actually elaborate on it. It's either a: genetic/predetermined b: determined by social conditions during early growth c: a choice Both b and c would put it up for consideration as being a mental disorder. And I don't see you could argue a without it being genetic.[/QUOTE] You just completely jumped over me. It is a combination of the gene I mentioned earlier, hormone balancing withing the womb, environmental factors, and many other aspects as well. Its one of the reasons why this 'source of gayness' is so hard to isolate, and why sexuality is a spectrum in the first place.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46161459]It's been shown to be the result of a myriad of things and conditions. From circumstances in the womb, to the specific events in ones young life. It certainly more complicated than you've made it seem.[/QUOTE] The second part of that would fall within b. I would like a source for the other thing. I'll add another though, but we're going to have to go through the evidence instead of asserting it and pretending it's true. d: a mix of all three anyways I'm off for the night.

Option e: just the first two

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161435]I've been arguing with like 5 people at once if you've noticed. The entire scientific part of my arguments was directed at the notion that it was genetic. What is your explanation for it then? You made a post in the last thread saying is more complicated, but didn't actually elaborate on it. It's either a: genetic/predetermined b: determined by social conditions during early growth c: a choice Both b and c would put it up for consideration as being a mental disorder. And I don't see you could argue a without it being genetic.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46161180]It's more complicated than just being a genetic marker.[/QUOTE] As said, it's a factor of genetics, environment, and social structure. Height is a good example, genetics affect it, but so does environment (nutrition, hormones, etc). Furthermore, C would [i]not[/i] set it up for mental disorder; you act as if it being a mental disorder actually means anything. I took biology 3 years ago; so I've forgotten a good chunk of stuff, but IIRC there are traits that are affected by multiple genes that become either impractical or impossible to actually predict using Punnett squares. [QUOTE=MillySoose;46161470]The second part of that would fall within b. I would like a source for the other thing. I'll add another though, but we're going to have to go through the evidence instead of asserting it and pretending it's true. d: a mix of all three anyways I'm off for the night.[/QUOTE] Some reading for when you wake up. [url]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx#origins[/url] [url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long[/url] [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx[/url] Something to note on the APA page... [quote]Is homosexuality a mental disorder?[/quote] [quote][b]No[/b], lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.[/quote]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46153911]Why do you think it's unflinching? There's literally no evidence of that.[/QUOTE] One can extrapolate that your view is unflinching, you seem to have no issues with treating your idea of morality as if it is objective (pursuing it through socio-political means, shaming those who disagree with you, etc.) even if you intellectually admit that it is subjective. Just because you say it's subjective does not change how you treat it, or others with similar views, until some consistency is displayed I see no reason to assume that you are actually willing to change your morals. Now of course if you refrain from critiquing any and all alternative moral systems, that would display that you do in fact treat your morals as subjective and equal in value to any other and I will promptly retract the previous statement. [QUOTE]Now you're misphrasing what I said, and in the way you say it, it's an entirely different message. It's the best thing they think is right. It can change, it's a subjective opinion influenced by knowledge. It isn't "Unflinching".[/QUOTE] It doesn't seem that I misphrased you at all, you even answered my question. You said it is the person's own opinions that makes it the best thing they can believe in, but when it comes to personal opinions, the best thing you can believe in is sort of up in the air isn't it? That is precisely what I was trying to get at, you can't honestly believe that it is good for people to pursue the best thing they can believe in if you believe that the thing in question can be almost anything. So the best thing someone can believe in bears no weight really as it does not necessarily imply at anything, you reinforce this with your next statement: [QUOTE]It's up to them really. [/QUOTE] I'm baffled that you can say this and simultaneously hold such a strong moral conviction, how do you reconcile the clear contradictions in your view? [QUOTE]You can't criticize someone for both having a subjective opinion too weak to be argued or discussed, and too strong an opinion for self questioning simultaneously.[/QUOTE] Pardon? What does this have to do with what I said? [QUOTE]How about I rephrase this so you can answer an extremely obtuse question as well.[/QUOTE] What makes the question obtuse? Also I would prefer if you answered my question. [QUOTE]What objectively denotes something to taste better and how does this analogy help you explain away that people can hold various opinions on what's right without there being a conflict of reality?[/QUOTE] Perspectives on taste have no objective criteria, they also have no moral standing, making them entirely unrelated to my side of the discussion as moral standards are not finite like the odorants in food. I'm not trying to keep people from holding different opinions, I'm trying to show that your idea (and others') of subjective morality makes no sense. Finally, you criticized the perspective of objective morality by stating that it prevents any discourse on the subject, I ask you what we are engaging in if not discourse? If anything, subjective morality prevents discourse as it offers no way for any opinion on the matter to be of higher value than another (thus making it impossible for one to argue against another).

[QUOTE=glitchvid;46161595]As said, it's a factor of genetics, environment, and social structure. Height is a good example, genetics affect it, but so does environment (nutrition, hormones, etc). Furthermore, C would [i]not[/i] set it up for mental disorder; you act as if it being a mental disorder actually means anything. I took biology 3 years ago; so I've forgotten a good chunk of stuff, but IIRC there are traits that are affected by multiple genes that become either impractical or impossible to actually predict using Punnett squares. Some reading for when you wake up. [url]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx#origins[/url] [url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long[/url] [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx[/url] Something to note on the APA page...[/QUOTE] Reminder that the APA only changed it because they were pressured to by the homosexual community. Then they called a referendum and 40 percent decided that it should still be labeled a mental disorder. I still would like a source on why womb conditions are a trigger for homosexuality. I'm looking to debate real science here, not psychiatry.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46169163]Reminder that the APA only changed it because they were pressured to by the homosexual community. Then they called a referendum and 40 percent decided that it should still be labeled a mental disorder. I still would like a source on why womb conditions are a trigger for homosexuality. I'm looking to debate real science here, not psychiatry.[/QUOTE] psychiatry is real science. womb conditions effect a child in tremendous ways. Specific hormones that the baby gets enough or too much of can change huge things. In either case, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Even according to you. Only 40%. Not even a majority. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46168966]One can extrapolate that your view is unflinching, you seem to have no issues with treating your idea of morality as if it is objective (pursuing it through socio-political means, shaming those who disagree with you, etc.) even if you intellectually admit that it is subjective. Just because you say it's subjective does not change how you treat it, or others with similar views, until some consistency is displayed I see no reason to assume that you are actually willing to change your morals.[/QUOTE] No, I'm sorry, I've changed my opinions before therefore, they are not "Unflinching". So, in your mind, you've made it abudantly clear to me here at least, that there is no capability of anyone who holds a subjective view from arguing about their view. They can't, because there is no objective metric through which they can be proven right. Guess what? Just because subjectivity is inconvenient, doesn't make it untrue. You're the one who has unflinching morals participating in a "discourse"(More or less telling us our views are invalid, not objective like yours(also a point of contention because as much as you like to say they are, they are not)). Now, I'd like you to show me where I "Shame" someone for their views, rather than just discuss them. [QUOTE]Now of course if you refrain from critiquing any and all alternative moral systems, that would display that you do in fact treat your morals as subjective and equal in value to any other and I will promptly retract the previous statement. [/QUOTE] Having a subjective moral set doesn't mean it is impossible for anyone with the said subjective morals to talk about them. Guess what, if you were right, it would literally be impossible for any form of secular morality to be taught, discussed, or argued, period. But, they're remarkably capable of being taught in colleges and universities as legitimate subjects. Do you disagree? [QUOTE] It doesn't seem that I misphrased you at all, you even answered my question. You said it is the person's own opinions that makes it the best thing they can believe in, but when it comes to personal opinions, the best thing you can believe in is sort of up in the air isn't it? That is precisely what I was trying to get at, you can't honestly believe that it is good for people to pursue the best thing they can believe in if you believe that the thing in question can be almost anything. So the best thing someone can believe in bears no weight really as it does not necessarily imply at anything, you reinforce this with your next statement:[/QUOTE] No, you did actually re-phrase what I said so it works better for your argument. So, being a person who holds an "Objective" view point, you can in fact not engage in these arguments either. Why? Because the answer is obvious, it's your way or the highway, there is no conversation to be had. You hold "objective" and "Unflinching" morals that cannot actually be argued by anyone who doesn't share your view point. We're all wasting our breath arguing with you because you've already determined we're wrong, you're right, and you have the "objective" morality to back this up. What are you even on about at this point? If no one has to think about their morality further than "This "Objective" system is the right one" we'd have far more "Moral decay" than we do now, in a world of subjective opinions. [QUOTE]I'm baffled that you can say this and simultaneously hold such a strong moral conviction, how do you reconcile the clear contradictions in your view? [/QUOTE] What "Clear contradiction"? That I can have a subjective view that i've assessed the information about and made up my own mind? I'm not trying to tell people I'm right, you are, and you can't really deny this. You're arguing from an "Objective" view point. How can you think you're doing anything BUT telling people who don't agree with you, they're "Objectively" wrong? [QUOTE]Pardon? What does this have to do with what I said? [/QUOTE] It has to do with the two fold attacks on subjective beliefs you keep carrying out. One side of your argument says that subjective opinions can't be argued because no one who holds a subjective opinion can possibly have the conviction to argue them(As they're subjective and therefore that means the person who holds them has no metrics, or criteria for anything because again, they're not "objective" like your view.) and that people who do/can argue their subjective moralities are too "Unflinching" to ever change their views upon any level of reflection. In short, you've made an argument that both contradicts itself, and doesn't have any explanatory power as to why YOU hold an objective view. [QUOTE]What makes the question obtuse? Also I would prefer if you answered my questions. [/QUOTE] I think it's time you answer questions rather than dodge them. [QUOTE]Perspectives on taste have no objective criteria, they also have no moral standing, making them entirely unrelated to my side of the discussion as moral standards are not finite like the odorants in food.[/QUOTE] So you DO believe you have an objective view of morality. Why then can there not be an objective "best" taste? Why? Seriously, if there can be objective morality, why isn't there objective tastes? [QUOTE]I'm not trying to keep people from holding different opinions, I'm trying to show that your idea (and others') of subjective morality makes no sense.[/QUOTE] Okay. Thanks. We're nonsensical and you're the sensical one holding an "Objective" view point. Wait, how exactly is your view objective? [QUOTE]Finally, you criticized the perspective of objective morality by stating that it prevents any discourse on the subject, I ask you what we are engaging in if not discourse? If anything, subjective morality prevents discourse as it offers no way for any opinion on the matter to be of higher value than another (thus making it impossible for one to argue against another).[/QUOTE] Yes. Because your view is subjective and not objective. That's how we're able to have a "Discourse". [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] what about people picking and choosing their metrics by which they base their morality on is wrong? You do it, you just disagree that you're doing it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46169341]No, I'm sorry, I've changed my opinions before therefore, they are not "Unflinching". So, in your mind, you've made it abudantly clear to me here at least, that there is no capability of anyone who holds a subjective view from arguing about their view. They can't, because there is no objective metric through which they can be proven right.[/QUOTE] When you say you've changed your opinions in the past I assume that you mean opinions on morality, may I ask why you did that? Also, I don't contest that people who hold subjective morals are capable of arguing about their view, all I'm saying that in order to do so they must either be intellectually dishonest or acting irrationally. You see, you can't shed any semblance of an objective moral standard and then criticize people for having different personal standards, at least not reasonably. However, if you are not being forthright and in fact do still hold objective moral standards, then it goes without saying that you will treat them as if they are objective. It's also possible that when you treat your subjective moral standards as objective, you may simply be acting purely on emotion without thinking about your actions. The way I see it, there's no alternative though process behind subjective morality if your acting as if it is objective. [QUOTE]Guess what? Just because subjectivity is inconvenient, doesn't make it untrue.[/QUOTE] I'm not just saying subjective morality is inconvenient, I'm saying it is fundamentally inconsistent. [QUOTE]You're the one who has unflinching morals participating in a "discourse"(More or less telling us our views are invalid, not objective like yours(also a point of contention because as much as you like to say they are, they are not)). Now, I'd like you to show me where I "Shame" someone for their views, rather than just discuss them.[/QUOTE] One way you shame dissenting views is by supporting policy in favour of same-sex marriage, clearly you don't see other sexual ethics as being of the same value. [QUOTE]Having a subjective moral set doesn't mean it is impossible for anyone with the said subjective morals to talk about them. Guess what, if you were right, it would literally be impossible for any form of secular morality to be taught, discussed, or argued, period. But, they're remarkably capable of being taught in colleges and universities as legitimate subjects. Do you disagree? [/QUOTE] Yes and what I'm saying is that the only way you can teach and argue about subjective morality is by holding extremely inconsistent views. [QUOTE]No, you did actually re-phrase what I said so it works better for your argument.[/QUOTE] How? [QUOTE]So, being a person who holds an "Objective" view point, you can in fact not engage in these arguments either. Why? Because the answer is obvious, it's your way or the highway, there is no conversation to be had. You hold "objective" and "Unflinching" morals that cannot actually be argued by anyone who doesn't share your view point. We're all wasting our breath arguing with you because you've already determined we're wrong, you're right, and you have the "objective" morality to back this up. What are you even on about at this point?[/QUOTE] As I have repeatedly stated, I'm revealing the inherent inconsistencies in your position. Also just because I'm not going to change my mind does not mean I am incapable of supporting my view or criticizing yours. [QUOTE]If no one has to think about their morality further than "This "Objective" system is the right one" we'd have far more "Moral decay" than we do now, in a world of subjective opinions.[/QUOTE] I disagree, I think objective morality is the only way of holding society to some kind of standard. Once you institute a subjective moral system, morality becomes whatever the most socially / politically influential people want it to be. [QUOTE]What "Clear contradiction"? That I can have a subjective view that i've assessed the information about and made up my own mind? I'm not trying to tell people I'm right, you are, and you can't really deny this. You're arguing from an "Objective" view point. How can you think you're doing anything BUT telling people who don't agree with you, they're "Objectively" wrong?[/QUOTE] If you are not trying to tell people you're right, why would you support public policy that furthers your specific morality? [QUOTE]It has to do with the two fold attacks on subjective beliefs you keep carrying out. One side of your argument says that subjective opinions can't be argued because no one who holds a subjective opinion can possibly have the conviction to argue them(As they're subjective and therefore that means the person who holds them has no metrics, or criteria for anything because again, they're not "objective" like your view.) and that people who do/can argue their subjective moralities are too "Unflinching" to ever change their views upon any level of reflection.[/QUOTE] Ok... [QUOTE]In short, you've made an argument that both contradicts itself, and doesn't have any explanatory power as to why YOU hold an objective view.[/QUOTE] Which argument? My argument against subjective morals? How does it contradict itself? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. [QUOTE]I think it's time you answer questions rather than dodge them.[/QUOTE] Please quote precisely when I dodged a question in this discussion, if you do not I will assume that this is a blatant lie. [QUOTE]So you DO believe you have an objective view of morality. Why then can there not be an objective "best" taste? Why? Seriously, if there can be objective morality, why isn't there objective tastes?[/QUOTE] because tastes are purely material things, purely material things have no moral standing. [QUOTE]Okay. Thanks. We're nonsensical and you're the sensical one holding an "Objective" view point. Wait, how exactly is your view objective? [/QUOTE] I think that my view is objective because its ultimate basis is immaterial, think of it as one of plato's universals. I think this is quite clearly expressed in world religions, if you look at their moral systems and their developments, there are quite clear similarities. There's also the fact that following some of these more general objective morals leads to a prosperous society (the golden rule, more specifically not stealing, murdering, lying, etc.) so these morals simply work as well. [QUOTE]Yes. Because your view is subjective and not objective. That's how we're able to have a "Discourse".[/QUOTE] Can you state exactly why my view must necessarily be subjective if I am capable of discussing it? If I can discuss my existence with you, does that mean that my existence is subjective?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46169648]When you say you've changed your opinions in the past I assume that you mean opinions on morality, may I ask why you did that?[/QUOTE] Because I rationed that that view was better by my own personal metric. Wow, that's.. Impossible? No, wait, it's normal. [QUOTE]Also, I don't contest that people who hold subjective morals are capable of arguing about their view, all I'm saying that in order to do so they must either be intellectually dishonest or acting irrationally.[/QUOTE] Nice. Insult after insult to all those that think subjective morality is possible. But that's okay, you have so called objective reasoning as to why that is. [QUOTE]You see, you can't shed any semblance of an objective moral standard and then criticize people for having different personal standards, at least not reasonably. However, if you are not being forthright and in fact do still hold objective moral standards, then it goes without saying that you will treat them as if they are objective. It's also possible that when you treat your subjective moral standards as objective, you may simply be acting purely on emotion without thinking about your actions. The way I see it, there's no alternative though process behind subjective morality if your acting as if it is objective. [/QUOTE] You can entirely reasonably disagree with someone using a set of beliefs and metrics that you use to determine your own belief. Sure, it's not "Objective", but it's not irrational. I Really, REALLY am enjoying how all subjective thinkers across time who ever talked about their ideas in a "persuasive" manner, are all fucking idiots in your mind. [QUOTE]I'm not just saying subjective morality is inconvenient, I'm saying it is fundamentally inconsistent.[/QUOTE] That's not really an argument against it being how things are anyways. [QUOTE] One way you shame dissenting views is by supporting policy in favour of same-sex marriage, clearly you don't see other sexual ethics as being of the same value.[/QUOTE] So there is no way you can be wrong basically? Nice. this is preaching. Not arguing. Sure, I don't value them the same using my subjective metric. Just like YOU DON'T VALUE THEM THE SAME ON YOUR SUBJECTIVE METRIC THAT YOU CALL OBJECTIVE. Wow. [QUOTE]Yes and what I'm saying is that they only way you can teach and argue about subjective morality is by holding extremely inconsistent views. [/QUOTE] I'll take what you said down below and use it here. "How?" [QUOTE]As I have repeatedly stated, I'm revealing the inherent inconsistencies in your position. Also just because you're not going to change my mind does not mean I am incapable of supporting my view or criticizing yours. [/QUOTE] So not only am I, according to you, incapable of changing my opinions, discussing them, I hold an inconsisent view based on the simple fact it's subjective. Where as you, again, can do whatever you please because you have an objective view point. Thanks, you are readily clarifying that I am actually not allowed to discuss with you and that you're right and that's all there is to it. [QUOTE]I disagree, I think objective morality is the only way of holding society to some kind of standard. Once you institute a subjective moral system, morality becomes whatever the most socially / politically influential people want it to be. [/QUOTE] SUre, it's the only way. Except you hold subjective views you call objective. That's it. [QUOTE]If you are not trying to tell people you're right, why would you support public policy that furthers your specific morality?[/QUOTE] Because it's part of my view that no one should be held back from being happy if they're not hurting anyone else with their actions. Oh wait shit sorry I forgot I'm incapable of holding consisent views. [QUOTE]Which argument? My argument against subjective morals? How does it contradict itself? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. [/QUOTE] It's just an argument that makes you the righteous one and the rest of us too stupid to see the forest from the trees UNLESS, we share YOUR specific morality which is "objective". [QUOTE]Please quote precisely when I dodged a question in this discussion, if you do not I will assume that this is a blatant lie.[/QUOTE] Where did you say why your morality is purely objective in a way that no one can argue with?(Not just in your view they can't argue it, if it's objectively true then there can be no intelligent thoughts that disagree with you) [QUOTE]because tastes are purely material things, purely material things have no moral standing.[/QUOTE] So if it comes to objects, there is no "Objective" truth about it? [QUOTE]I think that my view is objective because its ultimate basis is immaterial, think of it as one of plato's universals. I think this is quite clearly expressed in world religions, if you look at their moral systems and their developments, there are quite clear similarities. There's also the fact that following some of these more general objective morals leads to a prosperous society (the golden rule, more specifically not stealing, murdering, lying, etc.) so these morals simply work as well.[/QUOTE] So, when you hold those views, it's justified and reasonable, but I, subjectively hold very similar views, and i'm an inconsistent and irrational person because I chose the metric consciously and you didn't conciously choose that metric and still think you're objectively right? My views are based on immaterial concepts as well. But, why is it YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn't right and wrong and capable of being held rationally? Why are YOU the only one in this discussion(Unless someone with your moral view comes in too) that actually has the ability to say "Well this is rational and this isn't" without even a second thought? And you say I'm fucking unflinching. It's hard to argue with someone when they say you can't be right on principle from the get go. [QUOTE]Can you state exactly why my view must necessarily be objective if I am capable of discussing it? If I can discuss my existence with you, does that mean that my existence is subjective?[/QUOTE] Why can I NOT discuss things in the way you have spent two posts now telling me I CAN'T discuss these things logically, but yet you, you can do whatever you want? I'm confused and you haven't given ANY non circular reasoning as to why you get this gift. I didn't say your view MUST be objective to be discussed, now you're putting your words in my mouth. I'm saying your view IS subjective. It's not objective as you constantly claim.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46169648]I think that my view is objective because its ultimate basis is immaterial.[/QUOTE] In the end this is nothing more than your opinion based on your own subjective definitions of what is and isn't immaterial. There is no such thing as an "objective moral". All morals are dictated by one's feelings and opinions, that alone makes them subjective by definition. There may be common and useful morals that most follow, but that doesn't make them objective.

i don't think there are any secular arguments against gay marriage that aren't ultimately pointless [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] like say, historically it's only been between a man and a woma, okay? so what? historically homosexual relationships were frowned upon/illegal just like interracial relationships (and in many cases, relationships between different classes/castes). or that homosexual marriages can't create offspring, despite not being true nowadays, with 7billion people in the world are we really worried about some couples not producing offspring? the way i figure it, it'll make the 2 married people happy without hurting anyone + give them alot of the economic and social benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples so what's the problem?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46170583]like say, historically it's only been between a man and a woma, okay? so what? historically homosexual relationships were frowned upon/illegal just like interracial relationships (and in many cases, relationships between different classes/castes). or that homosexual marriages can't create offspring, despite not being true nowadays, with 7billion people in the world are we really worried about some couples not producing offspring? the way i figure it, it'll make the 2 married people happy without hurting anyone + give them alot of the economic and social benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples so what's the problem?[/QUOTE] The main difference being that essentially all of humanity agreed on the illegitimacy of same-sex marriage, but they disagreed heavily on all the other types of things mentioned. The disagreement with same-sex marriage was human wide. Those other things were, at most, culture wide. There really is no good historical comparison.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46171433]The main difference being that essentially all of humanity agreed on the illegitimacy of same-sex marriage, but they disagreed heavily on all the other types of things mentioned. The disagreement with same-sex marriage was human wide. Those other things were, at most, culture wide. There really is no good historical comparison.[/QUOTE] but again, so what? that's not an argument it's an observation

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46171603]but again, so what? that's not an argument it's an observation[/QUOTE] It points to the fundamental idea of marriage not including same-sex relationships. There were many cultures that had recognized the incorrect nature of disallowing interracial marriages and the same goes for inter-class marriages, but for some reason, essentially none of them came to that conclusion when it came to same-sex marriages. Now, if the goal is to change what marriage is in order to allow same-sex couples to be included, then that's a completely different line of argumentation. I would ask whether it might be a bit rash to change one of the most fundamental, if not the single most fundamental, societal union that has been included, in one form or another, across basically every cultural boundary in order to make a very small portion of the population emotionally content.

and i would ask, why would it be rash? why would it be rash to make a 'very small portion of the population emotionally content' (although again let's not forget the various other legal & social benefits that marriage gives) like i said, ultimately these arguments are pointless. something shouldn't be changed just because it shouldn't be changed is essentially what you're saying. pointing out so colourfully how fundamental a societal union it is just points more that it should be one that is granted to everyone

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46171679]and i would ask, why would it be rash? why would it be rash to make a 'very small portion of the population emotionally content' (although again let's not forget the various other legal & social benefits that marriage gives) like i said, ultimately these arguments are pointless. something shouldn't be changed just because it shouldn't be changed is essentially what you're saying. pointing out so colourfully how fundamental a societal union it is just points more that it should be one that is granted to everyone[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that good and correctly working marriage is fundamental to a successful society and that messing with the basics of what it entails may have much further reaching consequences than anyone can even imagine. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] Here's an analogy to another fundamental societal definition: Let us say that men started a movement to force all references to "mother' to be gender neutral because it isn't fair that men don't get to be mothers even though they love and raise their child as well. By doing this they aren't arguing to open up who gets to be a mother. They are attempting to fundamentally change what it means to be a mother. This would have massively far reaching consequences. There would no longer be a legal or societal idea to differentiate the female who birthed the child and the unique connection that exists between that woman and her child. In the same way we are fundamentally changing what marriage is.* It no longer has the end goal of being a safe place to raise children and pass on family values. By doing this we are taking away the one societal union that fosters this absolutely key goal of society. *Note: I don't believe same-sex marriage to be the only force pushing this change. The entire idea of marriage being based on nothing more than love is just as detrimental.

so i wonder if there is any good secular arguments against gay marriage that aren't pointless or extremely vague conjecture?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46171768]so i wonder if there is any good secular arguments against gay marriage that aren't pointless or extremely vague conjecture?[/QUOTE] Is there a secular argument for gay marriage that doesn't rely on a completely non-compelling insistence that one set of people's subjective morals are somehow objectively better than another set of people's subjective morals?

economic, legal & social equality regardless of sexuality? i guess thinking that's a good thing is a subjective moral though! although i don't really consider the idea non-compelling

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46171824]economic, legal & social equality regardless of sexuality? i guess thinking that's a good thing is a subjective moral though! although i don't really consider the idea non-compelling[/QUOTE] Possibly emotionally compelling, but it's impossible to make a factually compelling argument for a subjective belief.

i would consider it a factual argument that a society in which people are socially, economically (at least in terms of economic opportunity so we don't turn this into a argument of communism v. capitalism!) & legally equal is a healthier society

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46171851]i would consider it a factual argument that a society in which people are socially, economically (at least in terms of economic opportunity so we don't turn this into a argument of communism v. capitalism!) & legally equal is a healthier society[/QUOTE] Marriage, as an institution, is inherently unfair. It incentivizes certain people who choose specific life choices and punishes everybody else. If anything, it sounds like you are making an argument for having no marriage at all.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46171838]Possibly emotionally compelling, but it's impossible to make a factually compelling argument for a subjective belief.[/QUOTE] That might explain why your arguments are so unconvincing [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;46171892]Marriage, as an institution, is inherently unfair. It incentivizes certain people who choose specific life choices and punishes everybody else. If anything, it sounds like you are making an argument for having no marriage at all.[/QUOTE] No just changing marriage as our world changes. An entirely rational thing to do.