Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage Before Courts

[Skavau]

I did not say same sex "marriages" should be illegal. As far as I'm concerned, people can call it what they want, but I think it is not logical to redefine a word to the point where it becomes essentially meaningless. I would also say that your one argument of consent to define a marriage is also faulty. Some non humans (dogs are a good example) readily consent to all kinds of things marriage is typically defined by, including sex.

Not informed consent. They can't know what marriage is.

I don't condone it or agree with it, but that is a fact. It is also a fact that such unions can never produce offspring. Though the relationship between the human and the non human can include (and most often does include) many of the things associated with marriage, including companionship, loyalty, caring etc, it is still not marriage.

Do you think that marriage between a sterile MF couple should be illegal? Or that two people getting married must pledge to have children?

 

[HexidecimalInput]

Not informed consent. They can't know what marriage is.

Informed consent? Informed of what, exactly?

Since we are talking definitions, and you say "they can't know what marriage is", then perhaps you would like to define it, because that is at the heart of the discussion, at least from my point of view.

Do you think that marriage between a sterile MF couple should be illegal? Or that two people getting married must pledge to have children?

Of course not. I have also never said that SS unions should be illegal. I was arguing for the definition of marriage and that that definition is being rendered somewhat meaningless by calling such unions marriages. Bringing up the point of sterility in MF union is applying a strict measure for the definition when definitions are by nature applicable to most situations and are the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Skavau]

Informed consent? Informed of what, exactly?

Since we are talking definitions, and you say "they can't know what marriage is", then perhaps you would like to define it, because that is at the heart of the discussion, at least from my point of view.

A codified union between two individuals. A dog or any non-human can't know what that is.

Of course not. I have also never said that SS unions should be illegal. I was arguing for the definition of marriage and that that definition is being rendered somewhat meaningless by calling such unions marriages. Bringing up the point of sterility in MF union is applying a strict measure for the definition when definitions are by nature applicable to most situations and are the rule rather than the exception.

Then why did you bring up the point that a union between a SS couple cannot produce offspring? If you're willing to make exceptions on marriage for a sterile MF couple or a couple with no intention to have children then the point about not being able to reproduce seems irrelevant.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

A codified union between two individuals. A dog or any non-human can't know what that is.

A "codified union"? What you mean to say is - it's not a valid union unless the non human can acknowledge it using human language or strictly human communication? To take the example of dogs, I would argue that that particular animal knows extremely well such a union on many levels, even though it can not say "I do" in front of a priest or magistrate to "codify" it.

Then why did you bring up the point that a union between a SS couple cannot produce offspring? If you're willing to make exceptions on marriage for a sterile MF couple or a couple with no intention to have children then the point about not being able to reproduce seems irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant for the simple reason that it is not the norm. Hence, the point about definitions being about the rule rather than the exception to the rule.
In the case of SS marriages, like human to non-human unions being called "marriages" - the rule (the definition) is ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION that they cannot produce offspring, whether they want to or not.

 

[Skavau]

A "codified union"? What you mean to say is - it's not a valid union unless the non human can acknowledge it using human language or strictly human communication? To take the example of dogs, I would argue that that particular animal knows extremely well such a union on many levels, even though it can not say "I do" in front of a priest or magistrate to "codify" it.

I really doubt that.

It's not irrelevant for the simple reason that it is not the norm. Hence, the point about definitions being about the rule rather than the exception to the rule.
In the case of SS marriages, like human to non-human unions being called "marriages" - the rule (the definition) is ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION that they cannot produce offspring, whether they want to or not.

A sterile MF couple cannot produce offspring either, whether they want to or not.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

A sterile MF couple cannot produce offspring either, whether they want to or not.

This is true, but again you are arguing from exception, not the rule. SOME couples are sterile, and cannot produce offspring.

ALL SS unions, like human/non human ARE BY DEFINITION STERILE.

So back to defining what marriage is

 

[Skavau]

This is true, but again you are arguing from exception, not the rule. SOME couples are sterile, and cannot produce offspring.

Of course. So should sterile couples, by your logic, be disallowed from being married?

So back to defining what marriage is

I already answered that.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

Of course. So should sterile couples, by your logic, be disallowed from being married?


I already answered that.

I already answered the question you keep begging in my very first post on this topic. Perhaps it would behoove you to read it again, this time, with discernment.

 

[Skavau]

I already answered the question you keep begging in my very first post on this topic. Perhaps it would behoove you to read it again, this time, with discernment.

You said that marriage between a sterile couple should not be illegal but did not provide any argument why that one should not be illegal but marriage between a homosexual couple should be.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

You said that marriage between a sterile couple should not be illegal but did not provide any argument why that one should not be illegal but marriage between a homosexual couple should be.

I did? In my first post? Strange, where did the subject of sterility come up in my first post? You keep saying I'm for outlawing SS unions. I'm not. My whole point has been about the definition of what marriage is, and from the very first post, I said I do not agree with making SS unions illegal. I just do not see the logic in calling them, or defining them as marriages, and not because of the exception, but rather, the rule, which I have explained in subsequent posts.

 

[Skavau]

I did? In my first post? Strange, where did the subject of sterility come up in my first post? You keep saying I'm for outlawing SS unions. I'm not. My whole point has been about the definition of what marriage is, and from the very first post, I said I do not agree with making SS unions illegal. I just do not see the logic in calling them, or defining them as marriages, and not because of the exception, but rather, the rule, which I have explained in subsequent posts.

You didn't mention sterility in your first post. I was looking through all of your posts.

No, you're not for outlawing SS unions but you appear to be arguing that "marriage" must by definition require the participants to be able to produce children. You don't appear to have the same requirement for sterile couples.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

You didn't mention sterility in your first post. I was looking through all of your posts.

No, you're not for outlawing SS unions but you appear to be arguing that "marriage" must by definition require the participants to be able to produce children. You don't appear to have the same requirement for sterile couples.

As explained, the requirement (per the definition) is not required for sterile couples (or those who choose not to have children) because it is the exception rather than the rule. It really isn't I that needs to defend the centuries held definition of marriage, the onus is on those who seek to include what has never been commonly included under the umbrella of that word to defend their position of redefining it for the purposes of inclusion.

 

[Skavau]

As explained, the requirement (per the definition) is not required for sterile couples (or those who choose not to have children) because it is the exception rather than the rule.

Why does them being the exception matter? If you take the percentage of homosexual couples vs. heterosexual couples they are also "the exception".

To further the point, heterosexual couples that marry that are fertile but with no intent to have children are far more numerous than either sterile or homosexual couples.

Should prospective married couples pledge to have children by a certain time or risk having their marriage annulled?

It really isn't I that needs to defend the centuries held definition of marriage, the onus is on those who seek to include what has never been commonly included under the umbrella of that word to defend their position of redefining it for the purposes of inclusion.

Why would it bother you either way? Does it somehow effect the marriage of heterosexual people?

 

[HexidecimalInput]

Should prospective married couples pledge to have children by a certain time or risk having their marriage annulled?


Why would it bother you either way? Does it somehow effect the marriage of heterosexual people?

To the first question. As you will recall, I'm not in favor of making SS unions, or "marriages" if they wish to call them that, illegal. However you keep begging the question as if I do.

To the second question, from my pov, it is simply a matter of acknowledging the natural order of things. I know the arguments against that, and they are almost always exceptions to that order - but the heart of it is seeking to retain understanding rather than confusion that comes from trying to force square pegs through round holes. Since definitions about such important things operate on the macro level rather than the micro or private level, then yes, the definitions are important for society, but no, I do not believe in imposing them by force.

 

[Skavau]

To the first question. As you will recall, I'm not in favor of making SS unions, or "marriages" if they wish to call them that, illegal. However you keep begging the question as if I do.

That's why I said "marriage" and not "union". You keep inconsistently making the distinction so I'll re-ask and a reminder this question refers to marriages not civil unions:

Should prospective married couples pledge to have children by a certain time or risk having their marriage annulled?

To the second question, from my pov, it is simply a matter of acknowledging the natural order of things. I know the arguments against that, and they are almost always exceptions to that order - but the heart of it is seeking to retain understanding rather than confusion that comes from trying to force square pegs through round holes. Since definitions about such important things operate on the macro level rather than the micro or private level, then yes, the definitions are important for society, but no, I do not believe in imposing them by force.

What "natural order?" Humans came up with marriage. There are different marriage traditions across different religions and cultures. A change, an extension or an inclusion to a tradition does not negatively impact upon those involved prior.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think the stated reason for making SS marriage illegal has merit, even though I don't agree that making it illegal (and thus punishable) has merit.

The valid point of the argument is to beg the question of what marriage is. While a traditional marriage does not necessarily mean procreation, it does include the possibility of procreation and the family unit from that procreation.

Can you list an example of marriage law which restrict non-fertile couples from marrying?

 

[ken777]

Marriage has a definition based on nature and established by history and Western culture over many centuries. As I see it, the question is not why should same sex couples be excluded from this definition but rather why should they be included. I can see no valid reason. If it is a matter of access to next of kin rights that can be legally fixed without changing the definition of marriage, husband, wife, etc.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

A secular argument against same-sex marriage?

It is about government protections that are not available to people who are not part of a couple. That is discriminatory against people who are not part of a couple.

It is privileging one kind of relationship: the relationship between romantic partners. It makes all other relationships second-class relationships. Yet, the argument being made for it is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.

If I wanted to enter a marriage contract with my sister the government would not allow it. If I wanted a marriage contract with my sister so that if I die my Social Security benefits go to her it would not be allowed.

But brother and sister is not a relationship that has traditionally been seen as a marriage in the West, right? Neither has the relationship between a same-sex couple.

 

[ken777]

If I wanted to enter a marriage contract with my sister the government would not allow it.

The fact that there would be no reason why a woman could not marry her sister, or a man his brother, demonstrates that same sex marriage can never be the equal of heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual marriage should remain a priveleged & protected relationship because it provides the optimal conditions for raising children.

 

[KCfromNC]

Marriage has a definition based on nature and established by history and Western culture over many centuries. As I see it, the question is not why should same sex couples be excluded from this definition but rather why should they be included. I can see no valid reason.

The same logic would be useful for reinstating slavery and abolishing women's suffrage.