Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Euler]

Making random things up? You just to tried falsify my argument with something hardly even relevant. What does Church rite have to do with Western world being a Christian state with a definition of male and female marriage?

You are absurd. And then saying I haven't done research
I'm done with this thread. It's obvious that it would now just be a waste of time arguing with such nonsense.

No! Stay! Please stay! You're the best ammunition we've got!

 

[Belk]

It's a stupid made up word used by supporters of homosexuality to throw at others. At the drop of a hat, it will labeled upon someone. A manipulative word to distract from the main points of disagreement.

Liberals love their labels though. Notice that the alleged definition is synonymous to misogyny, and how a person who is simply anti-feminist is automatically seen as misogynistic.

A bunch of tripe is what it is, trumping words and not even using them accurately.

so what you are claiming is liberals use "Homophobic" in the same way you use "Liberal"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The definition of marriage was defined in 325AD, adopted by Rome and carried through Europe to America.

It's not debatable what the definition of marriage is

In 325 Constantine summoned the bishops of both East and West to gather at Nicea to settle the Arian controversy.

Are you suggesting that the council also met to define what marriage is?

Because I've read the Canons which the council fathers produced, as well as the Epistle they sent to Alexandria and the rest of the Egyptian churches concerning the proper calculation of the Paschal Feast. Not to even mention the Creed itself obviously.

Perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Or did something else happen that year that I'm not aware of?

Were you thinking of the legalization of Christianity as an assumed adoption of the Empire of the Church's definition of marriage? Because the legalization of Christianity was a joint edict by both Constantine and Licinius (though spear-headed by Constantine), the Edict of Toleration was put into effect in 312.

Or perhaps you mean when the Empire made Christianity the official religion? Because that was during the reign of Theodosius I when he passed the Edict of Thessalonika in 380.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marius27]

Making random things up? You just to tried falsify my argument with something hardly even relevant. What does Church rite have to do with Western world being a Christian state with a definition of male and female marriage?

You are absurd. And then saying I haven't done research
I'm done with this thread. It's obvious that it would now just be a waste of time arguing with such nonsense.

Yes it would be a waste of time for you to argue with people who know more than you do, seeing as you have no intention of actually realizing the error of your ways.

 

[Strathos]

"Homophobic" is a stupid, made up derogatory term for people who simply homosexuality as wrong.

There should be a word, which would be much more warranted, for people with an obsessive pro-gay agenda- a movement in which the subjects aren't even leading.

No, it's for people who are so obsessed with it that they discriminate and sometimes use religion as an excuse for that kind of discrimination. There are plenty of other sins and many worse ones, many of which are completely legal and common in most countries, yet so many people focus so much on gays to the exclusion of everything else.

What about charity and feeding the poor? Jesus emphasized that all the time, and a lot of people not only ignore that, but even exploit and steal from the poor. If as much effort was put into opposing that as was put into opposing LGBT rights, a lot of progress could actually be made.

 

[WindStaff]

so what you are claiming is liberals use "Homophobic" in the same way you use "Liberal"?

A liberal holds to everything liberal whether they are religious or atheist. Their religion, which is supposed to trump everything as it's their RELIGION, comes second.

 

[Belk]

A liberal holds to everything liberal whether they are religious or atheist. Their religion, which is supposed to trump everything as it's their RELIGION, comes second.

Do tell?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's a stupid made up word used by supporters of homosexuality to throw at others.

What words aren't made up?

Sheesh...

 

[Strathos]

A liberal holds to everything liberal whether they are religious or atheist. Their religion, which is supposed to trump everything as it's their RELIGION, comes second.

There's an important difference between following your religion and trying to force everyone else to follow it.

 

[Queller]

Queller

It was also the courts, not the legislature, that overturned bans on homosexual practice. Therefore, although it didn't happen in a single case, it is the opinions of judges rather than decision of the legislature that have changed the position. Therefore, my point still stands.

No, your point does not stand. The legislature wrote a law. After review by the courts based on an injured individual petitioning for redress, that law was deemed unconstitutional. That is one of the reasons for the Supreme Court's existence, to determine whether laws are constitutional as they are applied.

This little excursus into the US Constitution has been most interesting and illuminating. I suppose each country is entitled to govern itself as it thinks best, but I am amazed that anyone would thing this was a sensible way of running a country, still less one that prides itself on its separation of powers. The courts are clearly wading into territory that belongs to the legislature, with no democratic accountability. Even for a country that frequently astonishes me with the absurdity of some of the views it can count as rational (usually the more conservative ones), this seems utterly bizarre.

This makes no sense. As I noted above, one of the reasons the Supreme Court (and by extension the lower level federal courts) exist is to determine the Constitutionality of laws written by the legislature. That isn't wading into another branches power, that is properly wielding their own.

Not only are the courts free to reinterpret words in any way they choose (which leads to an Alice in Wonderland sort of world), but there is also no stability. In some states SSM has been made legal, then illegal again (invalidating the marriages already conducted) and then re-legalised as different courts change their judgements back and forth. All that would be required for another change back again is getting five Supreme Court Justices who think that the 14th Amendment shouldn't be used in this way, and then it all changes again. No wonder the appointment of judges is such a political battlefield in the US - that makes much more sense now. In the UK we would never know the political persuasions of our judges, and neither would we care, since their judgements should be very much the same whoever is doing the judging.

I will admit that I do not know much about how judges are appointed in the UK. How do they receive their positions?

It would be different if SSM had been legal and then later the legislatures had come along and banned it - then you would have a good case for the courts' decisions here. But by your own admission, marriage had always been understood in law to mean a man and a woman,

I have not made any such admission. In fact, I have given several examples of marriages between members of the same-sex in ancient times.

so the DOMA acts were simply clarifications of the existing position. I see now why they were thought to be necessary, if judges can reinterpret laws so easily; what I can't see is why anyone thought a simple legislative act could be sufficient against courts that can strike down legislation they don't like

When the laws were codified, they became subject to judicial scrutiny. I don't understand why that is such a problem to understand. Also, the courts don't just decide to examine a law and rule on it. They have to have a case before them, brought by someone who has been injured by the law.

- why wasn't more effort made to get a constitutional amendment, I wonder?

Because changing the Constitution is a huge undertaking and the supporters of bans on SSM knew they didn't have the support necessary to get an Amendment passed.

Without wanting to make too nationalistic a point, that's a very American way of thinking, as I am coming to learn (it was an American who told me this, otherwise I wouldn't feel able to say so). From a British point of view, however hotly contested an issue is, I think we care about having it settled in the right way by the right people in the right forum. We now have SSM in the UK. I think that was a mistake; but at least it was settled properly. On euthanasia, for which I have some sympathies, the courts refused to rule on that because they said, rightly, that it was a matter for parliament to decide, since the existing legislation did not cover it.

Popular definitions may have expanded and contracted, but judges should be concentrating on legal practice; and in US common law there was no precedent for understanding marriage to be other than the union of a man with a woman.

There was also no precedent for recognizing marriage as the union of two different races but they did it anyway. In fact, there was precedent for upholding bans on interracial marriage in US law going back to 1691.

Tobacco-specific taxes and restrictions on advertising show a moral judgement is being made to discourage smoking... you can't convince me that there is no morality underlying those approaches.

That you can't be convinced of it, doesn't mean you are correct.

Since you ignore the points about prostitution and public nudity, should I assume you are conceding my point there?

As there are places in the US where both prostitution and public nudity are legal, I wouldn't assume anything.

Although it is popular to define paedophilia to include any underage sex, technically it refers to sexual desire for children before they are sexually mature (ie. capable of reproducing), and therefore by definition if a girl is able to conceive then the act was not paedophilia but simple rape (even if it was committed by someone who is a paedophile). While there may be good reasons for having an age of consent higher than this, I would not regard sexual desire for a girl who is capable of bearing children to be a disordered form of sexuality.

Right. You want me to believe the person that raped the 9-year-old knew she was capable of bearing children and that doesn't make it pedophilia.

I have given nothing but secular arguments in this thread. The trouble is, you are defining 'secularism' to be 'anything that Queller agrees with'.

That is a flat-out lie. First, the word in question was secular not secularism. Second I define secular the exact same way Merriam-Webster does;

Secular; 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>

So I will ask again, on what secular reasoning could a person hold the view that homosexuality is such a danger to public morality that homosexual acts should be prohibited outright?

Well, of course, if this is your definition of secularism, then no argument against homosexuality will ever be sufficient.

It isn't even remotely my definition of secularism. Keep trying to deflect away from my question though since apparently you can't answer it.

However, I was participating on this thread with the assumption that the question raised in the OP was asked in good faith, ie. that it held open the possibility that a secular argument could actually be made.

Yes, that a logical, consistent argument can be made.

Consider the hypothetical situation in which you have the authority to marry any couple if you choose (leave your religious beliefs out it for now). Two couples stand before you to be married. One is a same-sex couple and the other is an opposite sex couple who know that they are infertile and can never have children together without assistance. What secular reason will you give the same-sex couple for not marrying them that will not also directly apply to and prevent you from marrying the opposite-sex couple?

This view of homosexuality has been held around the world in pretty much every culture in every time until the recent past in some Western countries, regardless of religion or otherwise. It is perfectly creditable as a secular belief. Whether it is correct or not is another matter, but it is certainly a secular belief, and is at least basically credible as a view.

No it isn't credible because it is false. Many cultures around the world have not held this view of homosexuality even in ancient times. In fact, beliefs that homosexuality was bad did not arise in many of these cultures until Christianity came along.

If you want to eliminate any state judgement on morality (having written that opening clause I think that's actually impossible - there is no such thing as amorality or moral neutrality, since that is itself a moral position; but anyway, I'll skip past that for the moment), a plausible case could be made for the abolition of the state recognition of marriage, since privileging any relationship in that way discriminates against people who are unable to enter it (eg. single people), excluded from the qualifications for it (eg. plural marriage, siblings) or don't feel that the state should be involved in such matters.

I have no problem with that idea. It will never happen as too many heterosexual couples want the benefits that come from state-recognized marriage.

However, the argument that marriage should be retained and expanded to include SSM can only be intended to demonstrate a state approval of homosexual relationships as equally valid to heterosexual ones.

I agree that is one of the reasons. Just like government recognition of interracial marriages demonstrates that interracial relationships are just as valid as non-interracial ones. So what?

Whether you agree with that position or not, it is a moral point of view. If you believe that the state can take a moral position in that direction, then you are being completely hypocritical to say that it could not legitimately take a moral position in another direction, if it were to be so inclined.

It is morally neutral which, as you noted above, is a moral position.

There is no inconsistency in setting the boundaries of traditional marriage where they are. To a first approximation, the conditions needed for having a baby are a sexually mature man and woman.

You're absolutely right, that is what is needed for having a baby. Absolutely nothing more is needed. Neither government recognition nor societal approval are in any way needed to have a baby.

That is basically where the boundaries for marriage lie.

False. The ability to have a baby is not a boundary line to marriage.

All the relationships that fall within that category that cannot have children differ from the basic form by a matter of degree, such that no clear dividing line can be drawn.

False. A crystal clear dividing line can be drawn between those who can have children and those who cannot, once they know it. Homosexuals know this going into marriage just as some heterosexuals know it before going in.

However, a clear dividing line can be drawn with regard to gender, because there is no homosexual couple anywhere ever who are capable of having a child together, while in general heterosexual couples can. There is a difference of kind between those two, not simply a difference of degree.

False, as there are heterosexual couples who cannot have children and know that before getting married, the difference is a matter of degree not kind.

Like it or not, that is a consistent position to hold, and it is based on entirely secular reasoning, and within the laws and traditions of the United States it could legitimately be enacted in law (though apparently only by constitutional amendment). QED.

False, it is not a consistent position to hold. QED.

 

[Queller]

Yeah, the 90% percent who disagree with you few are getting their last minute Christmas shopping done.

85% of statistics are made up on the spot.

And no, the definition of marriage hasn't changed through history. It's always been between a man and a woman, why do you think it wasn't until recently that homosexuals are even allowed to marry?

In fact many cultures allowed same-sex marriages.

 

[Cearbhall]

It's a stupid made up word used by supporters of homosexuality to throw at others.

I've asked you a couple times now. I'm still wondering what exactly you mean by "supporters of homosexuality." Orientation or sexual activity? Defending their rights or actually promoting same-sex sexual activity?

 

[WindStaff]

There's an important difference between following your religion and trying to force everyone else to follow it.

Calling evil good is what one does when they support an institution of sin. The Bible speaks of this in a very explicit way.

There are many ways I could describe liberal Christianity- passive, requiring no sacrifice, worthless- pretty much everything that liberal atheists call for, liberal Christians conform to.

A person who really believes that the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom wouldn't stand by an idea of a marriage unto what is basically damnation.

 

[Cearbhall]

A person who really believes that the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom wouldn't stand by an idea of a marriage unto what is basically damnation.

So you want to outlaw remarriage, then? Or perhaps the entire institution of legal marriage, since it intentionally does not call upon God and is therefore both a farce and an insult to God, according to your religion.

 

[Marius27]

Calling evil good is what one does when they support an institution of sin. The Bible speaks of this in a very explicit way.

There are many ways I could describe liberal Christianity- passive, requiring no sacrifice, worthless- pretty much everything that liberal atheists call for, liberal Christians conform to.

A person who really believes that the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom wouldn't stand by an idea of a marriage unto what is basically damnation.

You're violating the board rules with your posts. One could same the exact same thing about conservatives.

Homosexuality doesn't exist in the original scripture of corinthians, so no you're in fact wrong. Not to mention based on that passage every single human on earth will not inherit the Kingdom.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Homosexuality doesn't exist in the original scripture of corinthians, so no you're in fact wrong. Not to mention based on that passage every single human on earth will not inherit the Kingdom.

"Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (Leviticus 18:22)

"Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

 

[WindStaff]

Homosexuality doesn't exist in the original scripture of corinthians, so no you're in fact wrong. Not to mention based on that passage every single human on earth will not inherit the Kingdom.

No it doesn't. This is the kind of bogus interpretation that has much of Christianity resembling the foolish facade of liberal principles. Paul stated 'men who sleep with men'. I'm not going to sit around and have the stupid discussion that doesn't mean homosexuality. Jesus Christ.

What Paul teaches is that if one commits to sin, then they cannot inherit the Kingdom. That is what the entire moral law of Christianity encompasses. If you cannot change outwardly, then inwardly you are dead.
And homosexual marriage is, fundamentally, A RITE OF MORTAL SIN. It is a sin, and one marries it. It's not rocket science, such a thing is by definition a doctrine of demons.

'Liberal Christian' is an oxymoron of moral ideology. One will notice that the great theologians, like Augustine, didn't adulterate his philosophy with liberal nonsense. He told it how it was, something that you all are completely unable to do because truth sort of takes the back burner to pretentious, new age moral twaddle.

 

[Strathos]

Calling evil good is what one does when they support an institution of sin. The Bible speaks of this in a very explicit way.

There are many ways I could describe liberal Christianity- passive, requiring no sacrifice, worthless- pretty much everything that liberal atheists call for, liberal Christians conform to.

A person who really believes that the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom wouldn't stand by an idea of a marriage unto what is basically damnation.

If you wanted to be consistent then, you would support laws to make Christianity the state religion and outlaw all other forms of worship. Worshipping other gods is a sin. I don't do it - I don't think people who do it are doing the right thing. But I don't think I have the right to tell them how to live their lives and stop them from doing it

There are many many sins that are legal in most nations. That's just a consequence of having religious freedom. As a Christian I try to avoid sin as much as possible, but I don't try to act as judge and jury to force everyone else to live the way I do. It's up to God to judge them, not me.

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

 

[Marius27]

No it doesn't. This is the kind of bogus interpretation that has much of Christianity resembling the foolish facade of liberal principles. Paul stated 'men who sleep with men'. I'm not going to sit around and have the stupid discussion that doesn't mean homosexuality. Jesus Christ.

Where does Paul say men who sleep with men in Greek? The word Paul used has never in classical literature referred to that. And had Paul actually wanted to refer to same-sex behavior, he already had two perfectly good Greek words to use, yet he chose neither one of them. You have no clue what you're talking about.

What Paul teaches is that if one commits to sin, then they cannot inherit the Kingdom. That is what the entire moral law of Christianity encompasses. If you cannot change outwardly, then inwardly you are dead.
And homosexual marriage is, fundamentally, A RITE OF MORTAL SIN. It is a sin, and one marries it. It's not rocket science, such a thing is by definition a doctrine of demons.

I disagree and I will continue to stand up against those who use the Bible and God as justification for their extreme hatred and bigotry.

'Liberal Christian' is an oxymoron of moral ideology. One will notice that the great theologians, like Augustine, didn't adulterate his philosophy with liberal nonsense. He told it how it was, something that you all are completely unable to do because truth sort of takes the back burner to pretentious, new age moral twaddle.

Your constant insults and attitude is very unbecoming of a Christian. Calling liberal Christian an oxymoron implies liberals can't be Christian, which is a clear rule violation. Perhaps you should go away and cool off.

 

[Strathos]

Jesus was liberal by the standards of His time, you know. But insisting on labeling people into groups of liberal vs. conservative or other such distinctions is unnecessarily divisive and makes it seem like you are pushing a politically driven agenda rather than actually looking at things from a religious angle like you claim. I think that's a good example of projection as well.