Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[selfinflikted]

So what if the so-called "anti-discrimination" law didn't exist. Would refusing to bake a cake for a "gay marriage" ceremony be ok with you then?

No. In the same way it wouldn't be ok to refuse service to someone who was black, or Muslim, or gray haired, or left handed.

 

[Skaloop]

Well, if it wasn't for the law....

Yeah, I'd disagree with it, regardless of the law. But if the law were not in place, while I would disagree with discriminating against homosexuals, I would not sanction discrimination against Christians.

 

[Cearbhall]

What is anyone being forced to do in violation of their religious beliefs?

Bake cakes, apparently. Haven't you heard of the Anti-Frosting Church?

Yeah, I guess you want to go in circles again. Just look at one of the many thread already discussing the cake topic. It's already been done to death.

Yes, and no one's ever been able to properly spell out the religious belief that God is going to send you to Hell for baking a cake for a same-sex couple as part of your business when you're perfectly happy to serve all other sorts of sinners, including adulterers, people getting remarried, people who already live together, etc. Then there are the people who still think interracial marriage goes against God's plan, though some people on here have said that they'd be fine with re-instituting racial discrimination in order to protect all religious beliefs equally (which is what the Constitution would require if we started allowing this type of religious exemption).

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, if it wasn't for the law....

Just curious, should the anti interracial marriage crowd also be able to get out of making cakes?

 

[Queller]

What about children need a mum and dad as the best possible situation for them to grow up happy and well balanced.

How will same-sex marriage change that? We allow a lot of "not-the-best" possible situations already.

BTW, do you have any non-sectarian evidence to support your claim?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, where are these countless refutations? You certainly haven't offered any. It's kinda' intellectually lazy - if not dishonest - to respond as you have.

Selah.

I apologize if I get weary of explaining why inane arguments are inane.

Tell you what, give me your best argument (or the best argument from the PDF) against the topic at hand, and I'll give you my refutation. It should save a lot of time...

 

[David Brider]

What about children need a mum and dad as the best possible situation for them to grow up happy and well balanced.

They may do (although it's by no means an established, proven fact), but that is no way an argument against same-sex marriage.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I think it is a problem if gay marriage involves a new meaning to the word marriage, a very old word and found across many other cultures in their languages. Now if the word changes meaning we Christians will need to use a sentence to describe traditional marriage. It would be better for us if there were a new word for homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals have been marrying unofficially for decades. They may need protection from violence. But not tax cuts intended for people embarking on educating a family.

It is likely that in the future, since people have already begun trying, that churches will have to perform gay weddings, in the building, even the vicar... This either means giving the nod from a position of celebrant or authority, to a committing decision in public, without the parent's consent, and may mean asking for God's blessing, which is like asking for strength in a matter that hurts people. Which does not go. It is against the theology.

Fornication in the end, hurts people.

 

[quatona]

I think it is a problem if gay marriage involves a new meaning to the word marriage, a very old word and found across many other cultures in their languages. Now if the word changes meaning we Christians will need to use a sentence to describe traditional marriage. It would be better for us if there were a new word for homosexual marriage.

While I do think that such semantic considerations (Would it help or rather prevent people from understanding what´s meant if we modify the definition?) are important to a degree, we need to keep in mind that there are already differences in the meaning of the word "marriage" across and within cultures, and there have been previous changes to the meaning of the word (e.g. interracial partnerships were once excluded), without there being great confusion.
Personally, I think that the conceptual content of (secular) "marriage" is pretty much unchanged once we include same sex partnerships - so I don´t see any problems with this slight modification.
On another note, meanings of words aren´t determined by decree, they are determined by popular use. I find it safe to predict that even if a new official term is introduced, people will call it "(same sex) marriage" nonetheless, simply because the word represents the idea sufficiently close.

Homosexuals have been marrying unofficially for decades.

See there, you did it yourself.
QED

It is likely that in the future, since people have already begun trying, that churches will have to perform gay weddings, in the building, even the vicar... This either means giving the nod from a position of celebrant or authority, to a committing decision in public, without the parent's consent, and may mean asking for God's blessing, which is like asking for strength in a matter that hurts people. Which does not go. It is against the theology.

Fornication in the end, hurts people.

This thread is called "Any secular justification....?"

 

[KCfromNC]

What about children need a mum and dad as the best possible situation for them to grow up happy and well balanced.

Reasons for outlawing divorce such as yours above are going to be off topic for this thread.

 

[stevevw]

Reasons for outlawing divorce such as yours above are going to be off topic for this thread.

Thats why I decided not to pursue that line any further because it was off topic.

 

[David Brider]

I think it is a problem if gay marriage involves a new meaning to the word marriage...

It doesn't, so that's all right.

 

[selfinflikted]

It doesn't, so that's all right.

And even if it did, I cannot understand this rationale for opposition. I mean, almost 50 years ago, in just the U.S. alone, the "definition" of marriage changed (Loving v. Virginia). The definition of the word is not consistent across all countries. Christians do not, repeat DO NOT, hold any sort of monopoly on the definition of marriage, nor marriage itself. Contrary to popular opinion, marriage is NOT a religious institution exclusively. It wasn't one to begin with, although it has since sort of been usurped in America by Christians, I suppose one could say.

This argument, at least to me, is the most ridiculous argument one can present if opposing SSM. Are we really that uptight over a definition? Really? Because it's changed before. It will change again. And probably many more times to come. Sheesh.

 

[Queller]

Homosexuals have been marrying unofficially for decades. They may need protection from violence. But not tax cuts intended for people embarking on educating a family.

Why not? If same-sex couples decide to educate a family, why shouldn't they get those same tax breaks?

 

[Skaloop]

What about children need a mum and dad as the best possible situation for them to grow up happy and well balanced.

The topic is same-sex marriage, not children.

 

[stevevw]

The topic is same-sex marriage, not children.

I have already said that it was off topic and havnt commented for a few posts now. But the topic is actually any secular justification for the defense of marriage. So it really has nothing to do with gay marriage as well.

So I would think things like any arguments that will support marriage under secular meanings. I guess this is where it will bring in gay marriage as secular laws allow marriage between anyone so long as you are legal age. That means short or tall, black or white, different cultures, religions and races. But not all allow gay marriages. The the argument would be if we allow all the above then why not gay marriage.

Religions will argue that they are against gay marriage based on their beliefs. Well not all. But then secular society will also ban certain types of marriages from some other religions like the ones that allow more than one wife. Polygamy is against the law in western societies. But if society allows gay marriage does this change the traditional meaning. Should we have another name for gay marriage. We can have civil marriage and then religious marriages I suppose. Its interesting to note that secular marriage between two non christian also changed the meaning of marriage because they often married as non virgins.

 

[Skaloop]

I have already said that it was off topic and havnt commented for a few posts now. But the topic is actually any secular justification for the defense of marriage. So it really has nothing to do with gay marriage as well.

So I would think things like any arguments that will support marriage under secular meanings. I guess this is where it will bring in gay marriage as secular laws allow marriage between anyone so long as you are legal age. That means short or tall, black or white, different cultures, religions and races. But not all allow gay marriages. The the argument would be if we allow all the above then why not gay marriage.

Religions will argue that they are against gay marriage based on their beliefs. Well not all. But then secular society will also ban certain types of marriages from some other religions like the ones that allow more than one wife. Polygamy is against the law in western societies. But if society allows gay marriage does this change the traditional meaning. Should we have another name for gay marriage. We can have civil marriage and then religious marriages I suppose.

Why distinguish between them? We have civil marriage and religious marriage already, but they're just all called marriages. And what if the gay people getting married are having a religious ceremony?

Because here's the thing; you can't force a word upon people. You can't just have someone say "OK, from now on, the word garriage will mean a same-sex marriage" and have it stick. It doesn't work that way. You can't change the definition of a word by force, either. The definition just changes based on how the word is used. And nobody is going to to talk about civil marriage or religious marriage (except when that is specifically relevant) when discussing someone's marital status. They'll use the word marriage. And when that refers to a married gay couple, it'll still be marriage.

 

[selfinflikted]

lol "garriage."

That's like when one of my besties had her baby several years ago. She wanted her child "Noah" to refer to me and my partner as "guncle." I though this was just a baby-talk perversion of the word "uncle." However, it literally dawned on me just a couple of weeks ago that "guncle" is just a portmanteau of "gay uncle."

I was all /faceplam

 

[Cearbhall]

lol "garriage."

That's like when one of my besties had her baby several years ago. She wanted her child "Noah" to refer to me and my partner as "guncle." I though this was just a baby-talk perversion of the word "uncle." However, it literally dawned on me just a couple of weeks ago that "gungle" is just a portmanteau of "gay uncle."

I was all /faceplam

Holy crap.

 

[Aldebaran]

Just curious, should the anti interracial marriage crowd also be able to get out of making cakes?

Yes, if it was something that violated the conscience of the person being asked to provide that service, or it caused him to violate a principle of his religion. If the customer requesting that service at that store wants something that this particular owner is not willing to provide, then the customer can go to someone who is willing to provide it.