Assuming that the US isn't a Theocracy...

[joey444]

Amd that your religion has no place in law-making, why should gay marriage be banned?

 

[gengwall]

Apparently this post beat you to the question

http://www.christianforums.com/t421...al-rights-but-the-definition-of-marriage.html

For me, I can't find a non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage (or civil unions or whatever term people want to use to feel good about it).

 

[tocis]

Amd that your religion has no place in law-making, why should gay marriage be banned?

Is a German Asatruar allowed to reply too?

 

[SimplyMe]

Actually, this is a frequent topic on this board. From my recollection of the various threads I've been involved in, no non-religious reason has ever been found.

 

[maniaco]

you won't get an answer...cause there is no good reason...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Amd that your religion has no place in law-making, why should gay marriage be banned?

Defining a marriage as being between one man and one woman is not banning, it is defining what the citizens are willing to grant incentives or qualifies for recognition... and there are more than just one model that doesn't qualify for it.

Besides, your OP is flawed. The U.S. doesn't require Secularism to be the ideology of its citizens. Brush up on Representation, Rule by Consent, the First Amendment, Constitutional Democratic Republic, or anything else that inherently renders that OP as not applicable.

 

[nvxplorer]

Defining a marriage as being between one man and one woman is not banning, it is defining what the citizens are willing to grant incentives or qualifies for recognition... and there are more than just one model that doesn't qualify for it.

Such a definition does indeed result in banning homosexual marriage. It bans every arrangement not provided by the definition.

Besides, your OP is flawed. The U.S. doesn't require Secularism to be the ideology of its citizens. Brush up on Representation, Rule by Consent, the First Amendment, Constitutional Democratic Republic, or anything else that inherently renders that OP as not applicable.

The OP isn't flawed. It asks you to assume religion has no place in law making. The OP isn't claiming that all decisions must be secularly based, but asks you to give a secular reason for banning gay marriage.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Such a definition does indeed result in banning homosexual marriage. It bans every arrangement not provided by the definition.

I've highlighted the important word there.

Perhaps you would like to humor a request:
Name one country that recognizes and promotes every possible type of marriage. Any definition will indirectly not include something.

The OP isn't flawed. It asks you to assume religion has no place in law making. The OP isn't claiming that all decisions must be secularly based, but asks you to give a secular reason for banning gay marriage.

Flawed and for the reasons given.
It asks for a make-believe condition that would not be the U.S. if it were a true condition.
It might be passable hypothetical for a Communist or Dictatorship country though.

 

[gengwall]

I've highlighted the important word there.

Perhaps you would like to humor a request:
Name one country that recognizes and promotes every possible type of marriage. Any definition will indirectly not include something.

Although we certainly don't permit virtually every kind of conceivable marriage contract, there should be justification for preventing a marriage, (which there clearly is for most prohibitions), and such a prohibition must pass the constitutional test. Again, the only justifications I can think of to ban homosexual marriage are religious ones and they fail constitutionally (not to mention fail the OPs premise). If the government is going to grant certain economic and property rights and dictate certain responsibilities for a contract between two persons, then there should not be discrimination regarding which two persons can enter into such a contract unless such discrimination has a valid and constitutionally passable justification.

 

[nvxplorer]

I've highlighted the important word there.

I fail to see the importance you claim.

Perhaps you would like to humor a request:
Name one country that recognizes and promotes every possible type of marriage. Any definition will indirectly not include something.

You seem to be agreeing with me. Whether a law directly or indirectly excludes certain actions, those actions become effectively banned. The definition of a full stop involves all four (or two) wheels ceasing to turn. Requiring a full stop before turning right at a red light bans all turns which do not involve a full stop. Requiring a marriage to include one man and one woman bans all other arrangements.

Flawed and for the reasons given.
It asks for a make-believe condition that would not be the U.S. if it were a true condition.

It asks for nothing of the sort. A secular argument is not a make-believe condition. Indeed, for those of us who are not religious, secular arguments are the only condition.

If you are incapable of forming a secular argument, that's on you. Please don't blame the OP for your inability to follow its question.

It might be passable hypothetical for a Communist or Dictatorship country though.

Though it goes without saying, the OP asks us to "Assume that the US isn't a theocracy." Do you assume otherwise? Should I state the obvious that your mindset "might be passable" in a theocratic state?

If you can't give a secular reason for banning homosexual marriage, that's fine. Just say so. This logical and semantic twisting you've offered does nothing to further the discussion.

 

[SimplyMe]

I've highlighted the important word there.
Perhaps you would like to humor a request:
Name one country that recognizes and promotes every possible type of marriage. Any definition will indirectly not include something.

Seems like a case of misdirection here. He wasn't arguing that every type of marriage needed to be recognized, merely stating that by default that all other types are banned. You actually appear to be agreeing with his point, that your definition bans gay marriage.

Flawed and for the reasons given.
It asks for a make-believe condition that would not be the U.S. if it were a true condition.
It might be passable hypothetical for a Communist or Dictatorship country though.

Who claimed it wasn't flawed? Hypothetical questions do not have to conform to reality -- part of why they are hypothetical. Instead, the OP appears to be using it to ask what reasons beyond religious reasons there are to ban gay marriage. That you chose to argue that the hypothetical question could not appear in the real world would appear to indicate you have no answer to his question. (Note: I'm not saying that you cannot, since that would be a logical fallacy, it just gives that appearance)

 

[gengwall]

Actually, I can think of plenty of secular reasons that might be used to prohibit gay marriage. Of course, they are all clearly discriminatory and equal protection violations. "It's icky" seems to be a favorite amongst my brothers and sisters.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Although we certainly don't permit virtually every kind of conceivable marriage contract, there should be justification for preventing a marriage, (which there clearly is for most prohibitions), and such a prohibition must pass the constitutional test. Again, the only justifications I can think of to ban homosexual marriage are religious ones and they fail constitutionally (not to mention fail the OPs premise). If the government is going to grant certain economic and property rights and dictate certain responsibilities for a contract between two persons, then there should not be discrimination regarding which two persons can enter into such a contract unless such discrimination has a valid and constitutionally passable justification.

Well, fortunately for the given various citizens, they are not held any person's Argument of Ignorance.
I keep seeing that empty claim that some don't see or know of a totally religion-free reason. Yet at the same time, there is an ignoring of the fact that the citizens petitioning, voting on and passing an Amendment stating they collectively are willing to promote a specific model IS a secular reason.


This is from my State's Constitution:


STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 25 Marriage.

Sec. 25.
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 2, 2004, Eff. Dec. 18, 2004



So, I suppose it is time for one side of this discussion/debate to start proving those unsupported assertions.
Perhaps a SCOTUS decision declaring that my State's Constitution (among many other states) is violating the U.S. Constitution or show how that wording is establishing a religion.

 

[nvxplorer]

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 25 Marriage.

Sec. 25.
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 2, 2004, Eff. Dec. 18, 2004



So, I suppose it is time for one side of this discussion/debate to start proving those unsupported assertions.
Perhaps a SCOTUS decision declaring that my State's Constitution (among many other states) is violating the U.S. Constitution or show how that wording is establishing a religion.

Yes, that would be a secular argument. The argument is vague, ambiguous and flawed.

It is vague because "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage..." is a simple assertion. What is the basis for such an assertion?

It is ambiguous because "...our society and...future generations of children..." include gays. How does this amendment define "society?"

It is flawed because allowing gay marriage would not impact straight marriage in any way. Therefore, "the benefits of marriage" would be "secure and preserve[d]" regardless of the status of gay marriage.

 

[gengwall]

Well, fortunately for the given various citizens, they are not held any person's Argument of Ignorance.
I keep seeing that empty claim that some don't see or know of a totally religion-free reason. Yet at the same time, there is an ignoring of the fact that the citizens petitioning, voting on and passing an Amendment stating they collectively are willing to promote a specific model IS a secular reason.


This is from my State's Constitution:


STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 25 Marriage.

Sec. 25.
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 2, 2004, Eff. Dec. 18, 2004



So, I suppose it is time for one side of this discussion/debate to start proving those unsupported assertions.
Perhaps a SCOTUS decision declaring that my State's Constitution (among many other states) is violating the U.S. Constitution or show how that wording is establishing a religion.

Well, I agree in this for certain, that SCOTUS needs to decide if there are equal protection violations or not. They certainly are better versed on the constitution than I and are better at explaining why I might be wrong.

As far as the argument from ignorance goes, you are simply using that as a red herring to avoid the OP. The OP is entitled to the question regardless of how ridiculous or fallacious you think the question is. If you don't want to get sucked into something you feel is a logical fallacy, then don't play. But instead of addressing the question at hand, you seem to be arguing that the question should never have been asked.

The question remains, "is there a non-religious argument". The fact that a group of people voted for "x" is not in and of itself a factual argument supporting "x". This actually smacks of moral relativism, something I'm sure you would not intend to employ.

 

[MJ421]

Yet at the same time, there is an ignoring of the fact that the citizens petitioning, voting on and passing an Amendment stating they collectively are willing to promote a specific model IS a secular reason.

No it isn't. What is the reason for the admendment? What is the reason they are collectively petitioning the government?

Other than one's personal issues with gays, I see no reason, anywhere. There is no threat, no danger from gay marriage. Very similar to interracial marriage, there are no good reasons to ban it, other than people's personal issues with blacks.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Seems like a case of misdirection here. He wasn't arguing that every type of marriage needed to be recognized, merely stating that by default that all other types are banned. You actually appear to be agreeing with his point, that your definition bans gay marriage.

What exactly about a definition having a qualified and not qualified grouping gave you the misunderstanding of misdirection? It seems simple and common enough principle to me, but then again I don't presume to call the definition of say senior citizen a "banning" of teenagers or the definition of marriage in a State's Constitution a "banning" of people gathering together for a ceremony and exchanging promises to one another.
You do realize that gays have been "married" by Pagan religious figures in Hand Fasting ceremonies and have not been thrown in jail, don't you?

So I'll not dance around the bush on that. Even the one man and one woman definition isn't a "ban" on the ability for gays to "marry". At least I'm not having a problem acknowledging the fact of what is being promoted in the gay advocacy rhetoric is a desire that the citizens (whether or not they consent to it or have their Rights violated) promote, endorse, grant incentives, etc. toward same-gender couplings.

Who claimed it wasn't flawed? Hypothetical questions do not have to conform to reality -- part of why they are hypothetical.

I suppose the notion that a hypothetical not having the ability to be flawed is a new one for me.

Instead, the OP appears to be using it to ask what reasons beyond religious reasons there are to ban gay marriage. That you chose to argue that the hypothetical question could not appear in the real world would appear to indicate you have no answer to his question. (Note: I'm not saying that you cannot, since that would be a logical fallacy, it just gives that appearance)

Lots of things emphasize "appearances" - propaganda, superficiality, deception, etc.
Sorry, but I'm not automatically obligated due to any and all other's presumption(s).

 

[nvxplorer]

At least I'm not having a problem acknowledging the fact of what is being promoted in the gay advocacy rhetoric is a desire that the citizens (whether or not they consent to it or have their Rights violated) promote, endorse, grant incentives, etc. toward same-gender couplings.

You're acknowledging something that is not a fact. What is being requested is equal protection under the law. How private citizens view gay marriage is irrelevant to the request being made.

Same-sex marriage does not violate anyone's rights. Marriage requires the consent of the parties involved, not the consent of uninterested citizenry.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No it isn't. What is the reason for the admendment? What is the reason they are collectively petitioning the government?

You demand a "reason" that can only be answered by every citizen that voted on such an amendment.

To say that every citizen's reason(s) were the same is not intellectually plausible and violates the principle of a Democracy that brought it to a vote in the FIRST PLACE.

Someone will have to let me know when the U.S. requires its citizens to give essays detailing their individual reasoning for every vote they cast.
Until such time, I'm not impressed by claims of the ESP required to speak for such a vast number and in such absolute.

Other than one's personal issues with gays, I see no reason, anywhere. There is no threat, no danger from gay marriage. Very similar to interracial marriage, there are no good reasons to ban it, other than people's personal issues with blacks.

Other than one's personal issues with homoerotic desires, equally immoral behavior, ignorance and/or misplaced emotion captivity for those that are caught up in such, I see no reason, anywhere that I or anyone else needs to endorse it.

By the way, racial does not mean what someone does as a sexual practice. So while some might cling to that attempt, don't be too suprised to find that the interracial comparison only insults and alienates much of racial populace.

 

[MJ421]

You demand a "reason" that can only be answered by every citizen that voted on such an amendment.

What, there's no one or two good points that many of them rally around?

Do you have any secular reasons?

To say that every citizen's reason(s) were the same is not intellectually plausible and violates the principle of a Democracy that brought it to a vote in the FIRST PLACE.

Nice sidestepping. I see why they made you mod. But if you have no reason, just say so. It makes you look more...grown up.

Someone will have to let me know when the U.S. requires its citizens to give essays detailing their individual reasoning for every vote they cast.

Maybe then our republic (and it is a republic, not a democracy. I thought they taught that in schools?) will be safe from people voting the right thing down for bad reasons.

Until such time, I'm not impressed by claims of the ESP required to speak for such a vast number and in such absolute.

Again, no reason. You could have just said as much.

Other than one's personal issues with homoerotic desires, equally immoral behavior, ignorance and/or misplaced emotion captivity for those that are caught up in such, I see no reason, anywhere that I or anyone else needs to endorse it.

Using rational standards, homosexuality isn't immoral. The Bible may say otherwise, but the Bible is not admissable in court.

And how about the ignorance and misplaced emotion of those with an anti-gay agenda? Should their will and petty wants trump the rights of gays?

And no one is asking you to endorse anything. An unfounded, irrational fear common among people of your ideology.

By the way, racial does not mean what someone does as a sexual practice.

I'm glad you figured that out.

So while some might cling to that attempt, don't be too suprised to find that the interracial comparison only insults and alienates much of racial populace.

The truth hurts.

While the differences are obvious, you'ld have to blind to miss the number of similarities between the advocates against both blacks and gays. The similarities are between the arguements against gays and blacks and the mindsets of those who do the argueing rather than gays and blacks themselves.