Secular Case Against Gay Marriage Compared to ID.

[Dirty Name]

They are straw man arguments because they presume a kind of marriage that is not actually practiced any more. Not sure that kind of marriage was ever practiced.

WHAT?!?!?!? What kind of marriage are YOU talking about? I'm talking about the kind where a man and a woman get married, build a life together, conceive children, raise them in a loving home, watch them grow up and get married themselves, and then enjoy the last years of life together while they visit their grandchildren.

Seems to me that such marriages are still pretty commonplace.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name WHAT?!?!?!? What kind of marriage are YOU talking about? I'm talking about the kind where a man and a woman get married, build a life together, conceive children, raise them in a loving home, watch them grow up and get married themselves, and then enjoy the last years of life together while they visit their grandchildren. Seems to me that such marriages are still pretty commonplace.

For most of human history it was not all that common. Most of the households with children do not contain both biological parents. We also do not practice monogamy anymore. We have serial polygamy. The times have changed. Didn't you get the memo.

Starboy

[rez]

Quote by: Dirty Name WHAT?!?!?!? What kind of marriage are YOU talking about? I'm talking about the kind where a man and a woman get married, build a life together, conceive children, raise them in a loving home, watch them grow up and get married themselves, and then enjoy the last years of life together while they visit their grandchildren. Seems to me that such marriages are still pretty commonplace.

WHAT?!?!? What kind of marriage ar YOU talking about? I'm talking about the kind where a man and a woman get married, financialy support each other, build a life, conceive children, releazie its harder then just simply writting out a paragraph, watch them grow, go through teenage problems, maybe parents part ways, the kids soon find that they are on their own, working a full time job recieving minimum wage, and paying for college.


Your personalized paragraph that you just wrote shows how wrong you really are. Life is all different and should NOT be summed up in one paragraph. Please cherish your beliefs - if you feel thats how marriage should be then proceed, but please do not infringe on other peoples lives. I am not being a radical liberal - I am using common sense.

You admited that you do not know why people decide to become homosexual. SO if you do not know the prime question then why are you making assumptions that Homos can not nurture children. Where do you even live to come up with this shit? A homosexual neighborhood? are the gays hitting their children? HOW uneducated are the children of these homos that live near you? Once again, when discussing Intelligent design and gay marriage - Stop mixing up your supernatural commandments with your digust in others having anal sex and non-beliefs! It is closed minded and ignorant.

[ibm]

rez, i haven't read many of your posts. but i agree with you in that this is more of a common sense issue - more so than anything else.

[Flip Jackson]

The Professor is in. Here are my two bits for the topic.

I would agree with Dirty Name that the marraige he explained did exist and still do. There are and have been plenty of people who got married for the right reasons, loved each other, cared for their kids, and remained married. Nowadays, marraige seems to have lost almost all significance. Divorce is common and many people are married 4 or 5 times. People have intimate relationships before marraige so that is no longer a reason to get married. People live together before marraige. I'm curious to know why people even get married anymore if they seem to have no intention of saving anything for marraige or remaining married at all? Just a thought...

I, along with many people, plan to have "traditional" families. Just because society has destroyed the principle of marraige doesn't mean it isn't practiced in the traditional sense. It did and does exist for those of you who doubt.

Now about the secular argument for homosexuality. I believe it may be possible to come up with such an argument, but it is difficult to come up with a such an argument without being biased. I would bet that most people who make secualr cases against homosexual marraige are religious, but I can't know for sure.

Dirty Name and his articles brought up some good points. There are reasons for heterosexual marraiges to be compensated. Women have to go through the pain and inconvenience of child birth and have to go without work for at least a short time, preferably longer. While pregnant women cannot support themselves, so husbands provide the income. Also, generally speaking, the men can provide protection for their wives. I personally think that some one would be more willing to try to commit a crime against two women living together than a man and a women. Two men living together wastes the protective influence of one man. Men also help women financially. Even today men are paid more than women for the same jobs, so it is easier for men to provide for a family and still have a parent at home. These points would make some of the government's jobs easier, so such relationships would be encouraged.

I admit some of those ideas were a bit cheesy, but I thought I should put them out there. I know that counter arguments could be easy to come up for some of these points. For example, if two women will have a harder time providing money for a family, shouldn't the government be willing to give more aid for each kid they have? This kind of leads to my next point.

I will start by saying that men and women ARE different emotionally, intellectually, and physically (obviously.) I feel it is important to note that they are NOT equal, but ARE equally important. There is a huge and important difference between the two concepts of equality and importance. Men can do things women can't and vice versa. Women's brains work differently and are generally more outwardly emotional. Neither is better, but both are necessary. My point? Personally, and I know many people agree, I feel that a household with a father and mother provides a lot more than a household with parents of only gender only. A household without a mother may not give kids enough emotional support and kids might not feel that they have anyone to talk to. Men aren't always good about listening and offering support. They just want to find answers to problems and be done with it. A house without a father may lack discipline and quick solutions to problems.

Now, I know that many hetero families don't offer the kids the support, discipline, and aid that they need. But my point is that no matter how great a homosexual set of parents is, when compared to a great heterosexual set of parents, the homosexual parents will lack the affect that one gender could have on the kids.

I am terribly sorry if this is confusing. I'm also sorry for the length. I hope I addressed this as secularly and fairly as possible. Keep in mind that I haven't given my opinion on homosexual marraige, but am merely suggesting that a legitimate secular argument can be made. Please ask if something is unclear.

[Flip Jackson]

Holy cow, that was even longer than I thought. So sorry for the eyesore guys!

[Starboy]

The secular argument for marriage seem to revolve around children. Yet the recognition of a marriage by the state has nothing to do with children. And people get benefits from the state such as tax deductions for their children if they are married or not. Most of the benefits granted by the state to marriage partners has nothing to do with children but it has to do with property, power to make legal decision for the other party and rights to retirement and medical benefits. Married people get these benifits whether they have children or not. The point of all this is that the secular argument against gay marriage revolves around the supposed interest of the state in the welfare of children and yet the institution of marriage has little to nothing to do with the laws regarding that welfare. The state in a backhanded way recognizes that reproduction and a life long commitment of two people to each other have little to do with each other. People do not need government recognition to have children and the government doesn't grant or withold marriage based on an ability to reproduce.

Starboy

[Flip Jackson]

You are correct that a lot of the arguments involve children, but not all.

I also pointed out that a man offers an protective influence, a "saftey bubble" if you will. It seems to me that a criminal would rather go after a house with two women in it before they would go after a house that had a man in it. This is only applicable to homosexual females, but the government could see a family with a father and mother less likely to be a victim of criminal activity and would therefore use less government money. Just a posibility.

One reason kids are so important, is that they will be adults later. If homosexual couples don't offer all the advantages that hetero couples do, then the gvernment would want to encourage hetero couples and give them benefits. This could leave more experienced adults. Just a thought of course. The way children are raised will determine the kind of citizen they become, so it makes sense to look at how a couple will affect their kids when a government decides which couples they will give benfits to and which they won't.

[Starboy]

Flip, if you personally think that children are important then good for you. Such a person can have children whether they are married or not. Such a person can raise kids whether they are married or not. The point here is that children have nothing to do with marriage. The only time they had something to do with marriage is when children were chattel and marriage to a woman was a way to make a claim of ownership of the child even if you had not fathered it. We no longer use marriage in that way. Frankly it has close to nothing to do with reproduction. So any so-called "secular argument against gay marriage" will be a specious argument if it is based on the concept that marriage is important for raising children. In fact anyone that has raised children married or not will tell you that the state doesn't actually provide all that much for raising the kid and what it does provide doesn't even come close to the cost in treasure and time that it takes to raise children.

You do not need to be married to have children. You do not need to have children if you are married. The two are not related.

So please present a "secular argument" against gay marriage that is not based on reproduction.

Starboy

[belverron]

Quote by: Flip Jackson It seems to me that a criminal would rather go after a house with two women in it before they would go after a house that had a man in it.

I'm not picking a fight with no dyke....

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Flip Jackson The Professor is in.

You have no idea the memories that brings back flip.

Anyway, I agree with you to a point, but whenever we do something "for the children" we need to make sure that we aren't using it as a cheap emotional blackmail tactic.

You can look at all the studies you want of what role models children need, but you can't relate those studies to homosexual couples. Firstly, there are *infinitly* more single mother families than gay couples seeking adoption. If you want to make legislation "for the children" you would be better off making divorce more difficult than keeping gays fro being parents. Secondly, as I said a few posts ago, who is a better parent, a couple who went through the difficulty and cost of adopting, or a couple who just had a condom break?

If a gay couple gets a child, they will be garenteed to want it. They will probably also be more secure because there are two parents (after all, if one leaves, then we are left with a single parent - which we already accept). This can't be said for the traditional model of child rearing.

[Flip Jackson]

Starboy, marraige and reproduction may no longer be as related as I feel they should, but marraige and children ARE related. Often people get married because children come into the picture.

But here is my point, heterosexual people that are married will probably end up with kids. It can be argued that hetersexual couples will create more experienced citizens than homosexual couples. For this reason they government may want to encourage hetero marriage with benefits.

But I have given at least one argument that didn't involve kids. I will try to give more at some point.

Haha! Prometheus, memories are the suff life is made of. I love any chance to bring back good times. Besides, I have always liked that intro. :)

I want to point out, that in the secualr arguement, I am not trying to emotionally bring the effects to kids into the fray. I am just showing an argument for why the government might be more willing to grant benefits to hetero couples over homo couples. If they feel that better citizens will arise, then they will give aid. This isn't about the kids, but about what they will become.

You have good points, but single mothers aren't trying to gain marriage benefits. Homosexual couples are. You are also right that people trying to adopt will probably be better parents then those who have "accidental" children. I am trying to argue that the children of hetero couples could be seen as having greater potential because both genders are present. If you take the epitomy of hetero and homo couples, some will argue that the hetero kids will be more experienced due to dual gender parents. Hence the reason the government might encourage hetero realtionships in general.

I hope I am making sense. It comes together in my mind well, but tend to have difficulties in the whole explanation process.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Starboy, marraige and reproduction may no longer be as related as I feel they should, but marraige and children ARE related. Often people get married because children come into the picture.

Fine then, please show in the marriage license as provided by the state anything that requires that only married people may have children and that unmarried people may not.

But here is my point, heterosexual people that are married will probably end up with kids. It can be argued that hetersexual couples will create more experienced citizens than homosexual couples. For this reason they government may want to encourage hetero marriage with benefits.

So what? Any hetero couple that is engaging in sexual relations is likely to have kids no matter what their marital status. What does this have to do with marriage? It is like saying that because people who are married cook their own meals that marriage is about cooking. You would have a point if people who were not married did not also cook their own meals. That is what it means when something is related. More kids live in homes without both biological parents then ever before. Now I agree that this is not good but it has nothing at all to do whatsoever with the state recognizing gay marriages. I would claim that people that think that reproduction and marriage are linked are the major cause of this disaster and that gays have more on the ball than most hetero couples. They do not want to be married because they want to reproduce. They are married because they want to make a life long commitment to each other. This so called "secular argument" based on reproduction is just another symptom of how screwed up in the head people have become when it comes to living life well. I know this is supposed to be about secular arguments but the reason why these people are so screwed up in the head is because they are getting their life guidance from the Bronze Age as if that were the age we currently lived in.

But I have given at least one argument that didn't involve kids. I will try to give more at some point.

And what argument is that?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy The secular argument for marriage seem to revolve around children. Yet the recognition of a marriage by the state has nothing to do with children. And people get benefits from the state such as tax deductions for their children if they are married or not. Most of the benefits granted by the state to marriage partners has nothing to do with children but it has to do with property, power to make legal decision for the other party and rights to retirement and medical benefits. Married people get these benifits whether they have children or not. The point of all this is that the secular argument against gay marriage revolves around the supposed interest of the state in the welfare of children and yet the institution of marriage has little to nothing to do with the laws regarding that welfare. The state in a backhanded way recognizes that reproduction and a life long commitment of two people to each other have little to do with each other. People do not need government recognition to have children and the government doesn't grant or withold marriage based on an ability to reproduce. Starboy

All marriage benefits conferred by the state are granted on an arguement related to children. I love my mother, but giving money to her over a certain amount creates a taxable situation. I dare you to name one benefit associated with marriage that isn't based on child-related reasoning.

Marriage is a major part of responsible family planning. The idea is that a man and woman are supposed to marry before starting with the kids. There is well established in the traditions of pre-legal marriage from which legal marriage was constructed. The reasoning being that it is rather risky to wait to lay out the framework of a family until a child is concieved/born.

And finally, you don't need government recognition to breathe either so what is the point of these questions? Where has anyone said that the purpose of marriage is grant people permission to have children? I have personally responded to this particular point at least three times. Each time I have challenged the posters (including you) to explain what one has to do with the other. For the sake of allowing the followers to understand your point before accepting/dismissing it, I ask you explain the reasoning supporting it now. Especially in light of the fact that the government already witholds marriage based on ability to reproduce, that is why it is limited to a man and a woman--the point you are arguing against.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto All marriage benefits conferred by the state are granted on an arguement related to children. I love my mother, but giving money to her over a certain amount creates a taxable situation. I dare you to name one benefit associated with marriage that isn't based on child-related reasoning.

And what tax deduction do you get for kids that you would not get anyway even if you were not married?

Marriage is a major part of responsible family planning. The idea is that a man and woman are supposed to marry before starting with the kids. There is well established in the traditions of pre-legal marriage from which legal marriage was constructed. The reasoning being that it is rather risky to wait to lay out the framework of a family until a child is concieved/born.

If only marriage were a major part of responsible family planning. If only the magic worked. Do you know what is actually a major part of responsible family planning? Responsible people making responsible life long commitments to each other. They do not need state recognition for that. In fact I fail to see how the state has anything at all to do with it other than making the paperwork of common property, retirement and medical benefits easier.

And finally, you don't need government recognition to breathe either so what is the point of these questions? Where has anyone said that the purpose of marriage is grant people permission to have children? I have personally responded to this particular point at least three times. Each time I have challenged the posters (including you) to explain what one has to do with the other. For the sake of allowing the followers to understand your point before accepting/dismissing it, I ask you explain the reasoning supporting it now. Especially in light of the fact that the government already witholds marriage based on ability to reproduce, that is why it is limited to a man and a woman--the point you are arguing against.

I asked those that claimed that there were "legitimate secular arguments" for not allowing gays to marry and the major argument seemed to revolve around children and some lame contention that since only hetero's could have children and gays could not that the state has an interest in only recognizing the marriages of people who could have children. This argument implies that the purpose of marriage should be to have children and that is why gays should not be allowed to marry. I have been pointed out that it is not a legitimate argument because procreation and marriage have nothing to do with each other. It is not as if state recognition of gay marriages will effect heteros desire to procreate. A very silly argument.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy And what tax deduction do you get for kids that you would not get anyway even if you were not married?

The point of marriage is not to get benefits for having kids. One common reasoning that casts doubt on this idea is that, when the parents of a child stay together, it less likely that outside support will be needed. Being married could actually place a person at a disadvantage for recieving child welfare benefits. Many of those benefits are aimed at offseting economic hardships single parents are more likely to suffer.

http://www.clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf

If only marriage were a major part of responsible family planning. If only the magic worked. Do you know what is actually a major part of responsible family planning? Responsible people making responsible life long commitments to each other. They do not need state recognition for that. In fact I fail to see how the state has anything at all to do with it other than making the paperwork of common property, retirement and medical benefits easier.

:) There seems to be a sort of fuzzy logic behind what you are saying that is making it difficult for me to understand your point. The point of having marriage in the first place is to lay out a framework for making just such a life-long commitment. When you marry someone, you don't get to pick and choose which legal rights you will grant and which you wont. Whether you actually intended to share property, retirement or other benefits or not, getting married establishes a legally backed right of your spouse to those things if you have them.

I have been pointed out that it is not a legitimate argument because procreation and marriage have nothing to do with each other. It is not as if state recognition of gay marriages will effect heteros desire to procreate. A very silly argument. Starboy

Yes you have and so I won't continue with you on this point since it will only be a repeat of past discussions. I would note that I have never claimed that same-sex marriages will have a positive or negative on a married man or woman, but I doubt you actually expected me to address this straw man arguement.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto The point of marriage is not to get benefits for having kids. One common reasoning that casts doubt on this idea is that, when the parents of a child stay together, it less likely that outside support will be needed. Being married could actually place a person at a disadvantage for recieving child welfare benefits. Many of those benefits are aimed at offseting economic hardships single parents are more likely to suffer. http://www.clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf

Hey make up your mind. You claimed that the state provides tax benifits to marriages specifically to support procreation. I asked you to list such taxes and you do not. And now you seem to realize that the state doesn't actually bind tax benifits to people with children to their marital status.

:) There seems to be a sort of fuzzy logic behind what you are saying that is making it difficult for me to understand your point. The point of having marriage in the first place is to lay out a framework for making just such a life-long commitment. When you marry someone, you don't get to pick and choose which legal rights you will grant and which you wont. Whether you actually intended to share property, retirement or other benefits or not, getting married establishes a legally backed right of your spouse to those things if you have them.

We are talking about government recognition of marriage. You do not have to do any of what you describe to get such recognition. All you have to have is a hetero spouse.

Yes you have and so I won't continue with you on this point since it will only be a repeat of past discussions. I would note that I have never claimed that same-sex marriages will have a positive or negative on a married man or woman, but I doubt you actually expected me to address this straw man arguement.

I never made that argument. This was part of the so called "legitimate secular argument" that the poster claimed existed in the opening post of this thread. All I did was ask for the arguments to be produced and this argument is part of what was presented. I am simply pointing out that it is not a legitimate argument.

Starboy

[Flip Jackson]

I haven't made a lot of the claims you accuse me of. I said nothing of procreation, but perceived effects that result from the sexuality of parents.

If a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple both have kids in their family, many people would argue that if both sets of parents were responsible, good people, the hetero kids would have an advantage because they had the experience of a male and female parent. If the government thought this advantage was significant, they would encourage hetero relationships by giving benefits to hetero couples who desired to get married.

I am not addressing procreation or the purpose of marriage, only a side effect that different types of relationships might have on children. i have said this over and over.

I have also given a non-child reason twice. Rather detailed both times I thought. Protection. Look back if you feel the need.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I haven't made a lot of the claims you accuse me of. I said nothing of procreation, but perceived effects that result from the sexuality of parents.

You say this and then you post this:

If a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple both have kids in their family, many people would argue that if both sets of parents were responsible, good people, the hetero kids would have an advantage because they had the experience of a male and female parent. If the government thought this advantage was significant, they would encourage hetero relationships by giving benefits to hetero couples who desired to get married.

And your argument is not based on procreation how?

I am not addressing procreation or the purpose of marriage, only a side effect that different types of relationships might have on children. i have said this over and over.

And still again your argument revolves around children, as if most gay couples want children.

I have also given a non-child reason twice. Rather detailed both times I thought. Protection. Look back if you feel the need.

Can you at least give me the thread and post number? Maybe a link?

Starboy

[Flip Jackson]

I think you are so anti religion that you blind yourself sometimes. You claim this all goes back to religion and seem to ignore what I really say.

I am addressing "child rearing" not "procreation." Entirely different. I am not saying this is my view either, but am addressing a possible secular point.

I will make this as brief and clear as possible. If hetero relationships appear to provide advantaged kids in comparison to kids of homo parents, the government might want to encourage hetero relationships by giving heteros benefits if they marry. These aren't benefits for having children, but encouragement to have a hetero marriage.

I did not say all gays want kids. I am describing a situation. Does the government think that the kids of gays (those who want kids) will be in the same boat as kids of heteros? If not, they would encourage hetero relationships through marriage.

These aren't definative answers, but possible arguments. Chill a little and read the posts.

As for my other reason, uh ,you just have to go to page five of this thread. Turn back one page. I know you have read the two posts that have my argument, but you seem to have glazed over them.