Convince me

[elliotfc]

I can say differently as to tradition. Is part of the Christian tradition of marriage the denial of governmental recogniton of other forms of marriage? How is that?

It depends on your understanding of what marriage means. A Christian can recognize that man/woman is married legally while not accept that they are sacramentally married. This will eventually incorporate homosexuals, as they will eventually be married legally but not sacramentally.

I have serious doubts that this can be verified. These sorts of things until recently were dealt with on a very local level, and I'm not sure how you know that nowere were people of the same gender permitted to live in a spouse like relationship.

Easy. When you examine history for same-sex unions, you will always note that their description, including language and legal specifics, are distinct from the concurrent heterosexual marriages.

There are links and mentions of these sorts of things in this thread. Your distinction between religion and government w/r/t SFG's link discussing homosexuality in early Christianity really doesn't hold as government and religious authority weren't exactly seperate.

That's a good point, but all governments have religious authority. The US government has religious authority in that they place restrictions and guidelines on religious practice.

My morality was never brought into issue. My claim was that believing something for a long time doesn't make it right.

I agree. Of course most of the morality things we believe in (rape is bad, murder is bad) have been believed for a long time.

150 years ago, it was held that the constitution was concieved to establish rights for white men only, and not black men. Your argument here is almost exactly the same one Tawney made in the Dred Scott case.

No, for a few reasons.

-Back then there was some disagreement on whether or not blacks were people. I believe homosexuals are people.

-Blacks had rights in other nations that they did not have in the US, whereas homosexual marriage is still basically anathema all over the world (there are a few contemporary exceptions).

-I am not saying homosexuals can not get married. They can get married. They can not marry people of the same sex.

You say marriage was concieved for hetrosexuals only.
He said the constitution was for white people only.

But that is false, as the Constitution defines black people as 3/5 of a person. It's a silly thing to say, but I didn't write it.

Also, race and ethnicity is inherently fuzzy. Skin color is qualitative, and gender is either/or.

This is the same argument from tradition in an attempt to avoid or at least slow down the end of a useless and discriminatory practice.

It's not useless, and it is discrimatory. You can't marry whoever you want. Even when marriage incorporates same-sex marriage, you still won't be able to marry whoever you want. Bigmany will still be illegal, for instance, and that would be discriminatory.

Same argument the State of Virginia made to defend their law forbidding interracial marriage, claiming it wasn't racial discrimination because black and whites could marry, just not each other...

That is bad discrimination. Race/ethnicity are constructs, while male/female is unavoidable. There will always be male/female, while ethnic definitions can diverge or converge over time. For example I am 50/50, white/asian. What race am I? No doubt I am a male if only for chromosomal reasons.

Marriage currently incorporates discrimination. We have to evaluate if the discrimination is bad/good.

Right. How big of you. Nothing better for a society than a sham marriage.

Sham marriages happen all the time, should they be made illegal too?

You mean like how it all fell apart when women were alowed to vote and no longer considered the property of their husbands? Society was once based on that idea as well.

No because in other societies women could vote, and women were not considered the property of their husbands. There have never been universals when it came to those two points.

Sterility is hardly a problem in this day and age.

Tell that to the people who give fertility clinics tens of millions of dollars each year.

We now have more children than we do stable families to raise them.

But that's always been the case.

Adding gay marriage to the mix can't but increase the number of stable families that can adopt.

Gays already can adopt, as can unmarried couples, or single parents.

This not only would lessen the number of familyless children raised by the state, but it could make adoption more attractive and lower abortion rates.

Oh please. They said the EXACT same things for gay adoption (which is legal) unmarried couple adoption (which is legal) and single parent adoption (which is legal), but have abortion rates lowered? Is adoption more attractive.

And you ignore the fact that there are adoption waiting lists. People do not want to adopt children over the age of 6, that is the problem. Even over the age of 1.

Like I said in the other thread, which would you rather see in a dark alley, someone raised by the state in a home or someone raised by a two loving parents that happened to be both men?

I am not opposed to two gay men raising a child if that is the best option for the child.

Are traditionalists happy to sacrifice the futures and perhaps lives of these children to maintain their precious "tradition?"

Some are, some aren't.

Again, discrimination is permissible with a valid government purpose. Tradition does not qualify.

Then what's the purpose of the other marital bans?

Nothing like a loveless marriage, eh? Society needs more of those. Our children aren't quite screwed up enough, and we always could use more domestic violence...

There have always been loveless marriages, marriage is a promise that should be kept even if two people fall out of love, or were never in love to begin with. You are talking about feelings here, when marriage is a contract.

Children are screwed up in any and all marriages, and domestic violence is commonly associated with love. Love is a feeling that does not exclude atrocities from happening.

I guess semantics are more important than the well being of the children. I'm sure that child crying himself to sleep would feel better that he isn't in a home with loving properous parents if he understood that his being there would be a tragic subversion of all that is good and right with the world...

I didn't know this was going to enter the realm of children. The issue was marriage of homosexuals. Sure, it would be great if all parents were loving all the time, and to their kids, but that can hardly be a rule, or there would be no marriages.

Isn't inventing crisis fun?

I'm not the one asking for gay marriage here.

-Elliot

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

All i can say I disagree. The links refer to Boswell's research, which is faulty and shoddy.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage7.html

Have you ever read Boswell's book? The links are striaght out of it, I've seen the info before and it is not presented honestly.

More importantly, the governmental recognition of same-sex unions were distinctly different from the recognition of heterosexual marriages. I don't have a problem with same-sex unions as much as same-sex marriage.

I'll say it again. There have never been same-sex marriages. The key word is marriage. Government/society have never held the same-sex unions to be equal to same-sex marriages.

-Elliot

The article you link to seems to rely heavily on the "standard" interperetation of the story of sodom to justify its belief that the two saints mentioned in one of the links I posted (you still haven't argued the rest, mind you) could not possibly have been married.

It deos not take anything away from the idea that it was a praticed tradition in Christianity for 900 years (5th to the 14th century). It also doesnt' argue that it was not a tradition in Greece, Rome, China and Native America.

And as for the tradition interperetation of the story of sodom, read this.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I can't escape having the opinion that homosexuality is a fundamentally and essential flawed form of sexuality. The ban/taboo against gay marriage would not exist if this opinion was the widely held as well. In this case I would suggest that homosexuality (which can never result in a new human being, leads to lower lifespan, and causes psychological and social trauma) is a harmful course of life that should not be made equal to other healthier courses of life. In other words, if I viewed these sexualities as equal, I would not be against homosexual marriage.

At this level, since homosexuality is harmful, state blessing/sanction must also be harmful. Do people have the right to live a non-ideal life? Yes. Does the government have to sanction/bless/approve of such lifestyles? No. The government recognition of marriage is a moral judgment call that follows the consistent historical tradition. I feel government is free to recognize gay unions in a different way, separate from the institution of marriage.



Well non-traditional morality when it comes to sexuality is one of the defining themes of the 20th century.

Just some facts:
-Divorce rates have never been higher.
-Pornography is a billion dollar industry.
-People are getting married at a later age and having fewer children.
-Abortions continue to occur at a high rate (the abortion figures are wrong and low, all ex-abortionists tell how they underreport abortion figures for tax reasons i.e. underthetable)
-Sexual abuse towards children and women is happening more and more frequently.

All of this because we are being told that sex is natural and normal, that sexualities are equal, that judgments against sexual activity should not be made. All of these new dogmas (and that is what they are, dogmas) run counter to traditional sexual dogmas. The idea of homosexual marriage goes hand in hand with the other ideas - abortion on demand, contraceptives on demand, do not judge sexual acitivities, etc.

I see the same people that advocate a new sexual morality also advocate homosexual marriage. It is difficult, then, not to link all of this together. Since I feel the data proves that our culture is a sexual mess, and I feel that is correlated to the past century of eroding traditional sexual morality, I make the jump.



What data do you want?


-Elliot

Oh, Elliot...

YOu've made a LOT of assertions here with out ANY evidence whatsoever.

 

[elliotfc]

The article you link to seems to rely heavily on the "standard" interperetation of the story of sodom to justify its belief that the two saints mentioned in one of the links I posted (you still haven't argued the rest, mind you) could not possibly have been married.

What is there to argue? You're begging the question here.

If you carefully examine the links you post, you'll notice that the gay unions are inherently different from the concurrent heterosexual marriages. It's almost a "let's throw them a bone" thing. If same-sex marriage ever was, in fact, equal and accepted as heterosexual marraiges, we wouldn't have the elaborate crafting you'll find in the links.

Just think about it. Marriage creates roles, husband and wife, words for which exist in every language that has ever existed. How could same-sex union possibly fit into the marriage concept? It can't, and it didn't, so inventions separate from the insitution of marriage, in imitation of the institution of marriage, were contrived. I don't argue that, and why should I want to argue that? It only proves that marriage is defined and creativity needs to be used to create a mimetic scheme for same-sex couples. Which I don't even agree with; it's just that I thought the point here was that gays, today, don't want such similitude as opposed to the real thing.

It deos not take anything away from the idea that it was a praticed tradition in Christianity for 900 years (5th to the 14th century). It also doesnt' argue that it was not a tradition in Greece, Rome, China and Native America.

Sure it was a tradition, uniquely defined and not equivalent to marraige I am not arguing any of that.

As for the Christianity, what a few regional types did here and there does not speak for the universal church anymore than what various schismatics or heretics or Shakers have practiced in their particular spheres.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Oh, Elliot...

YOu've made a LOT of assertions here with out ANY evidence whatsoever.

If you don't believe that sexuality has gone kablooey in the past 100 years, we really are talking past each other.

-Elliot

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

What is there to argue? You're begging the question here.

No, actually, I linked you to a different interpretation, which you appear to have ignored.

If you carefully examine the links you post, you'll notice that the gay unions are inherently different from the concurrent heterosexual marriages. It's almost a "let's throw them a bone" thing. If same-sex marriage ever was, in fact, equal and accepted as heterosexual marraiges, we wouldn't have the elaborate crafting you'll find in the links.

Just think about it. Marriage creates roles, husband and wife, words for which exist in every language that has ever existed. How could same-sex union possibly fit into the marriage concept? It can't, and it didn't, so inventions separate from the insitution of marriage, in imitation of the institution of marriage, were contrived.

This was, according to some historians, done because the role of "wife" was akin to the role of "cattle". The idea that men were equal is what changes the idea of same-sex unions away from being "marriage". Since it is commonly accepted, at least in America, that women are equals to men, now, then the idea of same-sex marriage as related in history (a partnership of equals) is exactly the same as "traditional" marriage.

I don't argue that, and why should I want to argue that? It only proves that marriage is defined and creativity needs to be used to create a mimetic scheme for same-sex couples. Which I don't even agree with; it's just that I thought the point here was that gays, today, don't want such similitude as opposed to the real thing.

See my statement above

Sure it was a tradition, uniquely defined and not equivalent to marraige I am not arguing any of that.

As for the Christianity, what a few regional types did here and there does not speak for the universal church anymore than what various schismatics or heretics or Shakers have practiced in their particular spheres.

-Elliot

And shall I ask you to show me a "Universal" christian church?

Let us accept that the Catholic church was the generally accepted christian church in th 14th century and before. That would make it the "Universal" church you talk of, would it not? Since the practice was done by the Catholic church, that would mean ti was accepted by the mainstraim of the church.

Again, it would go on to prove that the ban on same-sex marriage was a modern invention.

 

[rachaella]

The argument from tradition seems to me to be grasping at straws, kind of like a very large scale equivalent of the child asking the parent why he can't have a cookie and the parent says "because I say so!". If traditions have absolutely no basis in logic, why keep them?

 

[Atlas]

The argument from tradition seems to me to be grasping at straws, kind of like a very large scale equivalent of the child asking the parent why he can't have a cookie and the parent says "because I say so!". If traditions have absolutely no basis in logic, why keep them?

Rachella, your post got me thinking. I don't think logic can be employed here. Passions are high on both sides of the issue in the mind of the public. 'Two men in marriage' does not seem a logical construct to many of those minds. Of course, two people committed to each other til death - again, not necessarily logical. If you were arguing to return to the days of arranged marriages you'd be on firmer ground using arguments of tradition and logic.

To further explore the logic issue, let me quote myself from an earlier post that didn't draw much comment...

Originally posted by Atlas I wonder if it's a question of semantics. If you offered up a word like "kinnage", carrying all rights and privileges, I think the public would be favorable to the notion. Over time the distinction and the word would probably vanish...

I do believe that right thinking societies should promote committed loving relationships. It is in their own best interest to do so. I don't know if a second label like "kinnage" is the best answer... But tell me, if there was a rose by another name, would you expect gays to accept it.

It seems that gays would still be slighted, even with 'full rights and privileges'. Why? Only because of the sound and power of a word?!? Gay unions are sufficiently different in structure from the traditional model that they should have their own word. But I think many would fight a 'War of Roses' to prevent the imposition of a new word. Is it logical?

I could be wrong. Reaching for 'Marriage' might just be a tactical ploy to achieve 'full rights and privileges' and win their strategic goal. That would be logical. It might so shape the argument into 'I want it all' that when they get it all,but in a different dress, both sides will think they've won. That would be the best possible outcome for society.

 

[elliotfc]

No, actually, I linked you to a different interpretation, which you appear to have ignored.

No, the interpretation speaks for itself, and the way it speaks says that the ceremony is a unique relative of marriage. Do we agree on that?

This was, according to some historians, done because the role of "wife" was akin to the role of "cattle". The idea that men were equal is what changes the idea of same-sex unions away from being "marriage".

Good point, marriage has rarely been about equality, which is why there are the words husband/wife, and believe it or not the *power* designated to those two distinct roles is variable over history.

Since it is commonly accepted, at least in America, that women are equals to men, now, then the idea of same-sex marriage as related in history (a partnership of equals) is exactly the same as "traditional" marriage.

Another excellent point. If marriage is about equality, as opposed to fulfilling two distinct roles, then you speak rightly. The common thought of marriage is that two become one, and just as the left hand and right hand fufill different roles without worrying about equality, so a husband and wife also (ideally) fulfill roles without worrying about equality.

And shall I ask you to show me a "Universal" christian church?

It's the ideal. Just as bad scientists are decried by good scientists, are bad scientific tradition/dogma is decried by the good, so to with Christianity.

Let us accept that the Catholic church was the generally accepted christian church in th 14th century and before. That would make it the "Universal" church you talk of, would it not? Since the practice was done by the Catholic church, that would mean ti was accepted by the mainstraim of the church.

Whatever. If you think that every Catholic parish performed the ceremony based on an anecote, that is your belief. I'm not even trying to argue religious tradition here so I'll drop this now.

Again, it would go on to prove that the ban on same-sex marriage was a modern invention.

I'm done with this now, you have your belief and you are sticking to it. Again, a cursory look at human history proves otherwise, bans against same-sex marriage are certainly not a modern invention.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The argument from tradition seems to me to be grasping at straws, kind of like a very large scale equivalent of the child asking the parent why he can't have a cookie and the parent says "because I say so!". If traditions have absolutely no basis in logic, why keep them?

Because the tradition does have a basis in logic. It is logical that marriage, and its defined roles, are for opposite sexes and not same sexes.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Rachella, your post got me thinking. I don't think logic can be employed here. Passions are high on both sides of the issue in the mind of the public. 'Two men in marriage' does not seem a logical construct to many of those minds. Of course, two people committed to each other til death - again, not necessarily logical. If you were arguing to return to the days of arranged marriages you'd be on firmer ground using arguments of tradition and logic.

Excellent point. Arranged marriages demonstrate that marriage has always been about more than the two individuals involved. It is about linking families and keeping society running smoothly. Arranged marriages, based on the evidence, are more stable and happier. Love is a feeling, and feelings come and go.

To further explore the logic issue, let me quote myself from an earlier post that didn't draw much comment...It seems that gays would still be slighted, even with 'full rights and privileges'. Why? Only because of the sound and power of a word?!? Gay unions are sufficiently different in structure from the traditional model that they should have their own word. But I think many would fight a 'War of Roses' to prevent the imposition of a new word. Is it logical?

Extremely logical. I don't have a problem with a unique understanding for a homosexual union.

I could be wrong. Reaching for 'Marriage' might just be a tactical ploy to achieve 'full rights and privileges' and win their strategic goal. That would be logical. It might so shape the argument into 'I want it all' that when they get it all,but in a different dress, both sides will think they've won. That would be the best possible outcome for society.

Yes, I think that both sides argue from a larger point of view. This is only one item from a laundry list (on both sides).

-Elliot

 

[Ipecac]

My concern is a relatively minor one with your use of the term shouldn't. Christians, fundamental or otherwise, have chosen to accept a variety of standards for themselves, and it's not unreasonable to feel guilty about not living up to a standard you value. You may consider Christian standards impossible to achieve or non-sensical, but that only means you wouldn't feel guilty about "missing the mark," not that that someone who has committed to those standards shouldn't feel guilt. If Christians want to play by those rules, though, that's their concern.
C.J.

Interesting point C.J. I'm not thinking about such wide concepts, however. I'm thinking more of specific acts which most churches condemn without having any legitimate reasons to condemn them. Things like dancing, masturbation, feeling pride, desire. These things are natural and (usually) harmless.

People shouldn't feel guilty when they're proud of their work. They shouldn't feel guilty because they admire their neighbor's car and desire one for themselves. Why does the church condemn these things? Historically, to control the believers. If there are other, legitimate, reasons, I'd like to hear them.

 

[Ipecac]

[Some content snipped]

Good point. This is all specualation. From my point of view, why tinker with the institution? If we quibble about whether it would be beneficial, or harmful, to society, I see reasons to assume either position, but overriding this is the reason to take the default position that it will be harmful. Experimenting with this issue for the sake of theory seems to me rash, and governmental intervention to change societal norms is out of order.

I can't escape having the opinion that homosexuality is a fundamentally and essential flawed form of sexuality. The ban/taboo against gay marriage would not exist if this opinion was the widely held as well. In this case I would suggest that homosexuality (which can never result in a new human being, leads to lower lifespan, and causes psychological and social trauma) is a harmful course of life that should not be made equal to other healthier courses of life. In other words, if I viewed these sexualities as equal, I would not be against homosexual marriage.

At this level, since homosexuality is harmful, state blessing/sanction must also be harmful. Do people have the right to live a non-ideal life? Yes. Does the government have to sanction/bless/approve of such lifestyles? No. The government recognition of marriage is a moral judgment call that follows the consistent historical tradition. I feel government is free to recognize gay unions in a different way, separate from the institution of marriage.

Well non-traditional morality when it comes to sexuality is one of the defining themes of the 20th century.

Just some facts:
-Divorce rates have never been higher.
-Pornography is a billion dollar industry.
-People are getting married at a later age and having fewer children.
-Abortions continue to occur at a high rate (the abortion figures are wrong and low, all ex-abortionists tell how they underreport abortion figures for tax reasons i.e. underthetable)
-Sexual abuse towards children and women is happening more and more frequently.

All of this because we are being told that sex is natural and normal, that sexualities are equal, that judgments against sexual activity should not be made. All of these new dogmas (and that is what they are, dogmas) run counter to traditional sexual dogmas. The idea of homosexual marriage goes hand in hand with the other ideas - abortion on demand, contraceptives on demand, do not judge sexual acitivities, etc.


-Elliot

Elliott, extending rights to a class which has historically been discriminated against is not out of order. I know you understand that the arguments you're making now were made historically to deny blacks and women the rights of white males in America. The arguments are exactly the same, the analogy is the same. So why doesn't that give you pause?

Elliot, please provide support for the following assertions:

Homosexuality is a flawed form of sexuality. (You may have to define what an unflawed form is.)

Homosexuality leads to a lower lifespan.

Homsexuality leads to psychological and social trauma. (Saying that homsexuals are often emotionally abused demonstrates that others should be more tolerant, not that there's anything wrong with homosexuals.)

Divorce rates have never been higher.

I agree that pornography is a billion dollar industry. Why is that relevant? (I contend that if movies, tapes, DVD's, computers and magazines had existed 200 years ago, pornography would probably have been just as popular as it is now.)

Sexual abuse towards women and children is happening more frequently.

And, finally, that sexuality is NOT natural and normal.

Until you can answer some of your unfounded assertions, I can tell you you're going to be seen as merely bigoted, wanting to deny rights to people based on your own prejudices, having no basis in reality.

 

[rachaella]

Elliott, extending rights to a class which has historically been discriminated against is not out of order. I know you understand that the arguments you're making now were made historically to deny blacks and women the rights of white males in America. The arguments are exactly the same, the analogy is the same. So why doesn't that give you pause?

Elliot, please provide support for the following assertions:

Homosexuality is a flawed form of sexuality. (You may have to define what an unflawed form is.)

Homosexuality leads to a lower lifespan.

Homsexuality leads to psychological and social trauma. (Saying that homsexuals are often emotionally abused demonstrates that others should be more tolerant, not that there's anything wrong with homosexuals.)

Divorce rates have never been higher.

I agree that pornography is a billion dollar industry. Why is that relevant? (I contend that if movies, tapes, DVD's, computers and magazines had existed 200 years ago, pornography would probably have been just as popular as it is now.)

Sexual abuse towards women and children is happening more frequently.

And, finally, that sexuality is NOT natural and normal.

Until you can answer some of your unfounded assertions, I can tell you you're going to be seen as merely bigoted, wanting to deny rights to people based on your own prejudices, having no basis in reality.

I will contend that it would seem that women and children are being abused more often only because this behavior is actually considered illegal now since in the past 100 years women and children have risen above the status of livestock as far as what goes on inside the home. Abusing women and children was considered private and in to some extent a man's right before the 20th century.

 

[C.J.]

Interesting point C.J. I'm not thinking about such wide concepts, however. I'm thinking more of specific acts which most churches condemn without having any legitimate reasons to condemn them. Things like dancing, masturbation, feeling pride, desire. These things are natural and (usually) harmless.

People shouldn't feel guilty when they're proud of their work. They shouldn't feel guilty because they admire their neighbor's car and desire one for themselves. Why does the church condemn these things? Historically, to control the believers. If there are other, legitimate, reasons, I'd like to hear them.

Aside from a desire to control believers (a rationale I do not entirely concede, though I don't want to go even farther off-topic), churches condemn things like pride and covetousness (sp?) because important teachings or texts or whatever say these things are bad. In effect, churches would probably argue that scripture or tradition or whatever are legitimate reasons for condemnation, though this argument only has any force for those who choose to believe in church doctrine.

I guess I would say that I can't provide any legitimate reason that doesn't presuppose an acceptance of the religious context that argues in favor of such condemnations. If you don't believe masturbation, for example, is wrong, you probably won't feel guilty about doing it. If a religious doctrine I accept says it's wrong (for whatever reason) and I do it, I'll feel guilty. I might think you should feel guilty, but that would necessitate me feeling you should be holding to my religious standards and the rationale (whatever it is) underlying them. That's what sticks in most people's craw, saying you should accept censure based on arguments I accept on faith which you do not.

 

[LFTKBS]

All i can say I disagree. The links refer to Boswell's research, which is faulty and shoddy.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage7.html

Have you ever read Boswell's book? The links are striaght out of it, I've seen the info before and it is not presented honestly.

This from the guy who links to the AFA . . .

 

[Ipecac]

I will contend that it would seem that women and children are being abused more often only because this behavior is actually considered illegal now since in the past 100 years women and children have risen above the status of livestock as far as what goes on inside the home. Abusing women and children was considered private and in to some extent a man's right before the 20th century.

Exactly!

 

[C.J.]

Elliot--

What data do you want?

Data that proves something about homosexuality, or something about sexuality in general.

Apologies, I'm not sure what exactly you want.

I can't prove that homosexual marriages will further destabilize our sexual morality, or morality in general, because homosexual marriage can not be found in non-contemporary history.

Now, today there are homosexual marriages (Hawaii, Mass, Calif). In California, are homosexual marriages in San Fran helping or hurting society. In Mass, is the fact that a court legislates helping or hurting society? I have my opinions about this of course.

-Elliot

My call for data is part of a desire to see if there is a basis for arguing against allowing homosexual marriages that is not based only on hypothetical, theoretical, or religious argumentation.

Let's say that I agree with you: allowing homosexual marriage will destabilize society. To support my argument, I say that more liberal or non-traditional sexual morality in other areas like pornography or the acceptance of sex outside of marriage has contributed to societal problems like abortion, violence against women, etc., and that based on precedent we can expect something similar from allowing homosexual marriage, another aspect of non-traditional sexual morality.

When someone challenges me on this, asks me to support this, do I have data? Maybe not, because no society allowing homosexual marriage and equating it to heterosexual marriage has left any record for us to reflect on. What that leaves is arguing from theory; making projections based on analogy or philosophy. The problem with these arguments is that my challenger may find them unsatisfactory because they find fault with the analogy or they disagree with my underlying philosophy. If I invoke tradition and say that any society lasting any significant period of time has not equated hetero & homosexual marriage, or that male-female family structure has always been the core societal structure of any large, long-lasting society, and that's why homosexual marriage is a bad idea (stable societies didn't allow it), I can only back that up with my logic and belief that it is so.

Another example. If you argue through logic that successful societies have disallowed homosexual marriage, and we don't know if such a proscription was a necessary condition of said societies' success, and that it is therefore foolish to risk the possibility of societal dissolution for something that affects an admittedly minor part of the population, one has to accept several propositions to be swayed: that the societies are similar enough to make comparison valid, that sexual morality is an important aspect to societal stability, that homosexual marriage is immoral enough to contribute significantly to critical sexual immorality, and so on. If there were data available to demonstrate the validity of these claims, then the argument would be strengthened, but if you have to rely on one accepting your points because you believe them to be true, you'll have a hard time convincing someone of the validity of your argument; a person who wants convincing has decided to be critical/skeptical, and the best way to satisfy critics/skeptics is with data.

I don't know if that clears my request for data up or not. I hope that if it's still confusing or vague you'll let me know.

C.J.

 

[rachaella]

Elliot--



My call for data is part of a desire to see if there is a basis for arguing against allowing homosexual marriages that is not based only on hypothetical, theoretical, or religious argumentation.

Let's say that I agree with you: allowing homosexual marriage will destabilize society. To support my argument, I say that more liberal or non-traditional sexual morality in other areas like pornography or the acceptance of sex outside of marriage has contributed to societal problems like abortion, violence against women, etc., and that based on precedent we can expect something similar from allowing homosexual marriage, another aspect of non-traditional sexual morality.

When someone challenges me on this, asks me to support this, do I have data? Maybe not, because no society allowing homosexual marriage and equating it to heterosexual marriage has left any record for us to reflect on. What that leaves is arguing from theory; making projections based on analogy or philosophy. The problem with these arguments is that my challenger may find them unsatisfactory because they find fault with the analogy or they disagree with my underlying philosophy. If I invoke tradition and say that any society lasting any significant period of time has not equated hetero & homosexual marriage, or that male-female family structure has always been the core societal structure of any large, long-lasting society, and that's why homosexual marriage is a bad idea (stable societies didn't allow it), I can only back that up with my logic and belief that it is so.

Another example. If you argue through logic that successful societies have disallowed homosexual marriage, and we don't know if such a proscription was a necessary condition of said societies' success, and that it is therefore foolish to risk the possibility of societal dissolution for something that affects an admittedly minor part of the population, one has to accept several propositions to be swayed: that the societies are similar enough to make comparison valid, that sexual morality is an important aspect to societal stability, that homosexual marriage is immoral enough to contribute significantly to critical sexual immorality, and so on. If there were data available to demonstrate the validity of these claims, then the argument would be strengthened, but if you have to rely on one accepting your points because you believe them to be true, you'll have a hard time convincing someone of the validity of your argument; a person who wants convincing has decided to be critical/skeptical, and the best way to satisfy critics/skeptics is with data.

I don't know if that clears my request for data up or not. I hope that if it's still confusing or vague you'll let me know.

C.J.

I have to add that the contention that all successful societies have disallowed homosexual marriages would be a difficult point to prove in itself. As most atheists and agnostics know very well, proving a negative is a difficult task indeed. Just a single example of a "successful"(What is a successful society? How do you define one?) society that supported or simply allowed gay marriages would knock that claim down.

 

[Beleth]

I am a heterosexual married man. If someone can provide me with a logical reason why my gay neighbours being married is a threat to my own marriage, or to my children, I will pledge my support to an amendment (for what my support is worth.)

At the risk of repeating what someone else has said already:

Gay people marrying each other means that there will be fewer children. Fewer children means that there will be fewer people paying into the Social Security system when you retire. Less Social Security money for you means that you'll dip more into your own savings. And that leads to less inheritance money for your kids when you die.

If gay people can't marry each other, there will continue to be a percentage of them who marry people of the opposite sex and have children with them.

Yes, this argument is a big big stretch. But it is the only non-religious-based argument I can come up with.