Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Support of Same-Sex Marriage and Secularism

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:14:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been thinking about this recently: why is it, exactly, that those who are in support of same-sex marriage tend to be atheists/secularists?

After all, the most powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, I think, are ones that are completely accessibly to the secularist, that is, they don't involve any appeal to God or Biblical verses. So why is this so? Is the secularist unwilling to see the importance of the heterosexual familial unit as the very foundation of society? Is it that secularism/atheism encourages, at last perhaps in some basic level, the undermining of the traditional sexual morality advocated by Natural Law and/or philosophies that have been inculcated by theism (or, more specifically, Christianity)? Is it perhaps indicative of some basic relation between a desire to embrace secularism/atheism and a desire to be free of traditional moral standards, and fear of certain - real or imagined - political and social consequences of the truth of religious belief, which can also lead some to want to believe that we are just clever animals with no purpose to our lives other than the petty purposes we choose to give them, and that there is no cosmic judge who will punish us for disobeying an objective moral law?

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Why do you think there is such an association between secularism and support of same-sex marriage?

And please, no silly little "well, because secularist are rational loll you religious tard" or "because we're not homophobic, bible-thumping hillbillies hahaah you fascist bigot go die lolll PEACE AND LOVE!" comments and the like, please.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:40:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:14:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I've been thinking about this recently: why is it, exactly, that those who are in support of same-sex marriage tend to be atheists/secularists?

Most polls now show roughly half of all Americans endorse same-sex marriage. And considering roughly 80% of all Americans are Christians it seems odd that you would come to that conclusion.

After all, the most powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, I think, are ones that are completely accessibly to the secularist, that is, they don't involve any appeal to God or Biblical verses. So why is this so? Is the secularist unwilling to see the importance of the heterosexual familial unit as the very foundation of society?

Heterosexual? Yes. Necessity of a stable familial unit? No, most people support that regardless of whether or not someone else thinks the family unit MUST be heterosexually based.

Is it that secularism/atheism encourages, at last perhaps in some basic level, the undermining of the traditional sexual morality advocated by Natural Law and/or philosophies that have been inculcated by theism (or, more specifically, Christianity)?

Perhaps. But then again you just said most of the arguments are non-religious. So shouldn't this not even be an issue on your view?

Is it perhaps indicative of some basic relation between a desire to embrace secularism/atheism and a desire to be free of traditional moral standards, and fear of certain - real or imagined - political and social consequences of the truth of religious belief, which can also lead some to want to believe that we are just clever animals with no purpose to our lives other than the petty purposes we choose to give them, and that there is no cosmic judge who will punish us for disobeying an objective moral law?

Lol most Christians will disagree even with your own interpretation of "objective moral law" so this isn't unique to atheists.

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Why do you think there is such an association between secularism and support of same-sex marriage?

Because most non-religious arguments against SSM are just an after thought. Do you really think people like Contradiction would endorse SSM if their already established religious belief in the immorality of homosexuality were proven wrong? Of course not. The fact that most people who support non-religious arguments are also religious themselves (and already opposed SSM on those grounds) shows that these arguments are little more than plays garnered to give religious people "secular" foundations. It's like creationists who shifted to calling themselves "Intelligent Design proponents".
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have a question for you. Do you oppose homosexuality on religious grounds independently of whatever secular arguments you support? There's no right or wrong argument I'm just curious.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:44:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wonder if its ever occured to those that are religious, that the treatment of those who are homosexual in society, with ignorance, intolerance, prejudice etc. is exactly the kind of stuff one isnt supposed to do if one is religious...

God- "Yeah your getting punished bro."

Random guy- "i knew it! Its those devious homosexuals we're being punished for and their sinful ways isnt it?"

God- "No you're being punished for acting like d!cks to them."
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:28:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Probably because most of the strongest secular arguments appeal to immanent teleology which is quite obviously more at home within a theistic worldview. Most atheists/secularists (at least Western ones) don't buy into it. And forestall the inevitable point about "Well, that's true...but atheists could be Aristotelian teleologists..." Yes, they could be. But in so far as most of these people tend to subscribe to a "naturalist" worldview either explicitly or implicitly Aristotelian teleology just doesn't fit well.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:29:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:14:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I've been thinking about this recently: why is it, exactly, that those who are in support of same-sex marriage tend to be atheists/secularists?


I proudly buck that trend anywho. :D
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:25:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My former best friend who became an atheist when we were in high school was actually pretty vehemently against anything to do with gay people or same-sex marriage, and even threw around faggot all the time in a specifically homosexual context. Never understood it.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:33:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:29:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:


I proudly buck that trend anywho. :D
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:48:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It probably just appears that way due to shared political allegiance; the left is very big on identity politics.

Personally, as a gay secular biologist, the argument for some sort of equitable contractual union between people of the same sex is rooted in basic contractual law and political ethics. The 'natural law' arguments (that each body part has some sort of objective purpose) runs completely contrary to all of biology, so I discard it on those grounds.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:20:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 10:33:13 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:29:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:


I proudly buck that trend anywho. :D

Whoa, was this always your position? I could've sworn you were Con or at least undecided at one point. I'm just curious...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:41:27 PM, Noumena wrote:
I have a question for you. Do you oppose homosexuality on religious grounds independently of whatever secular arguments you support? There's no right or wrong argument I'm just curious.

Yes, I do.

But even if I were to become an atheist in the future (which is unlikely, I'd add), I'd happily remain against same-sex marriage.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:18:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:44:31 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
I wonder if its ever occured to those that are religious, that the treatment of those who are homosexual in society, with ignorance, intolerance, prejudice etc. is exactly the kind of stuff one isnt supposed to do if one is religious...

God- "Yeah your getting punished bro."

Random guy- "i knew it! Its those devious homosexuals we're being punished for and their sinful ways isnt it?"

God- "No you're being punished for acting like d!cks to them."

This post allows me to clarify my position on the matter of same-sex marriage, homosexuality and the like.

I'm opposed to same-sex marriage. I think there are very good grounds for seeing same-sex marriage as not only absurd, unnecessary and of no interest to the state, but also as detrimental to society. I also view homosexual acts (not orientation) as immoral. Now, what about this would lead me to embrace the position, as you seem to imply, like the following:

"It is permissible to treat homosexuals with intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination"?

While I readily oppose same-sex marriage, this in no way precludes me from simultaneously condemning, say, the stoning or killing of homosexuals, for example. Just because I am opposed to same-sex marriage does not entail that I'm automatically some gay-beating psychopath who stalks and murders homosexuals every Tuesday (I prefer Thursdays, you see).
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 10:48:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It probably just appears that way due to shared political allegiance; the left is very big on identity politics.

Personally, as a gay secular biologist, the argument for some sort of equitable contractual union between people of the same sex is rooted in basic contractual law and political ethics. The 'natural law' arguments (that each body part has some sort of objective purpose) runs completely contrary to all of biology, so I discard it on those grounds.

You don't need to appeal to teleological grounds to oppose same-sex marriage.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:12:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:19:25 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:48:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It probably just appears that way due to shared political allegiance; the left is very big on identity politics.

Personally, as a gay secular biologist, the argument for some sort of equitable contractual union between people of the same sex is rooted in basic contractual law and political ethics. The 'natural law' arguments (that each body part has some sort of objective purpose) runs completely contrary to all of biology, so I discard it on those grounds.

You don't need to appeal to teleological grounds to oppose same-sex marriage.

Then what is the argument? That the purpose of marriage is procreation? I would argue that it is more about raising a child than making one, and that homosexuals are perfectly capable of doing that.

That God doesn't like it? While Iran may be willing to lend him their ear, we do not live in a theocracy.

Those are the only three arguments that I've come across.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Probably because the arguments against gay marriage suck, in a nutshell. Without religion, the only impulses against trying to control the actions of other people would be misguided conservativism or outright totalitarianism.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 11:38:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:12:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:19:25 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:48:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It probably just appears that way due to shared political allegiance; the left is very big on identity politics.

Personally, as a gay secular biologist, the argument for some sort of equitable contractual union between people of the same sex is rooted in basic contractual law and political ethics. The 'natural law' arguments (that each body part has some sort of objective purpose) runs completely contrary to all of biology, so I discard it on those grounds.

You don't need to appeal to teleological grounds to oppose same-sex marriage.

Then what is the argument? That the purpose of marriage is procreation? I would argue that it is more about raising a child than making one, and that homosexuals are perfectly capable of doing that.

Important intricacies aside, yes, marriage exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint. Or perhaps the argument is that same-sex marriage is of no interest to the state whatsoever. Or perhaps that same-sex marriage is detrimental to society. There's many, so it would be unwise to claim that there's "basically one" or something of the sort. Even if we were to put aside the fact that two individuals of the same-sex cannot procreate, there have been countless empirical studies that demonstrate what is already a commonly verified wisdom, namely, that two men or women who engage in sodomy and what-have-you, simply are unable to provide an environment in which to raise a child as nourishing the environment a mother and a father raising their child (especially their own biological child) could give.


That God doesn't like it? While Iran may be willing to lend him their ear, we do not live in a theocracy.

As I said before, I find completely secular and pragmatic arguments against same-sex marriage extremely convincing. And I'm not hard-headed enough to think that an atheist is willing to listen to what the Bible has to say on the matter.


Those are the only three arguments that I've come across.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 11:44:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:10:40 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Probably because the arguments against gay marriage suck, in a nutshell. Without religion, the only impulses against trying to control the actions of other people would be misguided conservativism or outright totalitarianism.

I didn't expect such a weak comment coming from you, dandy. That's a bit (or, well, quite a bit) like the pot calling the kettle black; most of the arguments (if we can call them that) in favor of same-sex marriage usually are no more profound than an emotional, irrational, and unreflective whining to allow people to "just marry who they love," which, if followed consistently, leads to all manners of absurdities.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 10:13:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 11:44:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:40 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Probably because the arguments against gay marriage suck, in a nutshell. Without religion, the only impulses against trying to control the actions of other people would be misguided conservativism or outright totalitarianism.

I didn't expect such a weak comment coming from you, dandy. That's a bit (or, well, quite a bit) like the pot calling the kettle black; most of the arguments (if we can call them that) in favor of same-sex marriage usually are no more profound than an emotional, irrational, and unreflective whining to allow people to "just marry who they love," which, if followed consistently, leads to all manners of absurdities.

Lol. Gay folks should no more have to justify their right to marry than you or I do. Negative liberties should always be the presumption in society, and given that, I don't see the need for SSM to need much in the way of argument besides tackling those who argue in favour of restricting marriage. These arguments, even when defended by very smart people, are usually awful.

Besides, I'm pretty happy with my own case for Gay Marriage (even if it is admittedly something I haven't felt the need to study in great detail).
http://debate.org...

I'd be more than happy to defend it again in a debate.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 10:16:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Out of curiosity, what secular arguments are you finding convincing? The ones I've seen (Procreation, Aristotelian teleology and so on) are utterly unconvincing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 11:38:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:12:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:19:25 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:48:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It probably just appears that way due to shared political allegiance; the left is very big on identity politics.

Personally, as a gay secular biologist, the argument for some sort of equitable contractual union between people of the same sex is rooted in basic contractual law and political ethics. The 'natural law' arguments (that each body part has some sort of objective purpose) runs completely contrary to all of biology, so I discard it on those grounds.

You don't need to appeal to teleological grounds to oppose same-sex marriage.

Then what is the argument? That the purpose of marriage is procreation? I would argue that it is more about raising a child than making one, and that homosexuals are perfectly capable of doing that.

Important intricacies aside, yes, marriage exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint. Or perhaps the argument is that same-sex marriage is of no interest to the state whatsoever. Or perhaps that same-sex marriage is detrimental to society. There's many, so it would be unwise to claim that there's "basically one" or something of the sort. Even if we were to put aside the fact that two individuals of the same-sex cannot procreate, there have been countless empirical studies that demonstrate what is already a commonly verified wisdom, namely, that two men or women who engage in sodomy and what-have-you, simply are unable to provide an environment in which to raise a child as nourishing the environment a mother and a father raising their child (especially their own biological child) could give.

Your assertion that gay couples are 'simply are unable to provide an environment in which to raise a child as nourishing the environment a mother and a father raising their child (especially their own biological child) could give' is demonstrably false, as a child's natural parents are not always the best people to raise it. The way you worded that, we would have to conclude that it is better for a child to live in an abusive household than to be adopted into a stable homosexual family. No one is saying that we take children out of stable, loving households and give them to gay people, we are saying that parents which are abusive, neglectful, or simply unwilling or unable to be parents leave behind offspring which need a home, and that growing up in a homosexual household is a vast improvement over hopping from foster home to foster home as a ward of the state. Even if you studies hold up, which I'm not entirely convinced of, you cannot just say that we shouldn't give children to homosexuals because, given a possible lineup of parents, it is well within the realm of possibility for there to be a gay couple which is better than the alternatives.

Taking any sort of generalization and applying it to specific situations like this constitutes a fallacy of accident. Even if homosexual couples are, on average, less capable of raising children, you cannot apply this to every individual case and claim that they should all be unable to adopt. It'd be like publishing a study which verified the stereotype that Asian women cannot, on average, drive as well as others and then using that to deny drivers licenses to Asian ladies, even if they demonstrate exemplary driving skills.

That God doesn't like it? While Iran may be willing to lend him their ear, we do not live in a theocracy.

As I said before, I find completely secular and pragmatic arguments against same-sex marriage extremely convincing. And I'm not hard-headed enough to think that an atheist is willing to listen to what the Bible has to say on the matter.


Those are the only three arguments that I've come across.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 7:43:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 10:13:34 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/2/2013 11:44:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:40 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Probably because the arguments against gay marriage suck, in a nutshell. Without religion, the only impulses against trying to control the actions of other people would be misguided conservativism or outright totalitarianism.

I didn't expect such a weak comment coming from you, dandy. That's a bit (or, well, quite a bit) like the pot calling the kettle black; most of the arguments (if we can call them that) in favor of same-sex marriage usually are no more profound than an emotional, irrational, and unreflective whining to allow people to "just marry who they love," which, if followed consistently, leads to all manners of absurdities.

Lol. Gay folks should no more have to justify their right to marry than you or I do. Negative liberties should always be the presumption in society, and given that, I don't see the need for SSM to need much in the way of argument besides tackling those who argue in favour of restricting marriage. These arguments, even when defended by very smart people, are usually awful.

Besides, I'm pretty happy with my own case for Gay Marriage (even if it is admittedly something I haven't felt the need to study in great detail).
http://debate.org...

I'd be more than happy to defend it again in a debate.

Before I even get started on the reply, I'd like to ask: why it is that you seemingly open up every post with a "lol"?

Why should gay people be able to married, you say? Because, barring any good reason to disallow them from doing so, they just should be able to, no questions asked. Problem is that I can think of many reasons why they should not be able to marry, never mind that their asking to be able to "marry" is tantamount to an incoherent demand indicative of the lack of understanding of the institution marriage.

And, sorry, I'm much more comfortable discussing matters informally (yet seriously) on the forums rather than on debate formats. The idea of debating you seems entertaining to me, albeit in the form of open discussion.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 7:49:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 10:16:12 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Out of curiosity, what secular arguments are you finding convincing? The ones I've seen (Procreation, Aristotelian teleology and so on) are utterly unconvincing.

I'm not too sure what, exactly, you have in mind when you mention the "procreation" argument, but If we are thinking of more or less the same argument, then, yes, I do find that very convincing. There are others, of course, as I've recently mentioned. Perhaps the argument that same-sex marriage is of no interest to the state whatsoever. Or perhaps that same-sex marriage is, overall, detrimental to society. Or perhaps that same-sex marriage only exacerbates and promotes the conditions in our society that have been weakening the foundation of marriage for quiet a while now (thank you, Margaret Mead). Or perhaps a combination of all similar rationales. I also find the Natural Law arguments against same-sex marriage (and against a host of other topics, most relevant being those against sexual deviance and perversions and the like) quite convincing as well.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 7:43:51 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/3/2013 10:13:34 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/2/2013 11:44:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:40 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Probably because the arguments against gay marriage suck, in a nutshell. Without religion, the only impulses against trying to control the actions of other people would be misguided conservativism or outright totalitarianism.

I didn't expect such a weak comment coming from you, dandy. That's a bit (or, well, quite a bit) like the pot calling the kettle black; most of the arguments (if we can call them that) in favor of same-sex marriage usually are no more profound than an emotional, irrational, and unreflective whining to allow people to "just marry who they love," which, if followed consistently, leads to all manners of absurdities.

Lol. Gay folks should no more have to justify their right to marry than you or I do. Negative liberties should always be the presumption in society, and given that, I don't see the need for SSM to need much in the way of argument besides tackling those who argue in favour of restricting marriage. These arguments, even when defended by very smart people, are usually awful.

Besides, I'm pretty happy with my own case for Gay Marriage (even if it is admittedly something I haven't felt the need to study in great detail).
http://debate.org...

I'd be more than happy to defend it again in a debate.

Before I even get started on the reply, I'd like to ask: why it is that you seemingly open up every post with a "lol"?

Bad habits.

Why should gay people be able to married, you say? Because, barring any good reason to disallow them from doing so, they just should be able to, no questions asked.

Pretty much. If someone asked me, "Should Catholics be allowed to marry", my response would be (at least initially) "Why not?" Same for homosexual couples.

Problem is that I can think of many reasons why they should not be able to marry, never mind that their asking to be able to "marry" is tantamount to an incoherent demand indicative of the lack of understanding of the institution marriage.

Is this the definition of marriage point? I'm sure I don't have to point out how much the definition has been changed over the years, or how ludicrous so much harm is caused in the name of preserving the integrity of a word (which as I've said has been constantly remodelled anyway).


And, sorry, I'm much more comfortable discussing matters informally (yet seriously) on the forums rather than on debate formats. The idea of debating you seems entertaining to me, albeit in the form of open discussion.

Well, feel free to pick at my case regardless.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:05:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 12:48:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Your assertion that gay couples are 'simply are unable to provide an environment in which to raise a child as nourishing the environment a mother and a father raising their child (especially their own biological child) could give' is demonstrably false, as a child's natural parents are not always the best people to raise it. The way you worded that, we would have to conclude that it is better for a child to live in an abusive household than to be adopted into a stable homosexual family. No one is saying that we take children out of stable, loving households and give them to gay people, we are saying that parents which are abusive, neglectful, or simply unwilling or unable to be parents leave behind offspring which need a home, and that growing up in a homosexual household is a vast improvement over hopping from foster home to foster home as a ward of the state. Even if you studies hold up, which I'm not entirely convinced of, you cannot just say that we shouldn't give children to homosexuals because, given a possible lineup of parents, it is well within the realm of possibility for there to be a gay couple which is better than the alternatives.

Taking any sort of generalization and applying it to specific situations like this constitutes a fallacy of accident. Even if homosexual couples are, on average, less capable of raising children, you cannot apply this to every individual case and claim that they should all be unable to adopt. It'd be like publishing a study which verified the stereotype that Asian women cannot, on average, drive as well as others and then using that to deny drivers licenses to Asian ladies, even if they demonstrate exemplary driving skills.

I think the manner in which I worded my reply led to confusion. The question is whether a child who needs to be adopted/raised is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting. The answer is quite forthcoming: decades of published research in social science, psychology, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially by their biological parents) in a long-term marriage. This is because a mother and a father each provide a unique and important contribution to their role as parents. Children who are raised, for example, in fatherless families suffer, on average, in every measure of well-being. They have higher levels of mental and physical illness, poverty, educational difficulties, criminal behavior, substance abuse, loneliness, and physical and sexual abuse.

Of course, when you construct a scenario like the following,

"Ok, would a child be better in:

A.) an abusive, neglectful heterosexual family in which he is sexually molested?

or

B.) With a loving, caring homosexual couple?"

who will disagree with you that the child is better off with the loving, caring homosexual couple? Hopefully no one, I think we'd all say. But what does that prove? Not much, of course. For the scenario could be constructed differently:

"Would a child be better off with:

A.) a lesbian couple who regularly bring other homosexual partners home, are abusive, and regularly use drugs?

or

B.) a married heterosexual couple in which the father is a lawyer and the mother a nurse and both have a great income and are very caring?"

Now, I'm not insensitive to the fact that reality isn't perfect. Thus while I obviously do not think we should ever actively encourage and promote homosexual couples to adopt, there may be rare instances in which it should be permitted.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:08:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 8:02:13 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/3/2013 7:43:51 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/3/2013 10:13:34 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/2/2013 11:44:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:40 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Probably because the arguments against gay marriage suck, in a nutshell. Without religion, the only impulses against trying to control the actions of other people would be misguided conservativism or outright totalitarianism.

I didn't expect such a weak comment coming from you, dandy. That's a bit (or, well, quite a bit) like the pot calling the kettle black; most of the arguments (if we can call them that) in favor of same-sex marriage usually are no more profound than an emotional, irrational, and unreflective whining to allow people to "just marry who they love," which, if followed consistently, leads to all manners of absurdities.

Lol. Gay folks should no more have to justify their right to marry than you or I do. Negative liberties should always be the presumption in society, and given that, I don't see the need for SSM to need much in the way of argument besides tackling those who argue in favour of restricting marriage. These arguments, even when defended by very smart people, are usually awful.

Besides, I'm pretty happy with my own case for Gay Marriage (even if it is admittedly something I haven't felt the need to study in great detail).
http://debate.org...

I'd be more than happy to defend it again in a debate.

Before I even get started on the reply, I'd like to ask: why it is that you seemingly open up every post with a "lol"?

Bad habits.

Why should gay people be able to married, you say? Because, barring any good reason to disallow them from doing so, they just should be able to, no questions asked.

Pretty much. If someone asked me, "Should Catholics be allowed to marry", my response would be (at least initially) "Why not?" Same for homosexual couples.

Problem is that I can think of many reasons why they should not be able to marry, never mind that their asking to be able to "marry" is tantamount to an incoherent demand indicative of the lack of understanding of the institution marriage.

Is this the definition of marriage point? I'm sure I don't have to point out how much the definition has been changed over the years, or how ludicrous so much harm is caused in the name of preserving the integrity of a word (which as I've said has been constantly remodelled anyway).



And, sorry, I'm much more comfortable discussing matters informally (yet seriously) on the forums rather than on debate formats. The idea of debating you seems entertaining to me, albeit in the form of open discussion.

Well, feel free to pick at my case regardless.

Well, if I may, I'd like to ask you:

What do you see as being the purpose of marriage?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:11:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:14:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I've been thinking about this recently: why is it, exactly, that those who are in support of same-sex marriage tend to be atheists/secularists?

After all, the most powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, I think, are ones that are completely accessibly to the secularist, that is, they don't involve any appeal to God or Biblical verses. So why is this so?

Probably cause they havn't seen a good argument, how many times do we have to hear, well gays or gay marriage or two dudes going at it are unnatural .

Is the secularist unwilling to see the importance of the heterosexual familial unit as the very foundation of society?

Notice the hidden assumption here against gay marriage, that to allow gays to marry means you don't value heterosexual marriage. When was the last time a gay marriage advocate said lets ban hetrosexual marriage ? It easy to demonize gay marriage if you tell your self its a THREAT TO HUMAN CIVILISATION, isn't it ? You know what else was a threat ? inter-racial marriage.

Is it that secularism/atheism encourages, at last perhaps in some basic level, the undermining of the traditional sexual morality advocated by Natural Law and/or philosophies that have been inculcated by theism (or, more specifically, Christianity)? Is it perhaps indicative of some basic relation between a desire to embrace secularism/atheism and a desire to be free of traditional moral standards, and fear of certain - real or imagined - political and social consequences of the truth of religious belief, which can also lead some to want to believe that we are just clever animals with no purpose to our lives other than the petty purposes we choose to give them, and that there is no cosmic judge who will punish us for disobeying an objective moral law?

So you start off about secular arguments against gay marriage, then at the end imply a cosmic judge who will punish the gays....


Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Why do you think there is such an association between secularism and support of same-sex marriage?

Cause under secularism and the post enlightenment there is more tolerance involved say compared to a state where the mindset is that they know Gods will, and its their job to use state power to enforce that will.


And please, no silly little "well, because secularist are rational loll you religious tard" or "because we're not homophobic, bible-thumping hillbillies hahaah you fascist bigot go die lolll PEACE AND LOVE!" comments and the like, please.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 8:11:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:14:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I've been thinking about this recently: why is it, exactly, that those who are in support of same-sex marriage tend to be atheists/secularists?

After all, the most powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, I think, are ones that are completely accessibly to the secularist, that is, they don't involve any appeal to God or Biblical verses. So why is this so?

Probably cause they havn't seen a good argument, how many times do we have to hear, well gays or gay marriage or two dudes going at it are unnatural .

Is the secularist unwilling to see the importance of the heterosexual familial unit as the very foundation of society?

Notice the hidden assumption here against gay marriage, that to allow gays to marry means you don't value heterosexual marriage. When was the last time a gay marriage advocate said lets ban hetrosexual marriage ? It easy to demonize gay marriage if you tell your self its a THREAT TO HUMAN CIVILISATION, isn't it ? You know what else was a threat ? inter-racial marriage.

Is it that secularism/atheism encourages, at last perhaps in some basic level, the undermining of the traditional sexual morality advocated by Natural Law and/or philosophies that have been inculcated by theism (or, more specifically, Christianity)? Is it perhaps indicative of some basic relation between a desire to embrace secularism/atheism and a desire to be free of traditional moral standards, and fear of certain - real or imagined - political and social consequences of the truth of religious belief, which can also lead some to want to believe that we are just clever animals with no purpose to our lives other than the petty purposes we choose to give them, and that there is no cosmic judge who will punish us for disobeying an objective moral law?

So you start off about secular arguments against gay marriage, then at the end imply a cosmic judge who will punish the gays....


Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Why do you think there is such an association between secularism and support of same-sex marriage?

Cause under secularism and the post enlightenment there is more tolerance involved say compared to a state where the mindset is that they know Gods will, and its their job to use state power to enforce that will.


And please, no silly little "well, because secularist are rational loll you religious tard" or "because we're not homophobic, bible-thumping hillbillies hahaah you fascist bigot go die lolll PEACE AND LOVE!" comments and the like, please.

Do you even lift?