Total Posts:188|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Secularists against gay marriage

Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:33:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not any that pose a challenge. There's the 'it's against evolution!' argument, which makes me want to throttle people due to its sheer stupidity on so many levels, but that one's hardly a challenge to argue. The well-crafted religious objections are at least usually internally consistent, it's the premises that always become points of contention. Then there are the ones that have been trotted out in court, but you just have to look up judicial opinions to refute those at this point.
"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 -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's the argument that the government promotes marriage because of its implications of repopulating society - that the benefits the government provided ar intended for childbirth. That's the closest thing to a halfway decent secular argument against gay marriage.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:59:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:38:07 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
There's the argument that the government promotes marriage because of its implications of repopulating society - that the benefits the government provided ar intended for childbirth. That's the closest thing to a halfway decent secular argument against gay marriage.

That's one of the ones which was brought up in court, and pretty soundly thrashed. The judge brought up the fact that it's legal for first cousins to marry under the justification that there will be no offspring, and said something along the lines of: 'so same sex couples are barred from marriage because they cannot have children, but elderly cousins are permitted to marry because they cannot have children. Go figure.'
"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 -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:01:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:38:07 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
There's the argument that the government promotes marriage because of its implications of repopulating society - that the benefits the government provided ar intended for childbirth. That's the closest thing to a halfway decent secular argument against gay marriage.

The same judge also brought up the fact that disallowing same sex marriage objectively harms those children who are being raised by same sex couples, whether adopted or not, by denying them benefits which are, if this argument is believed, intended for the raising of children.
"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 -
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:01:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Nope. Except for "states rights."
President of DDO
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:10:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

I can't think of any.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:12:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:01:01 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Nope. Except for "states rights."

But even that argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Marriage licenses are usually recognized by other states. It causes weird legal loop holes when people move. Like in Texas where gay marriage is illegal but gay divorce is legal lol
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:15:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).

At this point any argument. So long as God is not the impetus.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:49:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).

So anything?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:50:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:49:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).

So anything?

Its REALLY icky?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:52:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:50:08 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:49:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).

So anything?

Its REALLY icky?

E ghast! I never thought about it that way! Down with the gays!!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:50:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

This is my own argument. It is much much more advanced than "ew gross" and "homosexuality is unnatural."

https://docs.google.com...
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:06:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

No.
Tsar of DDO
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:12:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

It depends on what you will be in the sodomite marriage: will you be the husband or the wife, or will you and your partner both be wives or will both of you be husbands? If you are both husbands, you both have to also be wives in order to be married.

Is "against nature" a secular argument, or would that be a natural common sense arguement?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:13:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 1:50:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

This is my own argument. It is much much more advanced than "ew gross" and "homosexuality is unnatural."

https://docs.google.com...

Nice try :P

Common Good 1: I don't see what this paragraph has to do with gay marriage other than saying friends =/= lovers and establishing the concept of the common good, which you don't really define what common good is in relation to what gay marriage is. How does it violate the common good?

What is Marriage?: Essentially this argument boils down to children. Gays are capable of having kids and raising families. By denying them marriage rights you are denying their children equal status financially and socially compared to kids of straight parents.

The Common Good 2: Again, gays can have kids so this is mute.

Infertile Couples: This was a nice pre-emptive counter but the way you word it sounds contradictory. You make such a case about children and how they are inextricably linked to the purpose of marriage then you go on to say "Whether or not a heterosexual couple has children is irrelevant". I get the symbolism argument, I've used it myself when I was Con against gay marriage. But it's just hypocrisy. Why not classify gays as infertile? Even though they can reproduce lol. I can't remember which Justice it was, maybe a state judge, but when he realized that it was legal for cousins to get married on the basis that they don't reproduce it just made no sense to bar gays from marrying even though they can reproduce.

Children seem to be the lynch pin in these kinds of arguments, but gays can have families too!
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:12:46 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

It depends on what you will be in the sodomite marriage: will you be the husband or the wife, or will you and your partner both be wives or will both of you be husbands? If you are both husbands, you both have to also be wives in order to be married.

If we're both the husband and wife would would that be? Also what's wrong with being a husband or a wife? Do either mean dishonor? Also, if gays mimic the traditional husband wife scenario isn't that a good traditional family?

Is "against nature" a secular argument, or would that be a natural common sense arguement?

Homosexuality is common in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:28:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:15:14 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).

At this point any argument. So long as God is not the impetus.

If you are talking about any situation and not just within the laws of the US, then the reason of procreation is one. Someone else pointed out that defense has failed in court, but that only applies to US law, which in a moral based argument of a philosophical one that should extend beyond a particular government is just an appeal to authority. Just because a court says X is right or wrong does not make it so.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:36:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:28:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:15:14 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:54 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:13:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Are you asking for in the US? Or just in principle?

When I say "in principle" I mean morally (not related to a particular country or state).

At this point any argument. So long as God is not the impetus.

If you are talking about any situation and not just within the laws of the US, then the reason of procreation is one. Someone else pointed out that defense has failed in court, but that only applies to US law, which in a moral based argument of a philosophical one that should extend beyond a particular government is just an appeal to authority. Just because a court says X is right or wrong does not make it so.

lol well w/o government or religion who has the authority to define marriage? Gays can have kids too ya know, and form their own families, yes?
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:10:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 3:01:01 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

Nope. Except for "states rights."

"States rights" is a joke. The only time things are "left to the states" is when the entire nation, for whatever reason, can't handle it without chaotic backlash. Then the States serve as a sort of stepping stone.

The only other time "states rights" applies is when things are done on a state-wide basis for expirimentation and idea-testing, but that's not even a rights issue: Its a calculated risk.

Neither of those apply to Same-sex marriage, so the idea of "leaving it to the States" is just a way to make sure that the party that wins State legislature (a far easier feat than a federal position) gets whatever it wants.

Honestly, we criticize the EU for not being able to agree on anything, yet we constantly push for "states rights", as if the 1800's taught us nothing, and I'm beginning to wonder if we're forgetting those lessons entirely.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:19:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

While I'm pretty much pro-gay-marriage, I actually had a legitimate anti-gay argument in my mind for quite some time now.

1. Marriage is a ceremony, which the government would normally be overstepping its bounds in getting involved in.

2. Therefore, the State-involvement of ANY marriage must be justified somehow. This state-involvement usually entails giving special tax-breaks and legal privileges for the couple. This is an unfair decision, without proper justification. This would assume that religious marriages, and even living together, would still be allowed, just without the tax benefits.

3. The justification is that the population remaining at a steady level is important for economic reasons as well as the long term survival of the nation. While some straight couples do in fact marry without intending to have children, even a scientist will tell you that accidents happen. Whether that child is adopted or not doesn't matter; what matters is that he or she will produce for the well-being of the nation.

4. Homosexual marriage gets rid of this justification. Even if they adopt, they are not actually producing a new source of economic output. There is literally no reason to give tax breaks to them, under this justification.

Also, given the existence of bisexuals, banning gay marriage and maintaining a societal stigma would do good to motivate those "swing" childbearers, if you will, into having marriages with the potential for reproduction.

-

While I am aware of the ruling about first cousins marrying without children, this logic would hold that that ruling is illegitimate as well.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:21:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 12:59:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:38:07 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
There's the argument that the government promotes marriage because of its implications of repopulating society - that the benefits the government provided ar intended for childbirth. That's the closest thing to a halfway decent secular argument against gay marriage.

That's one of the ones which was brought up in court, and pretty soundly thrashed. The judge brought up the fact that it's legal for first cousins to marry under the justification that there will be no offspring, and said something along the lines of: 'so same sex couples are barred from marriage because they cannot have children, but elderly cousins are permitted to marry because they cannot have children. Go figure.'

Yes, but you cannot deny that the judge is looking at it from a purely legal standpoint, as opposed to a law MAKING standpoint. If that judge were, say, a Congressman, he could just strike down both laws as unfounded.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:33:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:19:49 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

While I'm pretty much pro-gay-marriage, I actually had a legitimate anti-gay argument in my mind for quite some time now.

1. Marriage is a ceremony, which the government would normally be overstepping its bounds in getting involved in.

2. Therefore, the State-involvement of ANY marriage must be justified somehow. This state-involvement usually entails giving special tax-breaks and legal privileges for the couple. This is an unfair decision, without proper justification. This would assume that religious marriages, and even living together, would still be allowed, just without the tax benefits.

3. The justification is that the population remaining at a steady level is important for economic reasons as well as the long term survival of the nation. While some straight couples do in fact marry without intending to have children, even a scientist will tell you that accidents happen. Whether that child is adopted or not doesn't matter; what matters is that he or she will produce for the well-being of the nation.

4. Homosexual marriage gets rid of this justification. Even if they adopt, they are not actually producing a new source of economic output. There is literally no reason to give tax breaks to them, under this justification.

To me #4 and the bolded part of #3 are your contentions. Marriage must benefit the state correct? I think you arbitrarily place value on "new source" of econ output. Why can't a gay couple get married to improve what would be a less or totally unproductive source of econ output via adoption? If the state is only concerned about its own welfare, it must recognize children do better in 2 parent households, not in fosters care (another drain on the state). By increasing the number of eligible parents for adoption it increases the number of productive citizens that would otherwise be wards of the state with no emotional backing or proper upbringing.

Also, given the existence of bisexuals, banning gay marriage and maintaining a societal stigma would do good to motivate those "swing" childbearers, if you will, into having marriages with the potential for reproduction.

lol yes I love the supreme state argument, I used it myself in my own debate (http://www.debate.org...) but the problem is this enforces a totalitarian, anti-american mindset. The people are not beholden to the government to produce babies, the government is beholden to us to improve our lives so that we may have the freedom to produce babies!

While I am aware of the ruling about first cousins marrying without children, this logic would hold that that ruling is illegitimate as well.

At least you're consistent lol
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:42:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:21:24 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:59:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:38:07 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
There's the argument that the government promotes marriage because of its implications of repopulating society - that the benefits the government provided ar intended for childbirth. That's the closest thing to a halfway decent secular argument against gay marriage.

That's one of the ones which was brought up in court, and pretty soundly thrashed. The judge brought up the fact that it's legal for first cousins to marry under the justification that there will be no offspring, and said something along the lines of: 'so same sex couples are barred from marriage because they cannot have children, but elderly cousins are permitted to marry because they cannot have children. Go figure.'

Yes, but you cannot deny that the judge is looking at it from a purely legal standpoint, as opposed to a law MAKING standpoint. If that judge were, say, a Congressman, he could just strike down both laws as unfounded.

The point was that the fact that there was no outrage over the elderly cousins law but much outrage over the same sex marriage law shows that the point of contention isn't that the purpose of marriage is to raise children and that this principle must be defended, but that the laws banning same sex marriage were animated by anti-gay animus and the children argument was an attempt to justify that animus. Striking down both laws doesn't change the fact that this is a non-issue, considering the incest law would have, you know, been an issue if it was. And I don't know what you mean by 'strike down', as congressmen have no such power. The second point that I made also wasn't addressed anyway.

It's basically analogous to people saying that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of bestiality. The fact that bestiality has been legal in many states long before this was even a debate pretty much proves beyond a doubt that such an issue isn't their real concern, because if it were they would know that they don't have a leg to stand on.
"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 -
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:32:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:33:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:19:49 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

While I'm pretty much pro-gay-marriage, I actually had a legitimate anti-gay argument in my mind for quite some time now.

1. Marriage is a ceremony, which the government would normally be overstepping its bounds in getting involved in.

2. Therefore, the State-involvement of ANY marriage must be justified somehow. This state-involvement usually entails giving special tax-breaks and legal privileges for the couple. This is an unfair decision, without proper justification. This would assume that religious marriages, and even living together, would still be allowed, just without the tax benefits.

3. The justification is that the population remaining at a steady level is important for economic reasons as well as the long term survival of the nation. While some straight couples do in fact marry without intending to have children, even a scientist will tell you that accidents happen. Whether that child is adopted or not doesn't matter; what matters is that he or she will produce for the well-being of the nation.

4. Homosexual marriage gets rid of this justification. Even if they adopt, they are not actually producing a new source of economic output. There is literally no reason to give tax breaks to them, under this justification.

To me #4 and the bolded part of #3 are your contentions. Marriage must benefit the state correct? I think you arbitrarily place value on "new source" of econ output. Why can't a gay couple get married to improve what would be a less or totally unproductive source of econ output via adoption? If the state is only concerned about its own welfare, it must recognize children do better in 2 parent households, not in fosters care (another drain on the state). By increasing the number of eligible parents for adoption it increases the number of productive citizens that would otherwise be wards of the state with no emotional backing or proper upbringing.

Also, given the existence of bisexuals, banning gay marriage and maintaining a societal stigma would do good to motivate those "swing" childbearers, if you will, into having marriages with the potential for reproduction.

lol yes I love the supreme state argument, I used it myself in my own debate (http://www.debate.org...) but the problem is this enforces a totalitarian, anti-american mindset. The people are not beholden to the government to produce babies, the government is beholden to us to improve our lives so that we may have the freedom to produce babies!

I never claimed that it wasn't debatable- everything is debatable. I merely hold that it is a fairly solid non-religious argument.

While I am aware of the ruling about first cousins marrying without children, this logic would hold that that ruling is illegitimate as well.

At least you're consistent lol

Oh yeah. Judges can only point out inconsistencies- they can't redefine laws to fix them.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:35:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 1:32:12 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:33:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:19:49 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:02:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I want to have a debate being pro gay marriage. Are there any valid/good secular arguments against it that are more than "ew it's gross" and trying to end marriage all together?

While I'm pretty much pro-gay-marriage, I actually had a legitimate anti-gay argument in my mind for quite some time now.

1. Marriage is a ceremony, which the government would normally be overstepping its bounds in getting involved in.

2. Therefore, the State-involvement of ANY marriage must be justified somehow. This state-involvement usually entails giving special tax-breaks and legal privileges for the couple. This is an unfair decision, without proper justification. This would assume that religious marriages, and even living together, would still be allowed, just without the tax benefits.

3. The justification is that the population remaining at a steady level is important for economic reasons as well as the long term survival of the nation. While some straight couples do in fact marry without intending to have children, even a scientist will tell you that accidents happen. Whether that child is adopted or not doesn't matter; what matters is that he or she will produce for the well-being of the nation.

4. Homosexual marriage gets rid of this justification. Even if they adopt, they are not actually producing a new source of economic output. There is literally no reason to give tax breaks to them, under this justification.

To me #4 and the bolded part of #3 are your contentions. Marriage must benefit the state correct? I think you arbitrarily place value on "new source" of econ output. Why can't a gay couple get married to improve what would be a less or totally unproductive source of econ output via adoption? If the state is only concerned about its own welfare, it must recognize children do better in 2 parent households, not in fosters care (another drain on the state). By increasing the number of eligible parents for adoption it increases the number of productive citizens that would otherwise be wards of the state with no emotional backing or proper upbringing.

Also, given the existence of bisexuals, banning gay marriage and maintaining a societal stigma would do good to motivate those "swing" childbearers, if you will, into having marriages with the potential for reproduction.

lol yes I love the supreme state argument, I used it myself in my own debate (http://www.debate.org...) but the problem is this enforces a totalitarian, anti-american mindset. The people are not beholden to the government to produce babies, the government is beholden to us to improve our lives so that we may have the freedom to produce babies!

I never claimed that it wasn't debatable- everything is debatable. I merely hold that it is a fairly solid non-religious argument.

While I am aware of the ruling about first cousins marrying without children, this logic would hold that that ruling is illegitimate as well.

At least you're consistent lol

Oh yeah. Judges can only point out inconsistencies- they can't redefine laws to fix them.

They can certainly strike down laws that are inconsistent with precedent.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:47:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 1:32:12 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
Oh yeah. Judges can only point out inconsistencies- they can't redefine laws to fix them.

??? Judicial review has been settled law since Marbury v. Madison, and it was outlined and supported by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. They absolutely can strike down laws when they are inconsistent with higher laws, the highest being the Constitution.
"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 -