# Gay marriage - non-religious objections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098 "2004-02-13T20:47:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/101 "2004-02-18T08:27:27Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > We are talking about gay marriage. Not homosexuality. And yes, I am equating all of the above with societies desire to make laws prohibiting things they deem harmful to itself. And “civilized discourse” is parochial and I did not realise SDMB was your domain. But i did not intend to offend so you can save you pretentiousness. I’m not terribly surprised that you wouldn’t see the offense in your assertions. > [@](#): > > Would you care to quote me where SCOTUS declared marriage as a Right of anykind? > > > [@The Supreme Court of the United States of America](#): > > > > These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. > > > > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) > > [Link](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1) > [@](#): > > As far as this and the rest, if Marriage is nothing to you but a name, then tell the gay community to stop insisting on the right to traditional marriage. If all you want is equal protection under the law then accept the proposals of Civil Unions? You really must pay better attention. Reading a thread before participating is simply good manners. There have been no civil unions proposed to date that carry all of the legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. As has been mentioned. > [@](#): > > Why butt into the Traditional Marriage if you care nothing about it? Society has told you they do not want homosexuals to somehow dilute Traditional Marriage. But they’ve never told me how I’d do so. > [@](#): > > Do _you_ get it now? I never said anything about religion. Tradition and Religion are not synonymous. The only one spouting uninformed assumptions seem to be you. If you just want to rant about how unfair it is and how much you do not care what society thinks of you than maybe you need to take it to the pit. If you want to change the world you live in by unmasking peoples uninformed ideas then you need to realise what a coherent objection is, not just what you want to hear. Transposing tradition and an astonishing psychic grasp of the will of an ill-defined society for religion is hardly a masterful tactical coup, you know. Done to death, in fact. Though capitalization of the word society certainly does lend the concept an air of authority. The idea that tradition should supercede the rights of individuals to be treated as equals has been struck down time and time again in our society, to the benefit of all. Unless you can come up with a better argument than “But that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t expect people to flock to your banner in droves. The history of our country is rife with examples of people claiming their place as equals under the law. This is tradition at work, this is an essential part of the great enterprise of building our nation. This is the democratic ideal in action. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/102 "2004-02-18T08:33:03Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > We are talking about gay marriage. Not homosexuality. And yes, I am equating all of the above with societies desire to make laws prohibiting things they deem harmful to itself. And “civilized discourse” is parochial and I did not realise SDMB was your domain. But i did not intend to offend so you can save you pretentiousness. I’m not terribly surprised that you wouldn’t see the offense in your assertions. > [@](#): > > Would you care to quote me where SCOTUS declared marriage as a Right of anykind? > > > [@The Supreme Court of the United States of America](#): > > > > These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. > > > > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) > > [Link](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1) > [@](#): > > As far as this and the rest, if Marriage is nothing to you but a name, then tell the gay community to stop insisting on the right to traditional marriage. If all you want is equal protection under the law then accept the proposals of Civil Unions? You really must pay better attention. Reading a thread before participating is simply good manners. There have been no civil unions proposed to date that carry all of the legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. As has been mentioned. > [@](#): > > Why butt into the Traditional Marriage if you care nothing about it? Society has told you they do not want homosexuals to somehow dilute Traditional Marriage. But they’ve never told me how I’d do so. > [@](#): > > Do _you_ get it now? I never said anything about religion. Tradition and Religion are not synonymous. The only one spouting uninformed assumptions seem to be you. If you just want to rant about how unfair it is and how much you do not care what society thinks of you than maybe you need to take it to the pit. If you want to change the world you live in by unmasking peoples uninformed ideas then you need to realise what a coherent objection is, not just what you want to hear. Transposing tradition and an astonishing psychic grasp of the will of an ill-defined society for religion is hardly a masterful tactical coup, you know. Done to death, in fact. Though capitalization of the word society certainly does lend the concept an air of authority. The idea that tradition should supercede the rights of individuals to be treated as equals has been struck down time and time again in our society, to the benefit of all. Unless you can come up with a better argument than “But that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t expect people to flock to your banner in droves. The history of our country is rife with examples of people claiming their place as equals under the law. This is tradition at work, this is an essential part of the great enterprise of building our nation. This is the democratic ideal. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/103 "2004-02-18T08:35:19Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > Would you care to quote me where SCOTUS declared marriage as a Right of anykind? I believe they were careful to word the ruling as SOLELY a racial discrimination issue. Marriage laws differ from state to state. If it was a constitutional right then why do the laws differ per state? I’m not MrVisible, and I have no idea why you can’t do the simple search required, since you made the original claim, but here is where they make that statement: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Seems pretty explicit to me. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/104 "2004-02-18T12:36:56Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > Well then you would have to argue that polygamy should be legal as well as incestual marriages and a few other taboo relations including the ACLU’s argument that statuatory rape is unconstiutional. That is a slippery slope that i do not think we are ready for yet. It’s a slippery slope that only exists in the eyes of those who will say and believe anything to defeat gay marriage. I support the legalization of polygamy. I also suspect that most incestuous relationships (and most examples of inappropriate conduct within polygamy) that would be actually harmful can be prohibited on the basis of other law (e.g. those prohibiting adult/child relationships and those prohibiting sexual conduct between wards and their guardians), and so the general ban is unnecessary. The consanguinal reproduction issue is scientifically questionable. I’m not familiar with any claim by the ACLU that statutory rape statutes are unconstitutional, which leads me to believe that you are reporting a twisted version of the actual facts (e.g. some case in which a particular formulation of a statutory rape statute, or its particular application, has been challenged by the ACLU). I am a member of the ACLU and as far as I know it does not believe that statutory rape statutes are all inherently unconstitutional, or even unwarranted. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/105 "2004-02-18T13:57:42Z")
[QUOTE=MrVisible] The idea that tradition should supercede the rights of individuals to be treated as equals has been struck down time and time again in our society, to the benefit of all. Unless you can come up with a better argument than “But that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t expect people to flock to your banner in droves. [QUOTE] And we’ve also quite frequentlly done away with tradition to the detriment of society. Granted, we all like to catalog these old “traditions” (staying married, not having children out of wedlock) as signs of backwards times. . . impossibilities in a progressive day where we’re extended (and living out) our God-given rights and privileges. Once such a “tradition” is done away with for the sake of freedom & individual rights, we can never get it back. . prohibition is a fantastic example (and, for the record, I am glad for this). Marriage is one of our oldest institutions, and I think we are wise to tread cautiously and think twice before we redefine it. ---
**Author:** ![Somnambulist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@Somnambulist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Somnambulist)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/106 "2004-02-18T16:01:10Z")
> [@ferngully](#): > > And we’ve also quite frequentlly done away with tradition to the detriment of society. Granted, we all like to catalog these old “traditions” (staying married, not having children out of wedlock) as signs of backwards times. . . impossibilities in a progressive day where we’re extended (and living out) our God-given rights and privileges. > > Once such a “tradition” is done away with for the sake of freedom & individual rights, we can never get it back. . prohibition is a fantastic example (and, for the record, I am glad for this). Marriage is one of our oldest institutions, and I think we are wise to tread cautiously and think twice before we redefine it. Please can you give an example where relinquishing a tradition for the sake of freedom & individual rights has been detrimental to society (as a whole, not some specific perspective)? Or were you referring to the growth of marriage break-ups and births out of wedlock? I sense a little tone of disapprovement there. Presumably you would prefer that we still look down our noses at divorcees and bastards? At the risk of repeating the already well articulated points of others, this is not about the redefinition of marriage, it is about extending rights and privileges (whether or not you believe them to be ‘God-given’) to those who have traditionally been denied them for no other reasons than intolerance and bigotry. To deny anyone the rights of marriage, or to even seek to attach a different ‘label’ to same-sex marriages, is simply divisive. In my opinion, it says a great deal more about those who seek to maintain divisions in society because of their own deep-rooted phobias than it does about the groups that they seek to segregate themselves from. Fortunately the traditions of bigotry are being slowly, inexorably eroded and I cannot wait to see the back of them. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/107 "2004-02-18T17:22:32Z")
> [@Somnambulist](#): > > Please can you give an example where relinquishing a tradition for the sake of freedom & individual rights has been detrimental to society (as a whole, not some specific perspective)? Or were you referring to the growth of marriage break-ups and births out of wedlock? I sense a little tone of disapprovement there. Presumably you would prefer that we still look down our noses at divorcees and bastards?. Those are two recent examples, yes. And clearly I was saying that we should look down our noses at divorcees and bastards :rolleyes: Or perhaps we ought to look at the number of unwanted children in the number of whacked-out families and foster care today v. 100 years ago. Do you honestly think that the **average** child today has a better parenting situation than the **average** child 100 years ago? Overall, does celebrating our right to divorce and our right to have sex (and thus babies) whenever we please really benefit society? Or might the traditions of marrying once & staying married, and saving sex until marriage have carried a greater benefit? > [@Somnambulist](#): > > At the risk of repeating the already well articulated points of others, this is not about the redefinition of marriage, it is about extending rights and privileges (whether or not you believe them to be ‘God-given’) to those who have traditionally been denied them for no other reasons than intolerance and bigotry. But regardless of what this is about (and I think your assertion is arguable) let’s not pretend that a redefinition won’t happen in the process. Look, I don’t believe that the non-religious arguments against gay marriage really hold water. But I take issue with your argument that doing away with tradition for the sake of individual rights is always a good thing. It’s wonderfully easy to take credit for the progress we make whilst blaming any negative consequences on something or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/108 "2004-02-18T17:29:38Z")
> [@ferngully](#): > > Do you honestly think that the **average** child today has a better parenting situation than the **average** child 100 years ago? Don’t know. You got any cites to back up your assertion that children are less well off now? I don’t hear much about kids dying in coal mining accidents anymore. Orphanages aren’t quite as brutal as they were back then. I think mortality rates are down. Let’s see what you got to show that kids, on average, are in worse shape now. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/109 "2004-02-18T19:16:02Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Let’s see what you got to show that kids, on average, are in worse shape now. This was not my assertion (although it would be an interesting conversation). Now with regard to the **parenting situation** of children today? Well, lets make sure we can agree on what’s relevant to the discussion before I go digging for statistics. My claim was that we, by eschewing tradition and excersing our right to divorce and have children outside of wedlock, have created an average parenting situation which is worse than that which existed when we upheld tradition. Now frankly, before I go on a wild goose chase for statistics that will never convince you of anything. . . can we agree that a vast increase in single parent households, children in foster care, children who have _never_ had the opportunity to have both a maternal and paternal influence at home. . . can we agree this would likely indicate a **worse** average parenting situation?" (_patiently waits for you to say “no”_ ;)) ---
**Author:** ![Robbbbb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@Robbbbb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbbbb)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/110 "2004-02-18T20:29:19Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > As far as this and the rest, if Marriage is nothing to you but a name, then tell the gay community to stop insisting on the right to traditional marriage. If all you want is equal protection under the law then accept the proposals of Civil Unions? Why butt into the Traditional Marriage if you care nothing about it? Society has told you they do not want homosexuals to somehow dilute Traditional Marriage. They even made laws to that effect. Vermont has seemed to work it out legally without demanding the right to redefine what Marriage has traditionally been for thousands of years. The Federal Government has acknowledged the rights of states to define those laws. Marriage is more to most gays than just a name. I am a co-owner of a house with my same-sex partner of 8 years. If he dies, I may lose the house, because I don’t think I can afford the federal inheritance taxes I would be forced to pay on his half of the house. No state-recognized civil union will rescue me from those taxes, only a Federally-recognized right to gay marriage, or an _equal in every way_ Civil Union, which has never even been proposed in Congress. You claim that we should be happy with the state-issued civil unions, but they’re NOT equal, and as long as we don’t have the same rights as straight couples, we are second-class citizens. Finally, I ask, identify one person who would be harmed by me getting married to my partner. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/111 "2004-02-18T20:39:40Z")
> [@ferngully](#): > > Now frankly, before I go on a wild goose chase for statistics that will never convince you of anything. . . can we agree that a vast increase in single parent households, children in foster care, children who have _never_ had the opportunity to have both a maternal and paternal influence at home. . . can we agree this would likely indicate a **worse** average parenting situation?" > > (_patiently waits for you to say “no”_ ;)) It’s going to depend on how you measure a “better” parenting situation. Simply having two opposite-sex parents residing in the same house is not necessarily better. So while I don’t doubt you’ll be able to show that more kids in the 50s grew up with both biological parents in the home, I don’t think you can then assume they were necessarily in a better parenting situation than in a blended family now. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/112 "2004-02-18T20:53:06Z")
I think it’s odd that anyone would argue _against_ gay marriage on the basis that children should be protected. After all, there are gay parents out there right now, raising kids without the benefits and protections of marriage. Wouldn’t extending marriage to include them be in the best interests of their children? Isn’t a two-parent same-sex family better than a single-parent family? ---
**Author:** ![DesiderioDomini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@DesiderioDomini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesiderioDomini)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/113 "2004-02-18T20:57:04Z")
Hello to all. Interesting discussion. One comment before I jump in: Hostile\_Monk65 was absolutely right when he pointed out that you cannot separate religion and morality. > [@](#): > > By Hostile\_Monk65: Here is an absolute answer has to why no one can refute this argument adequately without religion. You can’t separate this decision from religion, as it is a moral judgment, and no one can separate morality and religion. Even the belief that you could do so is a religious belief. In summary, because you cannot separate any moral judgments from religion, this premise of this discussion is flawed and is therefore self defeating and meaningless. If you’re willing to accept this absolute, I will continue. If you choose not to establish this absolute, your arguments are self defeating and futile. I also find it VERY INTERESTING that NO ONE has adaquately replied to his argument. So, I will now address the single responce to it: > [@](#): > > By Priceguy, end of page two: This is utterly silly. You haven’t shown even a tiny little shred of evidence that morality is inseparable from religion; yet you expect us to simply accept it.The fact that you’re in over your head notwithstanding, if you think it is impossible to discuss gay marriage without religious concerns, what are you doing in a thread asking for nonreligious objections to gay marriage? #1Let me point out the fallisies you committed in this post, since all judgement should be based on logic, which I think we all agree to. 1. Ad hominem, attacking the person and not the argument. 2. your arguments are non-sequitur. 3. Slothful Induction. #2 You claim that he hasn’t provided any evidence, which I suppose is because you don’t count logic as evidence, but in fact, you haven’t provided evidence against his claim and therefore have in no way warrented your claim. My next post will address MrVisibles comments to Hostile\_Monk65. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/114 "2004-02-18T21:28:28Z")
[QUOTE=DMC] Yep, that’s a pretty standard reading of the fourteenth amendment. If you list exactly which classes you’d like us to discriminate against, we could probably have a debate on every entry on that list you’d provide. [quote] I beleive I already listed several other than gay marriage. Care to debate those? > [@](#): > > I’m still perfectly aware of what society means. Considering it has multiple meanings and is a pretty vague word unless you make it more descriptive, if you meant perhaps something like “homophobic society”, I would then agree with you. They are indeed one of the “societies” that are against it. Come back after you clarified which society you’re speaking of. You said society rarely agrees on anything. If you knew what society meant you would know that society usually means it always agrees on something. Since we are talking about marriage laws. I would guess we are talking about the society that makes those laws and agrees with them. If you wish to cast aspersions on those with calling them homophobic I would think you would have to have a few words with those gay friends I have already said agree with such laws. > [@](#): > > I advocate freedom from discrimination. I actually don’t personally advocate ignoring laws, but I have no problems with the mayor who did so. Well you make that a pretty broad assertion. If you are saying that you are saying you freedom from what you think is discrimination, I would say most everyone thinks the same way. And I think that is admirable in anyone. Is it ok to discriinate against a zoophile?. I thaught I was being discriminated against when at the age of 17 it would have been illegal for me to have sex with Christie Brinkley if I was so lucky. > [@](#): > > Then they fight to get the laws changed. They can do so by breaking them and paying the consequences, or challenging them in the courts. That’s still a completely separate issue, and has zip to do gay marriage, in which consent is a given. You are the only one here who has lumped pedophilia with gay marriage. I’m going to have to ask you for a cite as to their correlation. Are you asking me a cite to say that gay marriage and pedophilia is illegal? > [@](#): > > That would be because an animal can’t give consent. If the dog wags its tail, that doesn’t necessarily mean “mount me boss.” SO you advocate discriminating against individuals for something that can’t be given? > [@](#): > > Like? Half the things you listed aren’t victimless, while the others are indeed victimless (and I didn’t have a problem with them being made legal). You assume there are victims. And expect me, and everyone else, to assume the same. Who is advocating a borgish society based on their personal copnvictions here? > [@](#): > > So we’re right back to the typical “If you allow gay marriage, the world will end”, correct? Please stop with the extremism to try to invalidate my arguments. Society defines what marriage is. Not you. You apparently chose to define it as between two, adult, consenting, people. Others chose it to be between a man, woman, and thier God. The people in California has defined it between a man and woman. > [@](#): > > Now you’re just scary. No, now you are just picking who you want to discriminate against regardless of what you asserted above. > [@](#): > > I’m not MrVisible, and I have no idea why you can’t do the simple search required, since you made the original claim, but here is where they make that statement: > > Quote: > Originally Posted by SCOTUS > These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. > Seems pretty explicit to me. I appreciate the correction that it is ruled as a right. Yet, it does not change my arguement that Society should define just what marriage is. You cannot argue that marriage is some kind of inalienable right that must be given to all people to persue happiness as you have selctively quoted. If you think that the definition of marriage between a man and woman is unconstitutional based upon that quote, please define for me exactly what you think it means. And then we can stop trying to pick my objection apart with semantics on comparissons. > [@MrVisible](#): > > I’m not terribly surprised that you wouldn’t see the offense in your assertions. And you can keep your bigotted prejudices. Talking about hypocritical. I dont hink I have anything else to say to you that is not PIT worthy. ---
**Author:** ![DesiderioDomini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@DesiderioDomini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesiderioDomini)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/115 "2004-02-18T21:34:17Z")
NOW- I will respond to MrVisible when he replied to Hostile\_monk65’s first post and said: > [@](#): > > Okey-doke. 1) Gay marriage will not be mandatory. We’re not asking that everyone on the planet suddenly marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, there’s no danger of extinction. Whoo. That was a close one. > > 1. If the whole human race was male, we’d be doomed. If the whole human race was female, we’d be doomed, but better accessorized. Does that mean that being male, or female, is wrong? Most women and men I know are both civilized, and absolute. > > 2. If the point of existence is to survive and reproduce, why have marriage at all? Wouldn’t it be better to have men go about fertilizing as many women as possible? Outlaw marriage! It promotes fidelity, which reduces the birth rate! Oh, and outlaw birth control. That’d give the population a boost. > > 3. Many gay people have children, either through adoption or through artificial insemination or by previous opposite-sex relationships. If marriage is all about reproduction, then why deny them and their children the privileges and rights that the legal state of marriage conveys? > > 4. Many straight people don’t have children, for an enormous variety of reasons. If marriage is all about reproduction, why should they have rights and privileges above those of unmarried couples? > > Got anything else? Yes, as a matter of fact I do have many other things. Lets look at your arguments: 1. It is completely obvious that gay marriage is not mandatory. This was not even an issue to begin with. This is the logical fallisy of Straw man. What hostilemonk was trying to show is that how can something be morally right when it doesn’t even allow reproduction. The argument made was this: IF everyone practiced it, the human race would become extinct. This argument has not been addressed. 2. Your second “argument” is not even an argument. This was never even touched upon by hostilemonk. This is the logical fallisy of the Straw Man as well as Non-Sequitur. Common. 3. Here you have missed the point. Hostile said: “some believe the point of exsistence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter.” THE LATTER\> means not survive part, just reproduce!! Therefore your argument #3 is irrelevent be/c your premise to refute it is flawed and his argument has not been addressed. 4. Your forth argument is flawed because you are still running off of the premise that your third argument is based upon.“you say many gay people have children,” how is this an argument for gay marriage and reproduction? 5. This “argument” is flawed as well! Straw Man. Now, lets look at why: hostilemonk NEVER said that marriage was ALL (exclusively) about reproduction! You’re straw man is that you said he did say this, and then “refuted” that argument. Based upon the analysis of your “refutation” we can see that the arguments presented by hostilemonk have not been addressed, and therefor still stand as true until proven otherwise, if you can do so. In order to do so you must prove that is it infact “civilized and absolute” -refer to his post. ~ ---
**Author:** ![DesiderioDomini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@DesiderioDomini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesiderioDomini)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/116 "2004-02-18T21:42:47Z")
MrVisible: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Hostile\_Monk65 Here is an absolute answer has to why no one can refute this argument adequately without religion. You can’t separate this decision from religion, as it is a moral judgment, and no one can separate morality and religion. Even the belief that you could do so is a religious belief. In summary, because you cannot separate any moral judgments from religion, this premise of this discussion is flawed and is therefore self defeating and meaningless. If you’re willing to accept this absolute, I will continue. If you choose not to establish this absolute, your arguments are self defeating and futile. You responded with: Which religion? Actually, in order to respond to you I would first as this simple question: do you believe in the exsistence of moral absolutes? This is a simple question which can be answered w/ a “yes” or “no”. ---
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/117 "2004-02-18T21:50:19Z")
> [@The\_Broken\_Column](#): > > How about you just prove I’m wrong…my “facts” are the way it’s worked in every major civilzation in the past 5,000 years. “Go tell the Spartans”. Of course the quote is out of context, but as a point of fact they had a functional society that not only had complete separation of the genders at near-infancy, their society depended on it. What does this refute about your statement? Well the Spartan child either male or female had an almost absolute detachment from the parent of the opposite gender until they themselves were expected to become parents. Even then they half joked that the couple never saw one another in daylight. Young boys were raised by men, young women were raised by women. The Spartan society may not be my ideal one to live in, but it functioned a damn sight better than many of their neighbors. And the Spartans are not unique, as sexual segregation exists to this day as a common enough practice in many African cultures. Again, not my ideal way to live but they do function. > [@](#): > > Why should I have to defend what has worked for so long? You just think, that you in your infinite wisdom of some 20 odd years, or 40 odd years, can rewrite civil functionality on some principle of “Equality”. You are being asked to defend your statement. If you hadn’t made it you would not have been asked to defend it. As it stands you seem to think things are working and have been working for some time. Divorce statistics and domestic/child abuse statistics don’t bear that out. > [@](#): > > If you allow Gays to marry, why not allow some dude to marry a dog? What’s the difference? > Or cows? > > Or a chicken and a woman? > > Or a hamster and a man? Because dogs can’t give consent? But I suppose you were unaware of that since Michael Savage has yet to state it on his program. > [@](#): > > A line was drawn where it created the most strong social cohesion. > > If you can disprove that, I am sure that some reward is in order, such as a pulitzer. Um, okay. here you go. No such line exists as a universal rule. I could leave it as such and provide as few examples as you have but I’ll offer up a couple for you. Greece (pre-Roman Empire): Male sexual vigor was as highly valued as female chastity. Paradox? Who were these macho men proving their virility on? Each other. Accepted societal norm within what was arguably the heigh of culture and civilization of the time. Feudal Japan maybe? Quite a bit more recent than Ancient Greece, love poems between Samurai were not uncommon. Even today some are considered epics in their genre (love poems, not just “gay” love poems). Your problems are your problems dude. All this talk about defying natural order comes from people who live in air conditioned homes, who use toilet paper, and have Supercuts hairstyles, etc. You want nature go live in a cave and eat raw meat until the chiggers eat you alive. Otherwise realize that the very act of reshaping nature to our desire is what being human is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/118 "2004-02-18T21:59:27Z")
> [@Robbbbb](#): > > You claim that we should be happy with the state-issued civil unions, but they’re NOT equal, and as long as we don’t have the same rights as straight couples, we are second-class citizens. > > Finally, I ask, identify one person who would be harmed by me getting married to my partner. I never said you should be happy. I did say accept the proposals of Civil Unions. Vemont law does equate Civil Union as equal to marriage. If you assert that marriage is some kind of Constitutional given right, like say freedom of speech, I would say many people would be harmed by it. Just like many people are harmed by many kinds of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/119 "2004-02-18T22:02:00Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > The argument made was this: IF everyone practiced it, the human race would become extinct. This argument has not been addressed. That argument results in a very slippery slope. Specifically, it is of the form “If all people practiced **X** (which results in non-reproduction), the entire human race would become extinct. Thus, **X** is not civilized.” IF every male had a vasectomy, the human race would become extinct. IF every couple practiced perfectly safe sex, the human race would be come extinct. Yet these things are not uncivilized or “bad”. Thus, by _reductio ad absurdum_, the argument is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Robbbbb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@Robbbbb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbbbb)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/120 "2004-02-18T22:06:50Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > Hostile\_Monk65 was absolutely right when he pointed out that you cannot separate religion and morality. So, simply because I am an atheist, it is impossible for me to have morals? I think it’s pretty cynical to think that the only reason civilization hasn’t descended into chaos is because everyone is afraid of what god might do to them. And assuming for a second that your assertion is true that religion and morality can’t be separated, how can you possibly justify legislating anything on moral grounds? Doesn’t the First Amendment get in the way? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=7)