Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[Autodidact]

There are lots of studies showing kids need a mother and father, do you know of any showing kids do just as well with two fathers or two mothers?

There are zero studies that show that children do better with heterosexual than homosexual parents, which is why you can't provide any. Zero. None. Go ahead, try to find one. There are many studies that show that children do at least as well, if not better, with same sex parents:

children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 80,00.html

More than two decades of research has failed
to reveal important differences in the adjustment or development
of children or adolescents reared by same-sex
couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples.

http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/rboughner/co ... 20gays.pdf

Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, has said his research shows children from lesbian couples do better in life than the offspring of heterosexual couples.

"Lesbians make better parents than a man and a women," Mr Scott told a meeting for the launch of think tank Demos.

His controversial position draws backing from research that suggests children with two female parents are more aspirational than those with opposite-sex parents. Some studies also also shows children with lesbian parents are no more or less likely to have tendencies towards homosexuality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/65742 ... icial.html

In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 08659.html

Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:

Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_ ... er_parents

Want more? I can do this for pages. Or would you like to read the statements from every national child welfare agency endorsing gay parenting?

Gays are inherently more promiscous, have more STDs (and live 20 years less in the case of men), and need more psyciatric treatment. No kid would sign up for such a weird experiment, but I guess advancing the gay agenda trumps kids, huh?

No, it's not a weird experiment, it's good parenting, as studies have shown. But I guess advancing a bigoted agenda trumps kids, huh? by the way, you cannot back up your statements, because they are false.

And, by the way, before you cite Paul Cameron, he has been kicked out of his professional organization for being a liar.

Now show that lesbians are promiscuous, especially married lesbians. Married to each other, that is.

Already done, although they aren't as promiscous as male gays.

sorry, missed that. Could you point me to the post?

Now show that allowing two lesbian mothers of children to marry each other will somehow harm those children, while allowing heterosexual parents of children to marry helps them. Go for it.

Try not to lie, as that would not help your case.

Nice cheap shot.

so I take it that you cannot back up or even substantiate a single one of your false claims? In that case, it's not a cheap shot, is it?

You may just be ignorant. Now that you know the facts, if you continue to spread the same defamatory disinformation, it is lying, pure and simple.

[East of Eden]

Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists, so how about we ban Christian marriage and just let atheists get married?

Not among committed Christians: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=34656

And as has already been mentioned, lesbians have a lower STD rate.

Lower than gay men, not lower than heterosexual women.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

And that's stopped the government before? Plus its amendable.

Yes, so change it.

The point is that we shouldn't let the majority morality rule the country,

Yes, we should, unless it clearly violates the Constitution.

because it can be quite tyrannical to the freedom of minorities. You have the advantage that your morality is the majority, and seem to have no problem with imposing it on the rest of us, because you think its the only version of "right."

And the exact same thing could be said of you.

But if you were on the other side, perhaps you would see why we should be as pro freedom as possible, with the only logical line being not allowing actions that hurt anyone other than the consenting practitioners. Its called live and let live.

Tell it to the polygamists.

[Autodidact]

Your source appears to be a liar.

No he isn't. Facts you don't like aren't 'lies'.

No, just lies.

"Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion's share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63

Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.64 Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.66 The study "demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports."67

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.68 Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.69In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.71

In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as "crabs," genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.72 Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.73 "

Can you provde the source for these ridiculous and bogus claims?

He states:
"Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals." This is false. Lesbians are at lower risk for HIV and other STDs than heterosexual women.

To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). [CDC]
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm
"The majority of female adult and adolescents living with an HIV diagnosis in 2008 were infected with the virus through heterosexual contact (73%). Most of the remaining females were infected through injecting drug use."http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
One of the riskiest sexual activities a lesbian can engage in is sex with a man.

Yes, with a gay man.

I have to agree with your source here. Having sex with men is very risky, and lesbians should not do it. In fact, women would all be safer if they stopped having sex with men, but I don't really expect that to happen.

Now, please explain how allowing lesbians to marry makes it more likely that they will have sex with men.

I have provided objective research from the CDC etc. to show you that of all groups, lesbians have the lowest STD rate. There is not a single case of female/female HIV transmission. Zero. None. Not one. And how again is this an argument that two women should not be allowed to marry? Because they might be too healthy?

[Autodidact]

Here's a deal for you, East. I won't cite Gay Rights Organizations and sources, you don't cite Catholic and anti-gay ones. We'll both stick to objective organizations such as the CDC or the National Council on Adoptive Children, and peer-reviewed, published research. Sound fair?

[Autodidact]

Since Christian families show the highest divorce rate, higher crime rate, lower level of education, and other poor outcomes, as compared to atheists and Jews, if we're going to discriminate, that seems to be the group to target. Do you agree, East of Eden?

[jmvizanko]

Not among committed Christians: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=34656

This is nothing but unsubstantiated True Scotsman fallacy. I've got a newsflash for you, if you believe in Christianity, you are a Christian, and you count in the numbers for calculating self-identified Christian divorce rates.

Lower than gay men, not lower than heterosexual women.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

Find a source that isn't catholiceducation.org.

Yes, so change it.

My implication was that Muslims could change it, if they were the majority.

Yes, we should, unless it clearly violates the Constitution.

Why? Would you really say that the majority should do so if you were in the minority? Why should you get to impose your morality on me unnecessarily?

And the exact same thing could be said of you.

No it can't. I'm not trying to impose my morality on you, or tell you you can't do something you want to do. I'm suggesting allowing something, you are suggesting not allowing it. This is not a two way street. You are anti freedom on this issue, and I am pro freedom on it. By definition.

Tell it to the polygamists.

Do you see polygamists saying that we should only allow polygamous marriages?

[micatala]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

I reject your premise is that by being faithful to their beliefs, theists are somehow instituting a state religion. Are theists who think their faith impels them to support gay marriage also wrong, or just the other kind?

Everybody brings their worldview into the voting booth.

I agree, anyone can bring their worldview into the voting booth. However, when that worldview results in policies that infringe on the rights of others, those policies should be overthrown, whether the majority likes it or not.

All laws infringe on somebody, so what?

What is the point of this highly simplistic statement?



Would you be OK with a law closing all churches?



You are dodging the point. The constitution grants us certain rights, some explicitly, some implicitly. One of the implicit rights is the right to marry. It is part of our right to pursue happiness. Do you not agree we have a right to pursue happiness?

To institute a policy against gay marriage when that policy has no legitimate secular purpose that can even remotely stand up to the measure of equal protection under the law, then that policy should be thrown out, no matter how many people vote for it and no matter what reasons they had for voting for it.

As I've said before, it is none of your business what motivates someone to cast their vote.

I've already agreed this is the case.

If a religious liberal votes for gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, should that be thrown out?

You are missing the point. The reason for throwing out a law is not really the motivation of those who might vote for it, although that could be considered relevant in some cases, but the effect of the law.


Allowing gay marriage infringes on no one's rights.

Forbidding it does.

[micatala]

We limit freedom all the time, as in the case when people want to do heroin or marry more than one wife. All laws are an imposition of somebody's morality.

Yes we limit freedom all of the time, but the question is when we should be allowed to do so. Not all laws are an imposition of somebody's morality. Nobody thinks cold blooded murder should be legal except for maybe a few psychopaths out there. And the reason why, is you can present a logical argument for why murder is wrong and evil, without appealing to your or the majority's morality. And I think a good line is if it harms somebody other than the person commiting the action. Heroin is on the line, because the only direct person harmed is the one doing the heroin, although perhaps their family is harmed indirectly by their habit.

But somebody marrying somebody of the same sex or multiple people does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that harms you are anyone else. So why should we ban it just because it offends your morality? The whole point is that we shouldn't be making laws that appeal to this or that morality, we should be making laws that protect people from harm only, and that are derived from logical arguments that support how they harm people. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others."

The government has an interest in stable families, and I would argue a child needs a mother and father. With the promiscuity (and disease) rates among gays, it almost makes the idea of marriage meaningless.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

Do we forbid any other groups or individuals from marrying based on statistics related to promiscuity (or any other perceived negative behavior)?

No, I don't believe we do.

Given this, your statement here deserves to be considered irrelevant and reflectiving a biased position against gays. If you disagree, then perhaps you should say whether or not you would be willing to prevent marriage to other groups that have higher rates of promiscuity, or drug use, or smoking, or venereal diseases, etc. etc.

If we started making laws based on the majority morality, what if the US eventually became a predominantly Muslim populated country? Would you argue that you should have less rights as a Christian in the US just because that's what Muslims like to do in their countries?

That would be against our Constitution.

Yes it would. The problem with your position, though, is that you seem to only selectively support constitutional rights.

[East of Eden]

This is nothing but unsubstantiated True Scotsman fallacy. I've got a newsflash for you, if you believe in Christianity, you are a Christian, and you count in the numbers for calculating self-identified Christian divorce rates.

Nonsense, Jesus said many would call themselves His followers, but were not.

Do I get to lump you in with Stalin the atheist? If not, wouldn't that be a True Scotsman fallacy?

[East of Eden]

Here's a deal for you, East. I won't cite Gay Rights Organizations and sources, you don't cite Catholic and anti-gay ones. We'll both stick to objective organizations such as the CDC or the National Council on Adoptive Children, and peer-reviewed, published research. Sound fair?

Nice ad hominem, I doubt if you even read the link, beyond the author is a Catholic. (Wouldn't that be called bigotry?) The article has 129 footnotes from publications such as the Lancet, Surgical, Gynecological & Obstretics, Infectious Diseases in Gynecology, Clinical Infectious Diseases, the Associated Press, Newsweek, the Boston Globe, Scientific American, Sydney Morning Herald, the British Medical Journal, and on and on and on.

Getting back to the OP, I reject the premise that there must be a purely secular argument against gay marriage.

BTW, for all of recorded history marriage has been between men and women, even in the atheistic Communist regimes. Didn't they count for secular?