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]

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

Yes, every human being biologically has a father and a mother.

Yes, some children grow up in less than ideal circumstances.

However, you make a huge leap to the conclusion that this means same-sex couples should not be considered "family" or, not stated here, made illegal.

Which of these less than ideal families do you think should be made illegal?

Single parents.
Families that are the result of remarriage after divorce
Other foster parenting situations
Adoptive families
Interracial families


All of these can be shown, via data, to in some ways produce less than ideal outcomes or outcomes that are worse on the average.

Unlike same-sex parents, for whom this cannot be shown.

If you want to ban same-sex marriage on the basis of "family outcomes" you need to produce the data, and then any criteria that you use to reach a decision must be measured against how it might apply to other similar situated groups. Otherwise equal protection under the law is violated.

So not only is the assumption irrelevant; it's also factually false.

[99percentatheism]

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.

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

Yes, every human being biologically has a father and a mother.

Yes, some children grow up in less than ideal circumstances.

However, you make a huge leap to the conclusion that this means same-sex couples should not be considered "family" or, not stated here, made illegal.

By the very logic of nature, only the father and the mother of the offspring are "family." The other condition is considered herd well-being.

Which of these less than ideal families do you think should be made illegal?

Single parents.
Families that are the result of remarriage after divorce
Other foster parenting situations
Adoptive families


Interracial families

None. That is not what this thread is about.

All of these can be shown, via data, to in some ways produce less than ideal outcomes or outcomes that are worse on the average.

OK.

If you want to ban same-sex marriage on the basis of "family outcomes" you need to produce the data, and then any criteria that you use to reach a decision must be measured against how it might apply to other similar situated groups. Otherwise equal protection under the law is violated.

Is this thread a gay activist exercise? I thought it was about a secular reason for 1 man and 1 woman.

Nature is that proof.

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

What secular reasons do you have in mind?

I regret addressing gay activist propaganda in this thread. It is so ubiquitous eleswhere, I should have wasted a little time there.

I would agree, civil unions might be considered a reasonable compromise.

I couldn't care less about civil unions of humans and pets. Just as long as they don't pretend it's OK in Christian reality.

As far as families, I challenge you to provide any solid, empirically based reasons gays should not be allowed to have families.

Gays is the neologism for homosexuals right? Nature already answered your query.

Keep in mind that many gays already DO have families, some as single parents, many with a same sex partner where the children are the biological offspring of one or the other of the two members of the couple.

The data I have seen show these children do on average about as well as children in other types of families.

Secular should at least take nature into consideration. Homosexuals cannot be parents in a rational conversation.

[Haven]

99percent, two quick questions for you:

How does two men or two women getting married affect your life? How will it impact your standard of living?

How does two men or two women getting married affect anyone's life other than their own?

[Autodidact]

By the very logic of nature, only the father and the mother of the offspring are "family." The other condition is considered herd well-being.

I didn't know that nature was capable of reasoning. Did you mean maybe that your logic is that "family" should be so restricted? Why?

Which of these less than ideal families do you think should be made illegal?

Single parents.
Families that are the result of remarriage after divorce
Other foster parenting situations
Adoptive families


Interracial families

None. That is not what this thread is about.

so you're fine with families that actually are less than optimal, but you object to families that are optimal. We have a word for that. We call it, "prejudice."

All of these can be shown, via data, to in some ways produce less than ideal outcomes or outcomes that are worse on the average.

OK.

If you want to ban same-sex marriage on the basis of "family outcomes" you need to produce the data, and then any criteria that you use to reach a decision must be measured against how it might apply to other similar situated groups. Otherwise equal protection under the law is violated.

Is this thread a gay activist exercise? I thought it was about a secular reason for 1 man and 1 woman.

Nature is that proof.

Really? Please show your reasoning.

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

What secular reasons do you have in mind?

I regret addressing gay activist propaganda in this thread. It is so ubiquitous eleswhere, I should have wasted a little time there.

Well, if you don't want to debate or reason, you're in the wrong place and are wasting all of our time.

I would agree, civil unions might be considered a reasonable compromise.

As far as families, I challenge you to provide any solid, empirically based reasons gays should not be allowed to have families.

Gays is the neologism for homosexuals right? Nature already answered your query.

Here at DC & R, you are required to actually make an argument, not just announce your opinion.

Keep in mind that many gays already DO have families, some as single parents, many with a same sex partner where the children are the biological offspring of one or the other of the two members of the couple.

The data I have seen show these children do on average about as well as children in other types of families.

Secular should at least take nature into consideration. Homosexuals cannot be parents in a rational conversation.

Why not, because we're too good at it?

[Quath]

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

A look at the animal kingdom should discredit this logic. Animals have two parents, but the offspring are raised in a wide variety of ways.

Actually, if nature is to guide us, then homosexuals themselves should disqualify their couplings from consideration of a "marriage."

In nature, there are many examples of homosexuality in different populations. So nature would support the opposite conclusion.

There are evolutionary advantages from having homosexuals in your population. It is similar to the same reason we have grandparents. After all grandparents do not procreate anymore and they use up resources. But they give survival knowledge through their help and wisdom that makes up for their negatives.

Likewise homosexuality can offer many advantages. It can strengthen bonds within a group. It can help regulate the birth rate. It can help with a tribal society where people help out other parents.

[Paulomycin]

. . .because mixed gender marriage is the only gender-equal building block of society.

Gay marriage promotes an environment of gender bias. Children raised in such an environment are not being raised according to gender-equality.

Sources:

- http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/us ... 022404.htm

^ Note in particular the part about "super-families," where even gay male parents are discriminated against over lesbian households.

- http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/the-cake-is-rotten

^ Bonus article from a pro-LGBT leftist arguing why govt. sanctioned marriage privilege should be removed entirely. I happen to agree with this.

Also, the concept of gay marriage itself is further compromised by weekend bisexuals, hasbians, and the like, who individually falsify the myth of hard-wired homosexuality. So it's not only gender discrimination, but fails to be consistently defined among individuals and couples over time.

Source: http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/ ... ty/n_8301/

[Thatguy]

. . .because mixed gender marriage is the only gender-equal building block of society.

Gay marriage promotes an environment of gender bias. Children raised in such an environment are not being raised according to gender-equality.

Sources:

- http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/us ... 022404.htm

^ Note in particular the part about "super-families," where even gay male parents are discriminated against over lesbian households.

- http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/the-cake-is-rotten

^ Bonus article from a pro-LGBT leftist arguing why govt. sanctioned marriage privilege should be removed entirely. I happen to agree with this.

Also, the concept of gay marriage itself is further compromised by weekend bisexuals, hasbians, and the like, who individually falsify the myth of hard-wired homosexuality. So it's not only gender discrimination, but fails to be consistently defined among individuals and couples over time.

Source: http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/ ... ty/n_8301/

The viewpoint of the mensnewsdaily article that society is anti-male and that men are denied a place in society if they can't tell women when, where, and how to bear children would, i would think, lead to the conclusion that homosexual males should be allowed to marry so that the emasculating scheme of the National Organization "of" Women won't be able to remove men's power from at least one type of marriage.

The second article calls for banning all marriage. If we are going to keep marriage, which we are, we should apply it equally while we have it.

That there are bisexuals does not mean that sexual attraction isn't genetic. It only means that sexuality is not an either/or situation but falls on a sliding scale. Until there's equal treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals, societal pressures to be heterosexual will mess with people's decisions about what they'll identify as.

[Autodidact]

. . .because mixed gender marriage is the only gender-equal building block of society.

Gay marriage promotes an environment of gender bias. Children raised in such an environment are not being raised according to gender-equality.

Well that's a creative, bizarre and factually incorrect argument.

Apparently, according to that logic, intra-racial marriage must also be prohibited, as same-race marriage promotes an environment of race bias. Does that make a lick of sense to you?

[Paulomycin]

The viewpoint of the mensnewsdaily article that society is anti-male and that men are denied a place in society if they can't tell women when, where, and how to bear children would, i would think, lead to the conclusion that homosexual males should be allowed to marry so that the emasculating scheme of the National Organization "of" Women won't be able to remove men's power from at least one type of marriage.

Please look past the vitriol, and read the whole thing. Also, I'll thank you not to put words in the author's mouth.

Feminism really has crossed a line here, and gay males are being thrown under the bus.

The second article calls for banning all marriage. If we are going to keep marriage, which we are, we should apply it equally while we have it.

No. I'm urging the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. The solution is DNOK contracts. Which is fair.

Furthermore, aping a patriarchal institution only makes one look like a hypocrite. If you're going to call yourself progressive, then remove marriage privilege altogether. Drop the double-standard.

That there are bisexuals does not mean that sexual attraction isn't genetic.

It means you cannot make a universal case for hardwired genetic sexual attraction.

It only means that sexuality is not an either/or situation but falls on a sliding scale. Until there's equal treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals, societal pressures to be heterosexual will mess with people's decisions about what they'll identify as.

^ This above statement flip-flops back and forth between either/or heterosexual vs. homosexual and the sliding scale ratio. Please pick one that you adhere to and stick with it. If it's a sliding scale of attraction, then no one is really straight or gay, and the labels don't apply.

[Paulomycin]

. . .because mixed gender marriage is the only gender-equal building block of society.

Gay marriage promotes an environment of gender bias. Children raised in such an environment are not being raised according to gender-equality.

Well that's a creative, bizarre and factually incorrect argument.

Well, you actually need some conclusive facts to the contrary in order to correct my allegedly "factually incorrect" argument. You cannot coast on bald assertions to get you by.

Apparently, according to that logic, intra-racial marriage must also be prohibited, as same-race marriage promotes an environment of race bias. Does that make a lick of sense to you?

Your argument makes no sense, because homosexuality is not a race. Thus, you're fronting a false analogy.