http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
An interesting article I came across today.
As it leaves out all religion etc. hopefully this discussion can remain civil.
I think the guys makes a good point. If he is correct, then it would seem to me the atheists (now I understand that some Christians support gay marriage, and in which case the same reasons apply, bar number 3) are either supporting homosexuality:
1. Because they haven't really thought about it (or haven't yet seen the argument I linked)
2. They rank their emotions higher than rational thought
3. In an effort to be anti-religious simply for the sake of it
But that is only if his argument is valid, which it might not be.
I would love to hear peoples views and comments on it.
Debate Question: Is the secular argument against gay marriage found in the link I provided valid?
A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Moderator: Moderators
-
His Name Is John
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
- Location: London, England
Post #2
It seems that the points this article makes is (1) states want marriages that produce children, (2) mixed gender couples makes the best parents, (3) civil unions are good enough, and (4) there is a slipper slope that could lead to polygamy.
I find (1) to be flawed since states use to not want mixed children and interracial marriage as well. The article tries to say that gay marriage and interracial marriage are not comparable due to fertility issues, but in this reason they are directly comparable. Another flaw is that this article tries to gloss over gay people having children. It ignores step parents and adoption.
It also glosses over infertile couples and old couples being married by claiming it is not such a big deal or it is too costly. People really don't care if these people get married. Even if it were cheap to do fertility tests and if old couples married in greater numbers, people would still not care.
For (2) the author admits that there is not enough data. I also don't see people fighting against single parents right's to have children either.
For (3) the flaw is that civil unions are not good enough. Heterosexuals can get spouses citizenship better than you can with civil unions. There are so many laws out there that it is very hard to reproduce all the rights unless the state and federal government just says that "civil unions are the exact same thing as marriage" in some law.
For (4), I agree. I see nothing wrong with group marriage. Or people falling in love and wanting to be together other than raising children. Humans are not in danger of going extinct anytime soon from lack of children. Let people love and live in the happiest ways life can offer.
I find (1) to be flawed since states use to not want mixed children and interracial marriage as well. The article tries to say that gay marriage and interracial marriage are not comparable due to fertility issues, but in this reason they are directly comparable. Another flaw is that this article tries to gloss over gay people having children. It ignores step parents and adoption.
It also glosses over infertile couples and old couples being married by claiming it is not such a big deal or it is too costly. People really don't care if these people get married. Even if it were cheap to do fertility tests and if old couples married in greater numbers, people would still not care.
For (2) the author admits that there is not enough data. I also don't see people fighting against single parents right's to have children either.
For (3) the flaw is that civil unions are not good enough. Heterosexuals can get spouses citizenship better than you can with civil unions. There are so many laws out there that it is very hard to reproduce all the rights unless the state and federal government just says that "civil unions are the exact same thing as marriage" in some law.
For (4), I agree. I see nothing wrong with group marriage. Or people falling in love and wanting to be together other than raising children. Humans are not in danger of going extinct anytime soon from lack of children. Let people love and live in the happiest ways life can offer.
Post #3
The whole article is merely an appeal to convention with special pleading in every line.
For his point to be valid, you would have to believe that sterile heterosexuals have no more right to marry than homosexuals, and that's a bit of an absurd thing to believe realistically.
Saying that enforcement is not practical makes no difference; one could easily make the same argument about gay marriage if it were the norm.
For his point to be valid, you would have to believe that sterile heterosexuals have no more right to marry than homosexuals, and that's a bit of an absurd thing to believe realistically.
Saying that enforcement is not practical makes no difference; one could easily make the same argument about gay marriage if it were the norm.
-
Autodidact
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3014
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm
Post #4
This is false. This subject has been studied in depth for decades. What we've learned is that in fact children of same-sex parents do at least as well as children of opposite sex parents. To say otherwise is false. It is not impossible to draw conclusions from the dozens of studies of every aspect of this question.However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting.
In fact, about 1/3 of lesbian couples are raising children, and doing at least as well as heterosexual couples. These women and their children should be encouraged and supported, not discriminated against.
-
cnorman18
Post #5
Speaking as one in a marriage that, according to the article, ought not be allowed but is so rare that it isn't worth regulating, I find the whole concept a bit ludicrous and faintly offensive. Marriage is NOT all about children. It never was. If it were, single people raising children, and marriages between people who choose not to have children or who cannot have children would face at lease some measure of the same fierce opposition as same-sex marriage, and all of those are accepted in modern society without so much as a breath of complaint. The argument is contrived and serves only to conceal the religious concern that is the real motivator for such arguments.
There just isn't a secular argument against same-sex marriage. People should be allowed to maintain the moral standards in which they believe, and if one has a religious scruple against same-sex marriage, then one ought not be compelled to marry a person of the same sex. But that's as far as one's religion ought to apply. One does NOT have the right to impose one's own religious values or standards upon people who do not share one's religion. Period, full stop.
Pretending that that is not the issue is hypocritical; and the other extreme, claiming that ALL law and morality comes from one's own religion, is objectively false.
There just isn't a secular argument against same-sex marriage. People should be allowed to maintain the moral standards in which they believe, and if one has a religious scruple against same-sex marriage, then one ought not be compelled to marry a person of the same sex. But that's as far as one's religion ought to apply. One does NOT have the right to impose one's own religious values or standards upon people who do not share one's religion. Period, full stop.
Pretending that that is not the issue is hypocritical; and the other extreme, claiming that ALL law and morality comes from one's own religion, is objectively false.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #6
The linked argument says [1] marriage is heavily regulated, and [1a] for good reason. Point 1 points out that the principle of regulating who gets married is already established. The good reason referred to in 1a are:
Reply to b)
There is a cost to everything, so the question is the value. The value also judged by stuff like liberty, justice, anf equality. The author offers an analysis both superficial and biased to one kind of answer.
Rely to c)
This is not even true if the question is restricted to biological propagation. Lesbians can be mothers and gay guys can father children. If they can’t quite bring themselves to do the dirty deed there is always a turkey baster. So point c) is false on a biological point. To widen the point c) it is still false. How much art, science, psychology, and learning to be fabulous issues from the gay life and is actually beneficial to society. I cannot quantify this, but the author of the link either does not consider this or dismisses it, and in not considering it the subtext is that the gay life style is irretrievably harmful to society.
Reply to d)
Who decides “proper�. Again the reason behind d) is superficial or trying to promote a social norm which leaves out a chunk of society. Again this brings us back to the kind of society we propagate.
Reply to e)
Point e) is one step away from scapegoating. There are some great things about modern western society. Why does the author not wish to attribute these to the kinds of freedom that go with sexual freedom. And why does the author ignore all the other social, economic and political circumstances that might lead to the kinds of “disasters� he is thinking of.
Reply to f)
It seems the author wants to promote a society in which people have sex only to have children, and anything that hints of not supporting that aim is disastrous. This begs the question he is trying to establish. It is also not applicableto gay marriage. There is no reason gay folk armed with turkey basters can't have plenty of kids.
Reply to g)
Like what?
In summary the argument provided by Adam Kolasinski is woefully superficially and unreflective. It has a severe undercurrent of unsupported prejudices, and is muddled. I know nothing about Kolasinski other than the linked page and I judge only this argument. It is poor stuff full of bias and myopic thinking. I do not know though suspect the fellah whilst presenting a non religious argument is actually highly influenced by religion.....that or he is still learning how to construct cogent arguments. I can forgive him for both, but suspect if his skill level improves he will come to recognise the intellectual poverty his argument gives evidence to. However I do not understand how anyone with the skill level evidence in the argument is a post grad.
[edit]....and OMG he got in to MIT. Can folk buy their way into MIT? Seriously, forget the subject matter for one moment, The quality of the thinking behind the aritcle is woefully poor and an embarassment to MIT. If he had argued for gay marriage with that level of skill I'd still want to say it is embarassing for MIT. It reads like a reasonably clever but far from ready 16 year old has written it[/edit]
- a) a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest
b) recognizing a marriage has economic cost both for the state and other individuals.
c) ]homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society
d) children need both a male and female parent for proper development.
e) the consequences of Western societies downplaying the procreative aspect of marriage are disastrous
f) granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
g) If sexual love becomes the primary purpose of marriage this leads to marital chaos.
- 1/The state has many competing interests that include stuff like liberty and justice and equality. It is not just the propagation of society that is the purpose of government and legislation and regulation, but the kind of society that is propagated.
2/ Families without children do not negate the presence of families with children.
3/ if by state regulation folk are denied marriage status because they might not have children or cannot have children their child bearing capacities remain the same regardless of whether they are granted a state certificate or not. The harm or lack of harm to propagation of society is not diminished by refusing to give them a certificate and change their legal status. The states approval or disapproval of their inability to have children makes no difference to the facts of the matter.
4/ If the focus is the biological propagation of the next generation, and this is the reason for refusing gay marriage, then the state is in fact saying we do not want you to live a gay lifestyle or be gay. This then feed back into point 1 and the question for the kind of society propagated.
Reply to b)
There is a cost to everything, so the question is the value. The value also judged by stuff like liberty, justice, anf equality. The author offers an analysis both superficial and biased to one kind of answer.
Rely to c)
This is not even true if the question is restricted to biological propagation. Lesbians can be mothers and gay guys can father children. If they can’t quite bring themselves to do the dirty deed there is always a turkey baster. So point c) is false on a biological point. To widen the point c) it is still false. How much art, science, psychology, and learning to be fabulous issues from the gay life and is actually beneficial to society. I cannot quantify this, but the author of the link either does not consider this or dismisses it, and in not considering it the subtext is that the gay life style is irretrievably harmful to society.
Reply to d)
Who decides “proper�. Again the reason behind d) is superficial or trying to promote a social norm which leaves out a chunk of society. Again this brings us back to the kind of society we propagate.
Reply to e)
Point e) is one step away from scapegoating. There are some great things about modern western society. Why does the author not wish to attribute these to the kinds of freedom that go with sexual freedom. And why does the author ignore all the other social, economic and political circumstances that might lead to the kinds of “disasters� he is thinking of.
Reply to f)
It seems the author wants to promote a society in which people have sex only to have children, and anything that hints of not supporting that aim is disastrous. This begs the question he is trying to establish. It is also not applicableto gay marriage. There is no reason gay folk armed with turkey basters can't have plenty of kids.
Reply to g)
Like what?
In summary the argument provided by Adam Kolasinski is woefully superficially and unreflective. It has a severe undercurrent of unsupported prejudices, and is muddled. I know nothing about Kolasinski other than the linked page and I judge only this argument. It is poor stuff full of bias and myopic thinking. I do not know though suspect the fellah whilst presenting a non religious argument is actually highly influenced by religion.....that or he is still learning how to construct cogent arguments. I can forgive him for both, but suspect if his skill level improves he will come to recognise the intellectual poverty his argument gives evidence to. However I do not understand how anyone with the skill level evidence in the argument is a post grad.
[edit]....and OMG he got in to MIT. Can folk buy their way into MIT? Seriously, forget the subject matter for one moment, The quality of the thinking behind the aritcle is woefully poor and an embarassment to MIT. If he had argued for gay marriage with that level of skill I'd still want to say it is embarassing for MIT. It reads like a reasonably clever but far from ready 16 year old has written it[/edit]
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #7
The question of whether Kolasinski is a Catholic or not has nothing to do with the argument he presents in the article The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. The argument falls or stands by its own merits.
However if it turns out the Kolasinski who wrote this article is the same Kolasinski who wrote blog 174 here and the various other Catholic articles and papers referenced on various catholic based websites, and Kolasinski is indeed an active Catholic, there is a question of how the paper on Gay Marriage can be called “Secular�.
Maybe I have this wrong but it looks like these fellahs are the same Kolasinski. I am inclined to believe they might be because the MIT article reads like so many posts I have read by religious folk and not at all like folk with a more secular skew. The article just reads like someone feigning secularism and doing it badly and I can’t but help smell the hand of religious dogma all over it.
That is why I went looking, something just smelt wrong about this. If this turns out to be true is this evidence of what? Religoius folk just can't manage to bring themselves to think like a secularist.
Anyhow - at present I am inclined to reject the ariticle as secular. It don't read like it and it don't smell like it.
However if it turns out the Kolasinski who wrote this article is the same Kolasinski who wrote blog 174 here and the various other Catholic articles and papers referenced on various catholic based websites, and Kolasinski is indeed an active Catholic, there is a question of how the paper on Gay Marriage can be called “Secular�.
Maybe I have this wrong but it looks like these fellahs are the same Kolasinski. I am inclined to believe they might be because the MIT article reads like so many posts I have read by religious folk and not at all like folk with a more secular skew. The article just reads like someone feigning secularism and doing it badly and I can’t but help smell the hand of religious dogma all over it.
That is why I went looking, something just smelt wrong about this. If this turns out to be true is this evidence of what? Religoius folk just can't manage to bring themselves to think like a secularist.
Anyhow - at present I am inclined to reject the ariticle as secular. It don't read like it and it don't smell like it.
Last edited by Furrowed Brow on Wed May 30, 2012 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #9There does seem to be a lot of special pleading in that piece. The state grant rights to marriage because of it wants to promote procreation. Except it grants the same to those who don't or can't procreate. It doesn't matter he says because the norm is still family with children. Well granting the homosexuals marriage would change the norm, how? He acknowledges homosexual couples can actually produce children, but they can reproduce anyway with or without marriage. Well that kinda nullifies the original point that the state grant marriage ro promote procreation doesn't it? Hetrosexual couples can reproduce with or without marriage.His Name Is John wrote: Debate Question: Is the secular argument against gay marriage found in the link I provided valid?
As for the case that mixed gender parents being better parents? I don't know what evidence there are in the book he cited, but the evidence shown to me by others that supposedly show mixed gender being better than single gender, turned out to be comparing mixed gender parents to single parent.
If anything, the article is an argument for sterile blood relatives marriage and polygamy.
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #10His Name Is John wrote: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
An interesting article I came across today.
As it leaves out all religion etc. hopefully this discussion can remain civil.
I think the guys makes a good point. If he is correct, then it would seem to me the atheists (now I understand that some Christians support gay marriage, and in which case the same reasons apply, bar number 3) are either supporting homosexuality:
1. Because they haven't really thought about it (or haven't yet seen the argument I linked)
2. They rank their emotions higher than rational thought
3. In an effort to be anti-religious simply for the sake of it
But that is only if his argument is valid, which it might not be.
I would love to hear peoples views and comments on it.
Debate Question: Is the secular argument against gay marriage found in the link I provided valid?
It's a very old argument that I've heard for years. It makes sense if you are looking at it in the way the author is. The problem is the author (and proponets of this argument) seem to be indicating that marriage has to produce something: children, advancement of society, etc. I don't find that to be the case with marriage in general.
There are people who want to show their commitment to each other in a formal way. The gov't grants legal rights to people who wish to show this commitment. Not for people who want to show this commitment and have children; people who want to show this commitment and better society (running for public office for example); etc.
For some people, they simple want to share their lives with another, mind their own business, not have children and be granted the same legal rights as others in the same/similar situation.
There's nothing that I have seen that's wrong with this concept.
And again, legal gay marriage hasn't brought down society or had a negative impact on it in places where it's legal. Therefore, I still see no reason not to make it legal.
