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
-
Talishi
- Guru
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #11Often the opponents of gay marriage will fall back on Scripture, and quote something like Romans 1:27:connermt wrote: 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.
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..."
Do you see the problem? Natural use of the woman? Women are to be used?
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!
-
Youkilledkenny
- Sage
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:51 am
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #12[Replying to post 1 by His Name Is John]
I'm curious as to why someone who is not forced into a gay marriage (aka everyone) would care what people do in their own lives?
Don't we all have enough things to concern ourselves with than to be concerned with Mary and Beth's marriage?
Can't most all things (positive and negative) be weighed on both sides of marriage (gay or straight)?
Isn't there positive and negative things about marriage, gay or straight?
Has any place on the planet that has had gay marriage legal (or in other words, places not anti-gay marriage) had any legitimate negative impacts based only on the legal gay marriages?
Seems to me we should be looking less at the WHAT IFs and more and the WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR to make the determination if something is good/positive or bad/negative.
Otherwise we will never progress in any aspect of our lives.
I'm curious as to why someone who is not forced into a gay marriage (aka everyone) would care what people do in their own lives?
Don't we all have enough things to concern ourselves with than to be concerned with Mary and Beth's marriage?
Can't most all things (positive and negative) be weighed on both sides of marriage (gay or straight)?
Isn't there positive and negative things about marriage, gay or straight?
Has any place on the planet that has had gay marriage legal (or in other words, places not anti-gay marriage) had any legitimate negative impacts based only on the legal gay marriages?
Seems to me we should be looking less at the WHAT IFs and more and the WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR to make the determination if something is good/positive or bad/negative.
Otherwise we will never progress in any aspect of our lives.
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #13[Replying to post 1 by His Name Is John]
[center]
8 very bad arguments[/center]
I found 8 major arguments in the article, none of which are at all convincing:
1. He says that states restrict marriages for hetero couples due to the possibility of their being able to bear children. IF the birth of children was the societal benefit sought, the states could target economic benefits to the number of children born, not if people get married or not.
" The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. "
Gay couples can't bear children, but they might be able to adopt... maybe we should ask ourselves if kids having loving adoptive families of any sexuality is a desired societal result or not.
2. He says that children "need" a father and a mother as parents. The evidence that he provides is a book by a controversial sociologist who insists that kids need fathers. So, this can only apply to lesbian marriages, where there are NO fathers, not gay marriages or other kinds of LGBT marriages.
"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. "
3. He says that there is ample evidence against same sex parenting, and then admits in the very next sentence that "Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. " Apparently, Mr. Kolasinski can do the impossible.
4.He states that "The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society. "By that measure, it would be good for the state to discriminate more, not less, when it comes to marriages. Perhaps some kind of genetic test would be in order. The couples who fulfilled the state's criteria for good genes could benefit from the state support. Perhaps Mr. Kolasinski is advocating for MORE discrimination as a social good.
5. Mr. Kolasinski states that :"In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences." Without a shred of evidence. That would have been a nice touch. As it stands, that argument is an unfounded opinion.
6. Mr. Kolasinski states that : "The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. " Because we all know that if it's not about kids, its GOT to be about sex. Again, not a shred of evidence is provided.
7.Mr. Kolasinski then trots out the very unfortunate slippery slope argument that we have heard from fundamentalist apologists arguing against same sex marriages. "If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? " What's going to stop these people from marrying GOATS? We have to put a stop to all of this fun having, people !! Again, there is no a shred of evidence for the claim that allowing for same sex marriages is a "gateway" to utter "chaos".
8. For Mr. Kolasinski, the only legitimate reason to marry is to have kids: "When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. " I wonder who he thinks DEFINES marriage? I wonder who Mr. Kolasinski thinks the state governments are supposed to represent?
I can't agree with any arguments Mr. Kolasinski made, sorry. He sounds like a fundamentalist Christian apologist to me.
[center]
8 very bad arguments[/center]
As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Kolasinski is repeating fundamentalist apologetics.His Name Is John wrote:
Debate Question: Is the secular argument against gay marriage found in the link I provided valid?
I found 8 major arguments in the article, none of which are at all convincing:
1. He says that states restrict marriages for hetero couples due to the possibility of their being able to bear children. IF the birth of children was the societal benefit sought, the states could target economic benefits to the number of children born, not if people get married or not.
" The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. "
Gay couples can't bear children, but they might be able to adopt... maybe we should ask ourselves if kids having loving adoptive families of any sexuality is a desired societal result or not.
2. He says that children "need" a father and a mother as parents. The evidence that he provides is a book by a controversial sociologist who insists that kids need fathers. So, this can only apply to lesbian marriages, where there are NO fathers, not gay marriages or other kinds of LGBT marriages.
"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. "
3. He says that there is ample evidence against same sex parenting, and then admits in the very next sentence that "Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. " Apparently, Mr. Kolasinski can do the impossible.
4.He states that "The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society. "By that measure, it would be good for the state to discriminate more, not less, when it comes to marriages. Perhaps some kind of genetic test would be in order. The couples who fulfilled the state's criteria for good genes could benefit from the state support. Perhaps Mr. Kolasinski is advocating for MORE discrimination as a social good.
5. Mr. Kolasinski states that :"In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences." Without a shred of evidence. That would have been a nice touch. As it stands, that argument is an unfounded opinion.
6. Mr. Kolasinski states that : "The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. " Because we all know that if it's not about kids, its GOT to be about sex. Again, not a shred of evidence is provided.
7.Mr. Kolasinski then trots out the very unfortunate slippery slope argument that we have heard from fundamentalist apologists arguing against same sex marriages. "If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? " What's going to stop these people from marrying GOATS? We have to put a stop to all of this fun having, people !! Again, there is no a shred of evidence for the claim that allowing for same sex marriages is a "gateway" to utter "chaos".
8. For Mr. Kolasinski, the only legitimate reason to marry is to have kids: "When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. " I wonder who he thinks DEFINES marriage? I wonder who Mr. Kolasinski thinks the state governments are supposed to represent?
I can't agree with any arguments Mr. Kolasinski made, sorry. He sounds like a fundamentalist Christian apologist to me.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #14
This correlation equal causation argument seems to be common theme of critics of the article on this thread. Questioning the article based on the unstated personal beliefs of the author is fallacious. It is the nature of the argument that is significant. That said, since the thread has expanded the the scope beyond the stated arguments, I find the historical argument to be the best. Historically, marriage has always been an aristocratic institution, related to heredity and property rights. It is only in the modern romantic era (1500 to the present) that the institution has been viewed as increasingly egalitarian.Blastcat wrote: I wonder who Mr. Kolasinski thinks the state governments are supposed to represent?
I can't agree with any arguments Mr. Kolasinski made, sorry. He sounds like a fundamentalist Christian apologist to me.
In these United States, marriage was not seen as the purview of the state, but was acknowledged under contract and common law. Regulation of marriage, in these United States, was initially established as means of outlawing such contracts between "races". This followed the historical aristocratic use of the institution. This was later found unconstitutional. Universal licensing of marriage was necessitated by the creation of the income tax and the related deductions. Therefore, when one speaks of marriage, one must differentiate between the philosophical concept and the legal concept. The philosophical is based a complicated interplay of competing premises. The legal is base on where a society is on the scale between aristocracy and egalitarianism. Therefore, when one talks of whether a particular relationship should or should not be recognized by the government is a matter of how egalitarian the government chooses too be.
-
TheBeardedDude
- Scholar
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
- Location: Connecticut
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #15"1. Because they haven't really thought about it (or haven't yet seen the argument I linked)"His 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?
No, I've thought about it. That is why I support it.
"2. They rank their emotions higher than rational thought"
No, I've thought about it. That is why I support it.
"3. In an effort to be anti-religious simply for the sake of it"
Religion doesn't factor into why I support equal rights for the LGBTQ community at all. It happens that the religious seem to be the ones trying to stop the spread of equality which puts some of them on the opposite side.
These three categories are very dismissive because they appear to be an attempt to oversimplify people down into a singular dimension. (also, they aren't secular reasons. In fact, the last one is explicitly not secular but the others were clearly written with the premise of atheists supporting gay marriage)
Post #16
[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]
[center]
My 8 point criticism goes unnoticed[/center]
I said that to me, he sounds like a fundamentalist apologist, because their arguments are almost identical. That's just an observation. I have discussed marriage rights with apologists before, so I have a bit of experience with their arguments. Mr. Kolasinski mimics fundamentalist arguments, so, I hardly take his argument as "secular" in any way, that's for sure. It's just that he doesn't use religious words. What he borrows are religious arguments.
I gave a quite detailed 8 point criticism of his arguments.
I don't know if you noticed.
But I can also opine on how it sounds to me, too.
That's what I did.
I criticized the argument quite severely, in point form, no less, and then I opined abut how the whole thing sounded to me.
I suppose you DO believe in democracy?
Slavery was abolished because it wasn't fair, women were given voting rights because it was fair. There are other left over historical bits of unfairness to fix. Marriage discrimination is only one of them.
[center]
My 8 point criticism goes unnoticed[/center]
Blastcat wrote: I wonder who Mr. Kolasinski thinks the state governments are supposed to represent?
I can't agree with any arguments Mr. Kolasinski made, sorry. He sounds like a fundamentalist Christian apologist to me.
Of course it would be. I do nothing of the kind.bluethread wrote:
This correlation equal causation argument seems to be common theme of critics of the article on this thread. Questioning the article based on the unstated personal beliefs of the author is fallacious.
I said that to me, he sounds like a fundamentalist apologist, because their arguments are almost identical. That's just an observation. I have discussed marriage rights with apologists before, so I have a bit of experience with their arguments. Mr. Kolasinski mimics fundamentalist arguments, so, I hardly take his argument as "secular" in any way, that's for sure. It's just that he doesn't use religious words. What he borrows are religious arguments.
I gave a quite detailed 8 point criticism of his arguments.
I don't know if you noticed.
I agree.
But I can also opine on how it sounds to me, too.
That's what I did.
I criticized the argument quite severely, in point form, no less, and then I opined abut how the whole thing sounded to me.
Just because something was done in a certain way in the past does not mean it should continue to be done that way. It used to be great to own slaves. That's historical, too. If historicity is what you consider the best argument for denying certain people rights, then the discriminatory practice has very little justification, indeed.bluethread wrote:
That said, since the thread has expanded the the scope beyond the stated arguments, I find the historical argument to be the best.
And how democratic the government "chooses" to be, too. The US Governments are supposed to REFLECT the voting populace, and are there to SERVE the people fairly and with as little discrimination as possible.bluethread wrote:
The legal is base on where a society is on the scale between aristocracy and egalitarianism. Therefore, when one talks of whether a particular relationship should or should not be recognized by the government is a matter of how egalitarian the government chooses too be.
I suppose you DO believe in democracy?
Slavery was abolished because it wasn't fair, women were given voting rights because it was fair. There are other left over historical bits of unfairness to fix. Marriage discrimination is only one of them.
Re: A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Post #18[Replying to post 1 by His Name Is John]
I think the author's points would be valid were it not for the fact that birth control, contraception and abortion are all sanctioned by the State. The State has explicitly denied any vested interest in the gestation of any fetus up to and including birth.
Looking at the situation as it actually is leaves his arguments without much merit that I can see. However, he does spotlight the many other possible unions that could be legitimized except for possibly one glaring exception; those who are single.
Given that the focal point of marriage has been completely dismissed and ignored, it makes no difference whatsoever what unions we come up with even if the definition of union be redefined as well.
We live in a world where we can classify ourselves in any way we choose even if it doesn't match the commonly accepted definition. I can claim to be a man trapped in a woman's body while a quick look at my driver's license indicates that I'm a male. The women's clothing I'm wearing are only part of how I identify with myself and who I am. Since I choose to identify with the trapped person inside, I will therefore use the men's restroom instead of the women's. Anyone who decides to question me about why I'm using the men's room has crossed the line by committing a micro aggression against me. Their suggestion that I need to prove anything to them is proof of this hate crime. At first glance this may seem just plain idiotic, but there are benefits such as the savings in medical expenses when it comes time for me to get a sex change operation, but I digress. More to the point, while I may identify with the man trapped in a woman's body, the woman's body, or rather the body I've identified as a woman's body has her biological clock ticking and as has been pointed out already the State just doesn't have the resources to prove if everyone is capable of reproduction anyways. What's important nowadays is that the man's body is attracted to the feminine self image while the man trapped inside is bi-curious; a perfect match. So what we're really dealing with is a polyandrous union with only one signature required to make it legal. As an added benefit, the State can sanction this "marriage" and at the same time save on the cost of housing a whole segment of the mentally insane.
I think the author's points would be valid were it not for the fact that birth control, contraception and abortion are all sanctioned by the State. The State has explicitly denied any vested interest in the gestation of any fetus up to and including birth.
Looking at the situation as it actually is leaves his arguments without much merit that I can see. However, he does spotlight the many other possible unions that could be legitimized except for possibly one glaring exception; those who are single.
Given that the focal point of marriage has been completely dismissed and ignored, it makes no difference whatsoever what unions we come up with even if the definition of union be redefined as well.
We live in a world where we can classify ourselves in any way we choose even if it doesn't match the commonly accepted definition. I can claim to be a man trapped in a woman's body while a quick look at my driver's license indicates that I'm a male. The women's clothing I'm wearing are only part of how I identify with myself and who I am. Since I choose to identify with the trapped person inside, I will therefore use the men's restroom instead of the women's. Anyone who decides to question me about why I'm using the men's room has crossed the line by committing a micro aggression against me. Their suggestion that I need to prove anything to them is proof of this hate crime. At first glance this may seem just plain idiotic, but there are benefits such as the savings in medical expenses when it comes time for me to get a sex change operation, but I digress. More to the point, while I may identify with the man trapped in a woman's body, the woman's body, or rather the body I've identified as a woman's body has her biological clock ticking and as has been pointed out already the State just doesn't have the resources to prove if everyone is capable of reproduction anyways. What's important nowadays is that the man's body is attracted to the feminine self image while the man trapped inside is bi-curious; a perfect match. So what we're really dealing with is a polyandrous union with only one signature required to make it legal. As an added benefit, the State can sanction this "marriage" and at the same time save on the cost of housing a whole segment of the mentally insane.
