What are the secular arguments against same sex marriage?

[koolguy1029]

@Holly3278ify

>homosexuality is incorrect

>calls self a rational creature

wut

[Derisa22]

I believe that same sex marriage is invalid because homosexuality is invalid. In a secular state of mind, I can see that homosexuals are not in tune with their bodies. A hammer has a forked side and a heavier flat side. Those sides are used for nails. A person has the right to bang a nail in wood with the forked side, but the hammer was clearly designed to be used n the opposite manner. Just as a man's body produces sperm and that sperm has no purpose but to fertilize an egg.

[conradleviston]

@Derisa22 Homosexuality is part of a natural variation within many species, the fact that certain functions no longer serve any purpose is hardly relevant. You may as well say that anybody who has an appendix is out of tune with their body, as their life expectancy is greater without one.

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston Please tell me how you in fact know that homosexuality is a genetic variation?

Last time I checked that was completely theoretical and not supported by any evidence

nor were the claims that the appendix is useless and life expectancy is greater without it.

Aren't you suppose to be advocating for homosexuals not making them look dishonest?

[conradleviston]

@redbulborb WTF? Did you actually read what I said? Do you deny that homosexuality occurs within many species? You are deliberately twisting my words out of context. If you want to see somebody appearing dishonest look in the mirror.

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston "Homosexuality is part of a *natural variation* within many species" is not the same as "homosexuality occurs within many species."

"You are deliberately twisting my words out of context."

No you are avoiding the obligation of providing evidence for your claims, because you don't have any.

What underlying context is there to anything you even said? In fact please tell me how asking you to provide evidence is twisting your words out of context?

You are a disgrace to gay rights.

[conradleviston]

@redbulborb Are you saying that homosexuality in other species is non-natural? That's an odd claim.

Do you want evidence that homosexuality occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom? Try "Homosexual behavior in primates: A review of evidence and theory" by Paul L. Vasey in the International Journal of Primatology (Volume 16, Number 3, pp. 173-204) or else a simple Google search or even the Wikipedia article "homosexual behaviour in animals" (if you don't trust Wikipedia, follow up their sources).

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston No I'm not claiming anything you are!

homosexual behavior in animals is not evidence for homosexual genetic variation! its only evidence that animals can act homosexual.

And actually how is that evidence it is natural? just because its occurring in a species doesn't make it a natural thing, a lot of unnatural things occurs in many other species does that make them natural? no

Is unnatural always bad? no

Is natural always good? no

so why do I care? Just support your claim

[conradleviston]

@redbulborb 1. If you read back you will realise that I was replying to somebody who said that homosexuality was invalid because it is not natural. Your point about "is unnatural always bad?" would be better directed at that person.

2. I did not use the term "genetic variation". I used the term "natural variation". The reference I gave provided strong support for the second claim, just not the first.

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston Genetic Variation: Refers to the differences in inherited traits that exist among the members of a species.

Natural Variation: Differences among individuals of a species; due to genetic variety, slight differences in the genetic code.

Um, what is the difference between these two terms?

Also I don't remember your reference providing support that its natural, in fact they theorized it was caused by external stimuli and used words like "abnormal" around it. But I'll look again.

[conradleviston]

@redbulborb The difference is that you just made up the definition for the second one in order to support your argument. Natural variation may occur due to either genetic factors, but may also be triggered by environmental factors (eg gender imbalance in a social group or variation in prenatal hormonal input). The fact that something occurs due to an external stimulus does not automatically mean it is unnatural, otherwise we could say that the fact we produce vitamin D from UV rays is unnatural.

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston No I didn't make anything up.

its at w w w dot unit5 dot org slash villhauer under N in the glossary

And how was that an argument? I just asked what the differences is.

"external stimulus does not automatically mean it is unnatural"

when did say that it does?

I said they said it was, "external stimuli *and used words like abnormal around it"

I don't think physiological excess and deficiencies in androgen implies natural.

[conradleviston]

@redbulborb I am sorry for accusing you of making stuff up, but that's a really bad definition. It means that different stripes on zebras are not part of natural variation, as stripe patterns are determined in utero, not genetically.

Abnormal does not imply unnatural. Drought implies abnormally low rainfall, but it still is part of the natural cycle of the weather. Excesses and deficiencies testosterone in the womb can make people better or worse at maths. Are these differences unnatural?

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston Actually abnormal is one of the antonyms for natural.

Drought is a natural phenomenon, not occurring artificially(sometimes).

I mean natural as in what is expected/suited, essential not conditioned for. If its excess or deficient its not the natural levels.

[conradleviston]

@redbulborb So people over 6'6" are unnatural?

[redbulborb]

@conradleviston Why is that relevant? The gigantism phenomena is from excess of growth hormone, then considerably a unnatural height but not the people themselves. Humans are probably the blame for the majority of abnormalities, perhaps.

[zeek72358]

I'm wondering if you ever got a cogent secular reason for gays not to be allowed to marry? To date I haven't heard of any.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@zeek72358

Here's my secular argument against queer marriage...

Marriage is the identity of heterosexual civil unions..It's purely an identity issue. Gays can fight foir full rights under gayrriage and NO it's not separate but equal....It's different identities but equal just like the identities of various races...Sexes have their own identity such as "males" and "females" ....So the sex combinations of a civil union also should have their own identity. ..

I'm an atheist by the way

[Snorglat]

@CharlieBoyCheckm No it bloody well isn't. You are making up definitions to suit your fucked-up mindset and arguments you forward to support it.

Marriage is a LEGAL and SOCIETAL acknowledgement of the couple's agreement to give exclusive rights to make decisions about and with a spouse regarding finances, health, children, religion etc etc. in just the same way divorce is the legal and societal acknowledgement of the REMOVAL of those rights.

It isn't just an identity, you dumbarse.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

So if the definition of "marriage' can change, so could the definition of "Americans"...The list goes on and on. As a matter of fact, changing the definitions of words just to make a malfunctioned group feel normal could lead to chaos

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

What's considered natural depends on each species' brain functions and structure. Humans's brains don't function like other species. Our brains are three times larger than chimps. We have an extra layer or two in our brains that is crucial to humans being different from other animals. If a human is unable to talk, is that natural because other species can't talk? DEBUNKED. I"m an atheist so that stupid argument doesn't work with me

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

You didn't address all of the atheist arguments against gay marriage on purpose. Check out my video. I"m an atheist who oppose gay marriage

[conradleviston]

@CharlieBoyCheckm Actually, this video was about asking what the secular reasons were, because I hadn't seen any good ones. I have just watched your video and I still haven't. The language argument is very week. The word marriage has had many changes in meaning over the years. I don't consider my wife property, but according to some cultures' definition of marriage I should.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

You "haven't seen any good arguments" because you don't want to. A christian would say the same thing about arguments against the existence of God. My language argument is basically saying different things require different labels when applying the benefits of language. Heterosexual civil unions already have the word marriage. So gays need there own identity

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

That's not true. Marriage has always been between man and woman..Another name for marriage is "husband and wife"...So with that being said, if gays want to tie the not, it requires a new identity because the main, crucial, ingredient in marriage is man and woman.

[conradleviston]

@CharlieBoyCheckm Two points: word definitions change. It always has happened and it will continue to happen. Arguing against something because you would have to change the dictionary is stoopid.

Secondly, same-sex marriages happened in pre-Christian Rome and Ming era China. Canada's parliament has defined marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others since 2005. An argument to preserve your dictionary's meaning is too late.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

Word definitions rarely change. Same sex unions existed before but it's not clear if they were called "marriages"...The basic definition of marriage has not changed. Man and woman as husband and wife was so obvious regarding marraige, people didn't even find it necessary to clarify it. Do you think it's stupid to argue against changing the definition of "Americans" also? They can simply say "definitions change all the time" You're bias and stupid

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

So if the definition of "marriage' can change, so coulud the definition of "Americans" The list goes on and on. As a matter of fact, changing the definitions of words just to make a malfunctioned group feel normal could lead to chaos

[sicktoaster]

@CharlieBoyCheckm

The definition of "Americans" did change.

It used to mean "Native Americans".

Then it was just white people.

Now its any US citizen regardless of race.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

Now that I think about it, other societies who recognized same sex civil unions didn't use the word marriage because they didn't speak english. Even if some did, it's irrelevant. Each society has their own way of doing things. In our society, I don't think same sex civil unions and heterosexul civil unions should be categorized the same. THey are diffferent so they require different labels

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

":word definitions change It always has happened and it will continue to happen"

If definitions change all the time, let's officially change the definition of marriage BACK to "civil union between unrelated man and woman ONLY and let's change the definition of "malfunctioned to "gay"

[conradleviston]

@CharlieBoyCheckm You presumably want to change the meaning of marriage back to "civil union between unrelated man and woman ONLY" because you think that Gay marriage is wrong. But you think that Gay marriage is wrong primarily because of the dictionary definition. I think I may have detected a circular in your reasoning. :)

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

"But you think that Gay marriage is wrong primarily because of the dictionary definition"

You are making false assumptions..I just believe in applying the benefits of language and gays aren't the exception...We can simply name Motorcycles "Cars" and it wouldn't hurt a nothing but it's just best to apply the benefits of language..Gays only want the word marriage because they want to mimmick straight people and feel normal...Gays have their own issues they need to deal with

[Snorglat]

@CharlieBoyCheckm I have a simple mind exercise for you.

Take the phrase "? people should not be allowed to marry for reasons a, b & c"

For the ?, insert Gay people, Black people, Retarded people, Infertile people, Amputees, Poor people.

Each time you switch, consider what someone agreeing with each statement makes them - a BIGOT.

I DARE you to refute me when I state there is no excuse for denying gays marriage because there is no logical difference in ANY of the phrases above.

QED, bitch.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@Snorglat

Why didn't you include siblings? Is it because you insist on using bad comparisons? 

Siblings should not be allowed to marry because marriage is the identity of unrelated heterosexual civil unions

Homos should not be allowed to marry because marriage is the identity of unrelated heterosexual

Note: Homosexuality, incest and bestiality are all defined by sexual attraction and behavior BUT race, disabilities, and financial status are NOT.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@Snorglat

You compared homos to every group but the groups that are defined by sexual attraction and behavior which is how homosexuality is defined. How DECEITFUL

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@Snorglat

Which category does homosexuality belong in?

1, race ( black, white, asian ect.)

2. disability ( retarded, handicap, ect.)

3. sexual behavior and attraction ( bestiality, incest, ect.)

The correct answer is 3

but homos CONSTANTLY throw themselves in the category of race for the sake of appealing to emotions..How DECEITFUL. So next time you compare homos to a group, compare them to a group in their category which is incest or bestiality

[Snorglat]

@CharlieBoyCheckm Wrong. Are you deliberately being a moron?

Homosexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION, subclasses of which are homosexual, heterosexual, and (debatable) asexual. Look it up.

You, however, class it as a deviant sexual behaviour (it isn't... deviant is not the same as statistical minority) as you lump it in with incest and beastiality, which are pathological sexual acts. Of course you do this, because it only reinforces your already held preconceptions about the issue.

[Snorglat]

@CharlieBoyCheckm It is clear to me now that you must be deliberately ignorant.

Homosexual people don't go around saying "If you hate me, you are RACIST", you dumbarse. They don't claim to be a race, & your claim is patently false.

A gay person only tries to COMPARE the inflicted injustice & struggle for equality in the same way as oppressed racial groups do (USA, black equality), or an oppressed sex (USA, women's suffrage)

My point still stands. You haven't got a real argument to stand on.

[conradleviston]

@CharlieBoyCheckm As for your "Gays are unnatural, and it's because of plastic" argument, that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Why is homosexual behaviour recorded in hundreds of other animal species if it is unnatural?

To me it just looks like you hate gays, and are willing to latch on to very week arguments to support your point. I didn't think this was the case at the start of your video, but when you started with the "faggots" and "dykes" namecalling it was pretty clear.

[CharlieBoyCheckm]

@conradleviston

What's considered natural depends on each species' brain functions and structure. Humans's brains don't function like other species. Our brains are three times larger than chimps. We have an extra layer or two in our brains that is crucial to humans being different from other animals. If a human is unable to talk, is that natural because other species can't talk? DEBUNKED. I"m an atheist so that stupid argument doesn't work with me

[sicktoaster]

@CharlieBoyCheckm

If a human is unable to talk that is natural for that individual human. Normal, no but still natural.

[MrJastin]

ummm...Because if gay's married, they'd act like a couple in public and in private?

[DrMagnanimous]

Great query - I don't believe there is any secular argument against gay marriage. Just give it time, eventually gay marriage will be legalized.

[captaincompost07]

Being a Christian, and being content with having no reason outside religion to oppose same-sex marriage, I still have to commend you on the professionalism, respect, and knowledge you bring to the table in this heated issue. Your approach to educating rather than condemning is an approach I wish more Christians like myself would take up, instead of embarrassing themselves. Thanks for the video.

-captaincompost07

[conradleviston]

Thanks for your comment. I always found the 3rd argument in your list self amusing. Allowing marriage encourages promiscuity. :)

Actually, there is another argument that has cropped up in the replies. That is the idea that if gays are allowed to marry they will be allowed to adopt children.

This might be a legitimate concern, except that studies consistantly show that children brought up by same-sex couples are no worse off than those brought up by heterosexual couples.

[Thresholds]

I, too, was really baffled by this debate, conradleviston. So I also went out looking for secular arguments against gay marriage. All of the arguments I found were bad and utilitarian (i.e. consequence-based). Here are the main ones: it should be banned because (1) gays can't procreate; (2) it will cause social upheaval; (3) it will lead to an increase in debauchery; and (4) if we allow gays to marry, we must allow polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality (slipper slope). Basically, there's nothing.

[kidam12]

Undertakers response is pretty ridiculous. Especially when he argues that homosexuals will never have children and if they do, they are hypocrites. This is funny because many homosexual people have the desire to have children and use either artificial insemination or a surrogate mother.

[lordhank77]

In all seriousness, it's people like this that make me think I've done the right thing by supporting gay marriage. Like Conrad, I'm married (to a woman, no less) and have even reproduced, but have yet to see a logical argument against gay marriage. I'd love someone to point me towards an alternate view point that's not just (mis)quoting bible verse or pathetic name calling and threats.

[lordhank77]

Great to see a well thought out and logical argument put forth by Undertaker202. Glad to see he put his opinions out there in a rational manner and didn't let the whole thing devolve into a petty and pathetic bit of name calling and childish banter that did more harm to his cause than good.

[Undertaker202]

Propaganda

[conradleviston]

Why do you say that? I am not gay, I am a married heterosexual. I have no vested interest in the debate. I just think that all arguments against same-sex marriage come down to either religion or the belief that homosexuality is immoral. There are however people trying to pretend that they have reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that do not rely on these two ideas, but it always comes back to them in the end.

If you have some reason to think that this is propaganda point to the evidence.

[Undertaker202]

1)youre a post-modern free thinker convinced that principles are an abstract arbitrary invention of obsolete beliefs

2)you have been sold on relativism in the bounds of ideology

3)you have rejected an omnipotent, omniscience giver of standards thus receded to an anthropomorphic, subjective integrity

[conradleviston]

I am not a post-modernist, and have little time for the likes of Derrida. Do you know what post-modernism is, or do you just use the term as something vaguely insulting?

The difference in our mind set is that I think that principles can be obtained from somewhere other than divine revelation. Besides which, given you claim that man created God in his own image, I don't know why you'd be bandying about the word anthropomorphic.

But that does not answer my question. How is this propaganda?

[Undertaker202]

Its propaganda the same way communism or Nazism spreader lies and half truths

FUCK YOU!

[Undertaker202]

4)you leave out if we are the product of Darwinian evolution a homosexual would be a less or mutated humanoid, thus a weaker form of the species because it can not by its own design continue the species, for a homosexual to breed it must if someway engage in the combining of sperm and egg, which is contrary to homosexuals for males to male no egg is present and female to female no sperm is present, unto their own design (if homosexual are born homosexual) they are a sub-species

[conradleviston]

Point 4 is just silly. Don't theorise in areas you clearly don't understand. Homosexuality is an example of variation within a species, such as colour blindness or left-handedness.

[Undertaker202]

ok, dip, I'll speak slowly so you can understand dip-shit

1) a guy with a guy only have sperm, no egg thus the species stops

2) a girl with a girl only have egg no sperm thus the species stops

3) survival of the fittest means breeding

thus fags and dikes are retards to the whole process they are the unfittest

a sub-species that can not reproduce, if they do they are hypocrites

eat shit and die!

[conradleviston]

I think we can consider this conversation closed now. If you would like to know why homosexuals are not regarded as a sub-species using standard genetic classification, or how evolution could lead to traits such as homosexuality, ask politely and I'd be delighted to answer. However if you can only use phrases such as "dip-shit", "eat shit and die" and "FUCK YOU" then I think that is the end of any productive conversation.

Try not to post angry, it does you no credit.

[xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx]

@Undertaker202 maybe we should make it so you can't reproduce... sounds good to me, and i'm straight

[greengirl82]

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage. I'm glad that your'e asking for a secular reason against same-sex marriage, not because I feel that religion lacks validity, but as St. Paul tells us, we need to preach by giving a reason for our faith. There are precepts in religion that shouldn't be civilly required -ex, people should not by law be required to attend Mass on Sunday. However, gay marriage is, I believe, a civil matter, as it affects fundementaly affects society

[algot55]

Children is the strongest argument against same sex marriage. Children with parents of the same sex will and are picked on in school and by their friends. You could argue that children need a mother.

[jstroman86]

Well as for assertion that children need a mother, i suppose you could make an argument that children develop with a better understanding of the gender roles of both males and females in a famlily environment...However, I believe this falls short of an adequate argument to rebut same sex marriage, because then you would have to same thing about single parents..and we both know that would be absurd..

[jstroman86]

and as for the issue of children getting picked on..This issue is of no moment because it is precluded by the fact that marriage or not, gays are allowed to adopt..If anything I think marriage would help this situation because it would show these children who have been adopted by gay parents that their family should not been considered as being "different" becuase their parents can't marry like the families of their peers.

[jstroman86]

To the creator of the video- Sweeney was expressing what he believes would one day be the result, if gay marriage became the norm. It's currently a tabboo subject; if it became a normal occurence he does raise an interesting point that it could result in an unforseen level of sexual promiscuity outside of the confines of marriage. It's a policy decision that probably requires more discovery, but it a legitimate concern.

[Orionsmane]

Another secular argument deals with the religious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Because marriage is in fact a religious institution, who is the government to intervene- changing the definition long held by the church? While this deals with religion it is still a secular argument because it honors the separation of church and state, whereas to change the definition would be to dishonor this (albeit theoretical) ideal.

[jstroman86]

I believe you have a misunderstanding of the separation of church and state and how it works in relation to this issue. Mariiage is an issue for the state. And to break it down to make it simple..You can get married anywhere, such as City Hall. If the government were to allow for gay marriage it would in no way intrude on the church. Separation of church and state does not allocate certain powers to the church it simply allows for the freedom of religious choice.

[Orionsmane]

Marriage is an institution adopted by the state to grant certain legal distinctions onto those who choose it.  It is certainly religious in nature, you cannot deny. Religious people believe it is theirs, and for that reason alone it needs to be treated with care. A state cannot alter religious traditions without infringing on the religious freedoms it guarantees. It's the equivalent of declaring transubstantiation either or, to accommodate vegetarians wishing to participate. (not seriously)

[jstroman86]

The fact of the matter is that separation of church and state mandates that religion should not be considered in the formation of public policy. Whether the religious community "thinks" marriage is theirs is irrelevant. The fact is that Marriage is an issue of law and should be treated as such, and therefore should be subject to analysis under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendent..Not religious beliefs

[swtpgirlie]

weddings are religious, not marriages

[Orionsmane]

Arguments given to the courts against same-sex marriage emphasize the procreational aim and subsequent solidity of the family unit for children's growth and development. This idea is intrinsic to the original understanding of marriage; without at least this possibility, the institution is not the same. If men are blue and women yellow than marriage is the green union. You can't get green with two blues or two yellows. To allow gay couples to marry is to say marriage is now three colors.

[conradleviston]

Are you saying that if I think your reasons are extremely weak (which I feel they are) then I have no right to say so?

As for your last sentence, this is nonsense. Gays are not asking for special rights, they are asking for the same rights for their relationships to be recognised. Why don't you just say "Because I hate gays" and be done with. At least I'd give you credit for being honest.

[bondosho]

Because kids in Massachusetts are given books teaching homosexuality. Teach a kid to wash his hands, wipe his butt, clean up after himself, not about how men can marry men, and women marry women. Sperm and egg create life, sperm up a bunghole, strap on in a vagina do not. So, those are my secular reasons :).

[conradleviston]

I do not see how your "reasons" are in any way relevant.

[bondosho]

You asked us to give our secular reason, not for us to post, and then have you critique. But gays have every right to marry....

....women.  They just do not want to, so they want special rights saying they can.

[thespectrumscene]

ok heres my secular reason. all the freakin sueing goin on in mass. thats why im voting yes. gays can still love each other and have legal benafits as a domestic partnership. but yeah i do agree that it is stupid to base your arguements on religion.

[hessischerjung]

If you do not accept the axiom that humans are basically male and female and that these to camps have inherent commonalities then say so.

[hessischerjung]

Well, sterile is science and science can be wrong, so a heterosexual couple has an inherently higher probability to reproduce and gay couple has a zero probability of independent reproduction.

[hessischerjung]

So that means while black men and white men are for all intents and purposes the same, a relationship is different depending on the parties involved. Thus if we say that these things are the same and they aren't then we are distorting the truth. This results in a relationship between a man and woman being seen as something less important because this becomes less of a bridge between the genders.

[conradleviston]

Every marriage is different. People enter it for all sorts of reasons, but in our society mainly as a monogamous commitment to each other. We allow sterile couples to marry, so the children argument holds no water.

Most importantly, you have not given any reason why we should stop same-sex marriage, other than the fact that it's different.

[hessischerjung]

Here is what I don't agree with that you assume and it is that a relationship between a man and a woman people of the same gender are the same. First Marriage mentions having children and people of the same party are inherently incapable of having children without outside help, so they could never fulfill this part of the contract on their own. Second, marriage is a meeting of the genders because there are inherent differences between a man and a woman, more so than people of the same gender.

[troubadourblues]

Is this question sincere? First of all, you stipulate that the argument must be "SECULAR," suggesting a predisposition AGAINST the voice of the religious in public, a wide-spread prejudice, especially in the media. This alludes to the most potent "SECULAR" argument: that allowing same-sex marriage will only continue the systematic shutout of the religious from the public sphere and create a situation where religious persecutions is not only tolerable, but encouraged.

[conradleviston]

It is a sincere question. I have heard that there are secular arguments against same-sex marriage, but when I have heard examples they have all been pretty shallow.

Are you seriously arguing that allowing religion to force its views on others is a secular argument? There is a very clear difference between persecuting a reilgion and not living by that religion's values. By legalising the sale of meat does that mean the government is persecuting Buddhists?

[troubadourblues]

Well, I'm glad that the question is serious.

My response doesn't mention forcing "religion" on people, but, rather that forcing the religious to check their beliefs in order to participate in public discussion while the "secular" are allowed to promote their beliefs because they are not "religious" is de facto religious persecution.

[troubadourblues]

Of course the religious will be influenced and informed by their beliefs in their public policy decisions, just as the "secular" will be informed by their beliefs. What bothers me is the quest for a "secular" response at all. It suggests that the religious don't have a right to participate.

[conradleviston]

I don't mind if a church does not want to perform gay marriages. That is an internal matter for that church. It does bother me if those views are forced on everybody else for no good reason other than scripture. Secular arguments (ie religion neutral) are frequently put forth by religious people informed by their religious philosophies, that too is fine with me.

Your last two sentences though are the height of hypocrisy. It implies that the non-religious don't have the right to participate.

[Califacience]

@conradleviston *sigh* Why are you discussing arguments AGAINST same sex marriage? If Classical Marriage is the Status Quo, what is required is an argument FOR the claims of the Same Sex marriage advocate.

Heretofore I have yet to encounter a single non-tautological argument for why same sex marriage MUST be required.

[troubadourblues]

the meat selling analogy is excellent BTW, but I would suggest that asking for a secular argument is more like suggesting that Buddhists shouldn't let their Buddhism inform their public participation, that they need to come up with non-Buddhist reasons for their desire to have certain things happen in the public sphere. A closer analogy might be telling homosexuals that they need to come up with a non-homosexual-specific argument to support gay marriage.

[troubadourblues]

I don't imply that at all; if the "secular" want to develop a "secular" argument, fine; but the religious shouldn't have to abandon their belief to participate, and demanding that they find a secular argument does exactly that--THAT is hypocrisy. It suggests only the "secular" can participate, allows them to control the discourse (ex: secular="religion neutral"), gives them the advantage. Both must be allowed to participate on their own terms. Democracy gives us a medium to find a compromise.

[rubiorocks]

For the past two months in California and for the past 3 years in Massachusetts gay marriage has been legal and I don't think it has changed your marriage, your friends marriage or your parents. Has it????

[cryconius]

Wonderful question. I really hope more people start thinking about this seriously and realizing that the facts really don't support marriage discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[conradleviston]

Adoption and marriage are separate issues, but a quick look at the research into same sex parenting reveals that having gay parents has either a small or no effect on the children involved. The differences in results correlate roughly with who was conduting the survey.

May I ask, if a parent is widowed, do you believe that the parent should remarry or risk losing their children?

[wrauny]

I meant to add the caveat of natural causes (such as death of a parent) but had to keep my comment under 500 words ;-)

Regarding the research, I never said gays are not good parents. If you read "How to lie with statistics", you may be skeptical of all research. I'm talking simple principles. Does gay sex result in children? No. Do gay parents result in the absence of a father or mother? Yes. If you still want to look at research, read research of children who don't have a father or mother.

[wrauny]

A quick google search of "impact of families without a father/mother" yielded 54 million and 34 million hits. A search of "impact of families with gay parents" yielded 214,000 hits. Social experiments take time. The proliferation of split families took decades and now millions of web pages address the issues. I'm sure if gay families become prolific, we'll see more related web pages over the next decades.

[conradleviston]

Well, I was thinking of proper scientifically conducted research rather than a google search. As far as I know there have been 67 research papers done on same-sex parents, and they overwhelmingly indicate either no effect or a slight positive effect for the child.

Yes, I agree research is sometimes skewed by bias, which is why most people do literature review rather than rely on one study. "Common sense" arguments, or "simple principles, are even more prone to bias.

[Felidaise]

Don't you realize that the motherless and fatherless families that you are referring to are single-parent families?

Of course kids do better with more than one parent raise them.

It doesn't matter if the families have two fathers or mothers.

[wrauny]

Choosing homosexuality has the unfortunate consequence of not providing children. With adoption or artificial insemination, the homosexual couple can enjoy having children, but then they convey the consequence of their choices to the children by denying them a father or mother.

Heterosexual adults also effect their kids with bad choices.

I'm glad I had a mom and a dad, even if they weren't perfect. We can only hope we don't repeat our parents mistakes ;-)

[sammyseattle]

Hello, hello, is anybody out there? Didn't think so. Thanks Conrad for asking the questions that no one can answer.

[ryukage99]

I heard Sweeney Runs every year but never gets passed the primary, I wonder why?

[ponyboy316]

People cna't admit their parents beat and insulted them repetitively for no reason. They need to grow up. My mother was a cunt. But now she's on the right track. She was still a cunt and will forever harbour hte past of being a completele and total cunt, but now she is understanding and becoming more engaged in her children's lives. (She has three gay children, and only two that she knows about)