Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Ten arguments against same-sex marriage

Here. 

24 comments:

B. Prokop said...

I certainly agree with Argument Number 10! I've long said that, were there no women in the world, men would all wear fatigues and live in barracks. Everything that we recognize as civilization or culture would not exist.

Jezu ufam tobie!

im-skeptical said...

Ten arguments against leaving leaving decisions about who should be allowed to get married in the hands of religious people.

Aragorn said...

Deceptive!

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/02/the-family-research-councils-deceptive-use-of-social-science-to-defend-doma

oozzielionel said...

It seems pretty impossible to believe any "scientific" studies these days because they are all financed by special interests and are likely skewed by ideological bias. The scientific method is failing us.

im-skeptical said...

"The scientific method is failing us."

Not if you're able to distinguish between real science and ideologically motivated. The Koch brothers fund lots of "research" that refutes global warming, too. But we are not fooled by it unless we share their ideological motivations.

oozzielionel said...

If I were to only suspect the Koch brothers for tainted research, I would be very gullible indeed.

Victor Reppert said...

I think it is especially difficult for science in getting real data on issues on which people on both sides have an ax to grind.

Dave Duffy said...

Scientific data with two sides who have an ax to grind? Say it ain't so Dr!

I think most of the arguments in the link will work with the people I talk to everyday. I'm not sure it will change minds, but at least it brings up a few points to discuss. Thanks for the link.

Most of the people I talk to everyday aren't hysterical though. Thank God.

im-skeptical said...

Most of those 'arguments' are about raising children. What does that have to do with the issue of gay marriage? Maybe about gay adoption, but to my knowledge, gay couples do not procreate.

oozzielionel said...

Hmm, 1-10 rate how important raising children is to human flourishing and the future of human kind?

im-skeptical said...

It still has little or nothing to do with the issue of gay people getting married.

Victor Reppert said...

I think the idea here is that the state gets interested in relationships in large part because children are involved. I mean, when was the last time someone got convicted for violating sodomy laws? There is nothing illegal about joining something like the Metropolitan Community Church, or even the United Church of Christ, or the Unitarian Church, or the North Texas Church of Freethought and getting your gay relationship blessed as a marriage, even in Texas. So the state doesn't prohibit or prevent same-sex marriage. In states where there is no gay marriage, it just fails to provide tax advantages, etc.

im-skeptical said...

The state is involved because marriage is a LEGAL arrangement between people. It involves much more than tax advantages. It doesn't necessarily entail children being involved, especially in the case of gay people.

The real question is why should religious institutions be involved? They have no right to confer or deny the legal status of marriage that is properly within the purview of the state.

Victor Reppert said...

They don't confer the legal status of marriage. The concept of marriage doesn't require government involvement at all, so far as I can tell. If Genesis were literally true then God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden at a time when there was no government.

One theory is that the government starts getting interested in marriage because it wants to promote stable environments for childrearing.

Is there another reason why marriage is not privatized? Couples can certainly function as couples without government involvement. I'm not advocating marriage privatization, I am arguing that government's role in marriage needs explaining. Religion's involvement in marriage can be understood in terms of the goals and purposes of religious communities, but a religious communities should certainly be free to define marriage in ways that government does not. Thus the government may give you a marriage license, but a church can consistently regard you as shacked up and not married. Or vice versa, churches (including institutionalized atheist communities) can regard you as married even if the government does not so regard you.

Victor Reppert said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization

im-skeptical said...

I don't give a crap what the church thinks of my living arrangements. What I need id the legal status that is conferred by the state. The church can keep its nose out of it. It isn't their business.

Victor Reppert said...

Why do you need the state's approval?

im-skeptical said...

I don't need anyone's approval.

Victor Reppert said...

So, why do you need the legal status conferred by the state? Why is the state in the marriage business at all?

im-skeptical said...

Why do I need the legal status? Maybe I want to sit with my wife while she's in the hospital. Maybe there's more to this legal status than you seem to realize. Yes, it is the business of the state, as long as we have laws that govern our legal arrangements, rights and responsibilities. And yes, they include rights and responsibilities with regard to children as well (if children are involved in the marriage).

Why wouldn't you think these things are important? And why would you think the church has anything to say about it (other than trying to dictate who is allowed to get married and who isn't)?

B. Prokop said...

It's conversations like this one that make me wish the state would get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Let the state make laws about who gets what tax breaks, who gets to visit whom where, who is entitled to which survivor benefits, or whatever else might be involved, on some other grounds, and turn marriage over to the churches where it belongs.

That way, no one can claim discrimination. Everyone operates under the same rules, everyone is treated exactly the same. (Actually, that's the way things are right now, but some people refuse to recognize it. This would make it crystal clear.)

Jezu, ufam tobie!

im-skeptical said...

"Let the state make laws about who gets what tax breaks, who gets to visit whom where, who is entitled to which survivor benefits, or whatever else might be involved, on some other grounds ..."
- That's what marriage is.

"... and turn marriage over to the churches where it belongs."
- If you want to have your church involved in some kind of religious rituals and/or commitments related to your marriage, have at it. But they should have nothing to say about the marriage itself, which is none of their business unless you choose to make it so.

B. Prokop said...

"which is none of their business"

Sez hoo? Marriage has been a sacrament in the Catholic Church for 2000 years now - far longer than the US government has existed. Just who is the US government to tell an institution with ten times its experience and six times its membership what is or isn't its business? If anything, it ought to be the other way around!

Jezu, ufam tobie!

im-skeptical said...

"Just who is the US government to tell an institution with ten times its experience and six times its membership what is or isn't its business?"

The government doesn't tell the church what to do. But the church has no authority in legal matters. Nor should it. And the church has no authority over me, or my marriage. If you want to submit your freedom in any respect to the church, by all means go ahead. It doesn't mean I have to.