Secular Cases Against Gay Marriage and Rebuttals

As a secular person that generally opposes homosexual marraiges, I'm a bit of a blacksheep. I think most agnostic/atheists that oppose are silent on this topic as it is taboo in their general vicinity of like minded peers and the debate is frivolous in comparison to other topics, that is only my opinion.

In the last 24 hours or so, since SCOTUS ruled, I can't distinguish many of the religious arguments from the proponents arguments as they are so impassioned in their views that logical debate is the baby in bathwater.

With that said;

NOTE: This thread is for posting arguments against gay marriage from a secular perspective or rebutting them on a intellectual/factually, unemotional, basis. The intent of anyone participating should be void of emotional arguments, strawman, ad hominem, or other potential fallacies. This thread should be a learning experience for both proponents and opponents from a secular standpoint.

Here are a list of some arguments (very condensed and not necessarily my arguments), of what I have seen from secular opponents. Feel free to add and/or rebutt, with the above in mind. Devils advocate argument's are encouraged from both sides.

1. Argument: It's not "natural"

Male + Female = offspring. Evolution from the simplest life forms shows no sign of necessity for homosexual relationships and is either confusion in an individual or an abnormality in cognitive development. Further, while some species may show "perceived" homosexual nature, they also engage in polygamy and incestuous relationships. Can we accept one form of nature without the others?

2. Argument: Social Ramifications

People who engage in homosexual relations have a higher rate of STD's. Had a higher rate of sexual abuse as children, and will sexually abuse more children than a heterosexual per ratio. They will have a higher rate of substance abuse and a higher rate of poverty. Why expose the leaders of the next genertion to this?

3. Argument: gay marriage is detrimental to children in their care

Children of homosexual relationships are more likely to contemplate suicide, have been forced into sex against their will, more prone to poverty and welfare. Many studies conclude that children fair better in heterosexual upbringing by social standards. Why allow a deviation from the proven?



Again, these are condensed versions of secular arguments I've read that are opposed to gay marriage from a secular standpoint and do not necessarily reflect my views. If you think they are flawed or legitimate, back it up with facts. Research the stats yourself and reply with a factual argument, irrelevant of your position.

~Ghost

a reply to: ghostrager

You are 100% correct, now I live in a county where the law of the land goes against my faith (what do I do now) I will not accept it. (mark of the beast)

Sorry I'm breaking your rules....except the one about the facts.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked

www.splcenter.org...
www.bu.edu...

a reply to: Maluhia

Thanks. There is a difference between "articles" and "studies". Opinion vs. Observation. Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

Try to stick by the rules of the OP. A three second Google search isn't a rebuttal. Research the claims first, then rubutt

Keep it civil and unemotional and research the statistics before replying.

a reply to: ghostrager

To ask for only 'logical', emotionless arguments avoids the fact that it is an emotion laden subject.

In fact, most of the views seem to be emotion based when it's all said and done. When that decision is reached, then and only then, does a rationale/argument/justification present itself to support the emotional choice.

A weak analogy would be the Palestinian-Israeli feud. Neither side will back down and, ultimately, force will decide the issue with a 'winner' and a 'loser'. I suspect the same mechanism in the gay 'debate'. It is a culture clash. In the ME the 'force' will probably be violent. In this issue the winner will use the legal system to force a resolution. Either way force is the decider, not logic or rational.

In this instance, SCOTUS forced a decision.

Perhaps not logical, but it seems to be a fact.

a reply to: ghostrager

I edited my post to add more "studies", but, assholes being what they are.....always stink.

How about you try to be open minded to some of the info I provided, which is not the result of a three minute google search but a lifetime of knowing gay people who have been driven close to suicide because of non-acceptance.

originally posted by: ghostrager
1. Argument: It's not "natural"

Male + Female = offspring. Evolution from the simplest life forms shows no sign of necessity for homosexual relationships and is either confusion in an individual or an abnormality in cognitive development. Further, while some species may show "perceived" homosexual nature, they also engage in polygamy and incestuous relationships. Can we accept one form of nature without the others?

No other human behavior is held to the same standard that many hold homosexual behavior to. We don't lie awake at night wondering if our unnatural tennis playing will lead to a group of people who refuse to adopt any other activity. Most people would look at you like a head case if you suggested that recreational sex leads to rampant polygamy and incest. The issue with this argument is that it demands you take it to the logical conclusion and define all humans as plug-like beings whose only purpose is to connect to another plug. Oddly this seems to be the primary criticism of secularism in general, the reduction of humans to machines with only a handful of accepted purposes.

There is also the issue of placing nature on a pedestal. Lets be complete honest for a few moments, nature hates you. It's trying to kill you. Statistically speaking the natural order of things has resulted in more deaths than the human race could ever manifest. With that in mind, do you really care what nature thinks?

2. Argument: Social Ramifications

People who engage in homosexual relations have a higher rate of STD's. Had a higher rate of sexual abuse as children, and will sexually abuse more children than a heterosexual per ratio. They will have a higher rate of substance abuse and a higher rate of poverty. Why expose the leaders of the next genertion to this?

This UC Davis paper discusses quite a lot of this, and does somewhat of a meta study on the papers that advertise these issues.

Many of these stats come from papers which conflate homosexuality with people who aren't capable of an adult relationship. It's a chilling thought but many of these people find children attractive, not adults at all. Furthermore we then have to take the premise of some of your points to its logical conclusion ... By far, men are responsible for the most violence, the most crime, and the most sexual assaults. You're completely right, we shouldn't expose the leaders of the next generation to this ... I for one welcome our new overlords, and look forward to the island we will build to hold men in a large futuristic prison until we can make safe ones for our amusement.

3. Argument: gay marriage is detrimental to children in their care

Children of homosexual relationships are more likely to contemplate suicide, have been forced into sex against their will, more prone to poverty and welfare. Many studies conclude that children fair better in heterosexual upbringing by social standards. Why allow a deviation from the proven?

This is called victim blaming.

You spend a few hundred years forcing a group to develop sexual practices that involve stealth and can never be part of a normal relationship. They develop depression. STDs happen. They're shunned by their family support networks when they decide to finally come out the closet. Then you say 'see, I told you they were crazy!'

The fact is we don't know these things, and if we apply this logic to one demographic we have to apply it to them all. The logical conclusion of that is tyranny.

originally posted by: ghostrager

Thanks. There is a difference between "articles" and "studies". Opinion vs. Observation. Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

Try to stick by the rules of the OP. A three second Google search isn't a rebuttal. Research the claims first, then rubutt

Keep it civil and unemotional and research the statistics before replying.

Well, you should provide evidence for what you're saying, be it "articles" or "studies" for your position too. Otherwise those are just your opinions. Because from what I've read you'd be incorrect in all three of your examples you gave.

a reply to: nwtrucker

A rationale response isn't subjective to emotional feelings. I don't care about your feelings, whether your a religious fanatic or a LGBT fanatic. It's a thread for debate and logic.....not emotion.

a reply to: ghostrager

Right. The OP didn't even bother to provide any citations or anything. Even those found on google after 3 sec search.

a reply to: combinatorics

It's really not that hard.... just search from an unbiased standpoint using unbiased terms. I'll hold your hand like a lemming going over a cliff if you like.

a reply to: ghostrager

Eh? Weren't we supposed to be rigorous and unemotional? )

a reply to: mOjOm

"Otherwise those are just your opinions", No. Use your fin gers and start with google.com.

Then, tell me why all three are incorrect.

Again, these aren't my opinions, just the consensus of what I found from secular perspective. Try to refute them for logics sake, not mine.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: combinatorics

It's really not that hard.... just search from an unbiased standpoint using unbiased terms. I'll hold your hand like a lemming going over a cliff if you like.

I don't think you understand. It's your OP. You are the one presenting the argument for debate. So unless we're here to debate your own personal opinions you need to provide sources for the things you claim to be facts. If you don't have source material for the facts you claim to be presenting then there is no reason to believe them as true.

The fact that you also dismiss the source material provided by others who oppose you makes it even worse but that's a different conversation.

originally posted by: ghostrager
Then, tell me why all three are incorrect.

It doesn't work that way. I don't need to show anything as incorrect that hasn't first been presented as correct.

Just like I don't need to prove that ghosts are fake until someone first provides proof that they are real.

Your claims aren't just given the default of being valid or true just because you say them.

a reply to: mOjOm

Did I claim to believe these or encourage them? This is a thread to discuss the primary points of general arguments from a secular perspective. Feel free to add or rebutt them with facts.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: mOjOm

Did I claim to believe these or encourage them? This is a thread to discuss the primary points of general arguments from a secular perspective. Feel free to add or rebutt them with facts.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with them you must still provide the sources for the information unless of course the information comes from yourself.

If the information you provide is even inspired by somewhere else, you need to provide that so I can also evaluate it for myself. How do I know that the things you say are even true at all unless I can verify the data from which you are getting your information???

How am I supposed to "add or rebutt" what you present as facts unless I can first verify them???

If you don't have a source for where you get this information, especially the statistical information, then it must come from you. If it comes from you then I'd want to see the studies and research you did to get that data. If you have no data then that information is your opinion.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: mOjOm

Did I claim to believe these or encourage them? This is a thread to discuss the primary points of general arguments from a secular perspective. Feel free to add or rebutt them with facts.

Dude, you have to know it doesn't work like that here. You must start by showing proof of your points... as much as you possibly can in order to be taken seriously. And certainly before demanding others go (well) beyond the effort you have made. Put up, or, well, you know.

a reply to: mOjOm

Fair enough. Let me find all the sources, please allow time. Feel free to refute or add:

a reply to: [post=19503991]mOjOm[/post

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...