THE LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
By David Vance On July 14th, 2012Interesting argument out forward here by Mark Dooley;
The fact is, of course, that heterosexual sexuality is essentially different from its homosexual counterpart. While both are potential expressions of love, and while both are sources of pleasure, only heterosexual union is intrinsically goal-directed. That is to say, only heterosexual union is capable of natural procreation. ”Put simply, marriage is not a culturally-formed institution but one which has its source in the requirements of nature. That is why it is simply mistaken to argue that ‘all forms of sexuality are completely equal’. For this is to imply that a form of sexuality which has no intrinsic aim is equal to that which does. Altering the definition of marriage so as to include homosexual union is not, therefore, merely a cosmetic change. It is to radically redefine the very meaning of the institution. And it is to redefine it in such a way that the biological, philosophical and religious foundations of that institution are dismantled.
Mark states the obvious and we should not back away from this lest it offends delusionists and utopians.
Rubbish, marriage is a social construct. People have been recreating for eons prior to the notion of marriage.
Noting the source of the article . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
//marriage is not a culturally-formed institution but one which has its source in the requirements of nature.//
Well, if that’s the “logical” argument against gay marriage, you can imagine what the rest of them sound like!
As Paul says, procreation was getting along for tens of thousands of years without a marriage, and of course in the West it is increasingly dispensing with marriage and allowing those requirements of nature to have their way.
It would in fact be more true to say that marriage runs counter to the “requirements of nature” and was invented to restrict and channel them. Several sexual partners competing to reproduce with a woman is at least as biologically sound as monogamy; and we know all about man’s sexual predatory instincts, which millennia of legal and church censure never quite managed to restrain.
I believe I speak for all here at ATW when I say that homosexuality is a vile abomination in the sight of the Lord, and that “gay” marriage has no place whatsoever in our society. Why should we good Christian people allow ourselves to be dictated to by militant homosexuals and their camp followers? Is this what we fought two world wars for?
Disgusting!
Heterosexual couples who can not have children or do not wish to have children can now not marry? Is that the logical conclusion?
Not only is it not logical it doesn’t even mesh with reality.
Heterosexual union is not ‘intrinsically goal directed’ and there are many childless marriages, many by choice. Not only that, marriage can and often does mean agreeing to take care of children where 0, 1 or 2 biological parents are a party to the marriage. And of course gay people can, and already do, undertake the same agreement.
So the legal meaning of marriage/parenthood does not in any manner need to align to biological parenthood, and in fact in the case of heterosexual marriage it already doesn’t.
Paul
Please; proof. So there were people before they organised themselves socially?
Noel
How negative. An is doesn’t imply an ought. Plus your argument commits the naturalistic fallacy. Why not see marriage as a means to protect sexual activity.
Actually, what David presented ends up being more logical than both responses. Quietly move past Richard’s straw man.
I thought Richard’s contribution was classic, though isn’t it campy followers?
Jonathan,
//An is doesn’t imply an ought.//
Of course, but I didn’t introduce the term “nature”, which is very ill-defined in relation to humans and nowhere more so than in relation to human sexuality, which a simple glance around you will show.
//Why not see marriage as a means to protect sexual activity.//
By all accounts sexual activity is not nearly as frequent within marriage as people used to think, and I’ve a feeling that extra-martial sex (including all kinds of sexual activity) is much more common, common enough at least to show up Dooley’s argument for the nonsense it is.
Except that’s not what I said Jonathon.
Those cro-magnon wedding ceremonies must have been great craic eh?
Nothing against it, apart from the apeeches…
*speeches
Mahons,
Glad you enjoyed my comment.
You’ll have guessed that I was highlighting the disingenuousness of the Mail correspondent, Mark Dooley. His is an old dodge: mask your prejudice with ostensibly logical arguments.
But he gives himself away almost at once. What, he asks, me homophobic? Nonsense, old fruit, don’t I have a dear cousin in the USA who’s both homosexual, married to a man, and a fine human being? Some of my best friends are gay.
Dooley then goes on to try to convince us that homophobia is a “sickness”. I love the choice of word. Not an illness, or deviant thinking, or a prejudice (along the lines of bigotry or racism) but a “sickness”. Beautiful.
He continues in his relentless application of “cold logic” to his argument—or so he’d have us believe. Others on this thread have exposed his fallacious arguments for what they are, so there’s no need for me to go over the same ground.
It’s cunningly done; I’ll give him that. No doubt it will fool more than a few Daily Mail readers. But that hardly requires tremendous skill and expertise.
‘No doubt it will fool more than a few Daily Mail readers.’
And David, apparently…
‘But that hardly requires tremendous skill and expertise.’
Indeed…
The Caucasian birthrate is falling across the Western world, so clearly marriage & procreation have parted company.
Bernard,
“The Caucasian birthrate is falling across the Western world, so clearly marriage & procreation have parted company.”
An ignorant and racist remark. But I repeat myself.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
Hey!
Here’s the bottom (no pun intended) line….
How many same sex religions/cultures can you name??
How far could ANY human society get if it were dependent on homosexual or lesbian unions??
The answer is NONE.
If you disagree SHOW THE EVIDENCE.
Still waiting….
Stiill Waiting!
Gotta go out soon.
Hope one of you fine bhoyos will come up with a same sex society soon.
Whereas myself as an Englishman would assert that even the little people couldn’t up with an answer..
SO same sex unions can only HOPE to exist in a mainly HETEROSEXUAL society led by soft hearted liberals…
None, homosexuality transcends all religions and cultures.
Not very far but that’s not the issue here. The premise of the thread is that marriage is an institution which has its source in the requirements of nature which is clearly not true as children were born tens of thousands of years before the institution of marriage was even thought of.
No one is trying to force society to be dependent on homosexual relations.
Agit8ed,
“Hope one of you fine bhoyos will come up with a same sex society soon.”
Here’s a fine bunch of bhoyos who’ve had a thriving, same-sex society for centuries.
Hope that helps you out.
Oh!
So you were there when humans first realised that babies came along as a result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female, and that if a macho man wanted HIS son to lead the tribe on his demise, he’d better make sure that it was HIS son?
How the heck do YOU know when the concept of marriage first started?
I have said it before, I was on a kibbutz where when they first started they abolished the traditional idea of the family. and marriage was abandoned as being bourgeois, and they ended up with loads of children for whom no men wanted to take responsibility.
Of course these were Jewish kibbutzniks not Irish ones, so perhaps it’s different??
“Here’s a fine bunch of bhoyos who’ve had a thriving, same-sex society for centuries.
Hope that helps you out.”
Utter garbaaage Richard.
I’m talking about an actual thriving same sex culture – not an exclusive Gentleman’s Club.
My comments are not appearing.
How come my comment on the 12th of July thread, posted this morning, is STILL awaiting moderation?
Is it because it had to do with this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18848591
Agit8ed,
“I’m talking about an actual thriving same sex culture – not an exclusive Gentleman’s Club.”
The Vatican is an actual, thriving same-sex culture for three reasons.
1. It exists.
2. It possesses a treasure trove of untold billions of euros, and its hierarchy is still thriving after two millennia.
3. Apart from a few skivvying nuns, it’s an exclusively male culture, i.e same-sex.
It most certainly is no “exclusive Gentleman’s Club” as I know them. For three reasons.
1. Vatican prelates and their lackeys aren’t gentlemen in any sense of the word.
2. Any chap may join—even converts the like of John Henry Newman, “Father of Vatican II”.
3. There are no membership fees.
I think that about covers it
Agit8ed,
“How many same sex religions/cultures can you name??”
How many people arguing for same sex religions/cultures can you name?
“How far could ANY human society get if it were dependent on homosexual or lesbian unions??”
Well, the day someone proposes that only same sex unions be allowed, you’ll certainly have a zinger of a rebuttal for them. Until then, better keep your powder dry.
Agit8ed – You miss the point, gay people are part of our society, not seperate. Your “logic” would suggest that all people must have children.
Mahons,
I doubt whether Agit8ed is missing the point. I suspect he’s simply ignoring the point and wishing that it wasn’t there.
Agit8ed doesn’t miss the point, but unlike some he doesn’t talk like he was there when this or that happened.
Richard,
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT full of paedophiles masquerading as priests. A lot of them are good Godly folk, who just happen to believe the wrong theology..
They are not a same sex culture, they are a Christian denomination. To be a culture you need to produce offspring and develop some sort of society.
Mahons,
I suspect -although unlike some, I do do not KNOW; that homosexuals have been around since man kind started, but certainly since Sodom and Gemmorah..
So if I had been for instance a hairy arsed Neanderthal warrior I would have had my pick of the women, and I suspect any Gay Neanderthal would have kept his inclinations to himself..
There is no evidence of a predominantly same sex culture anywhere. So homosexuals would always have been tolerated as a minority activity/ group- nothing more.
I accept that the concept of marriage has evolved, but give me some historical evidence of regular same sex marriage in ANY culture, and YOU may have a point..
For me the logical arguement against gay marriage is that it is by definition impossible. I don’t really mind if the law changes but I don’t take to messing with the language. I also don’t know what a married couple have that a civil partnership couple don’t apart from use of the word.
That said, I don’t get his agreement. Sex between couples is often goal directed but not necessarily the goal of reproduction. If he means nature’s goal as opposed the goals of the participants then yes, the continuation of the species is (at the moment a least) pretty dependant on opposite gender sex. On the other hand same sex sex doesn’t risk conception of an unwanted child, who if lucky will get adopted and if unlucky will be brought up and neglected by its natural parent(s).
The logical arguement presented means that the unequal bit isn’t same sex sex v opposite sex sex but sex that can lead to conception v sex that can’t. So the logical arguement is that marriage is only for (potentially) fertile couples.
Agit8ed,
” I suspect any Gay Neanderthal would have kept his inclinations to himself..”
And look how well that worked out.
Agitated
The Shakers have a culture but they don’t reproduce.
Agit8ed,
“There is no evidence of a predominantly same sex culture anywhere. So homosexuals would always have been tolerated as a minority activity/ group- nothing more.”
So effing what? ‘There’s no evidence of a culture predominantly consisting of accountants or people who like hiking, so they would always have been tolerated as a minority activity/group – nothing more.’
Frankie,
“There’s no evidence of a culture predominantly consisting of accountants or people who like hiking,”
We’re talking about procreation and marriage not creative accounting, that’s what effing what.
” I suspect any Gay Neanderthal would have kept his inclinations to himself..”
And look how well that worked out.”
You now coming out as a Gay Neanderthal Frank?
And actually it HAS worked out. Gays are still here, and the majority remain stubbornly heterosexual.
Aileen,
“The Shakers have a culture but they don’t reproduce.”
So it ain’t a culture, it is a belief, am offshoot of the Quaker movement, and yer Shakers believe in celibacy, so they weren’t planning on being around long. I am talking about a culture as being a society.
Agit8ed
What is the premise of your argument about the emergence of cultures. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are respectively larger and smaller parts of the SAME culture.
Agitated
No the Shakers arn’t a culture as they are a group. They have a culture – customs and social behaviour.
Well then you need to look up culture in the dictionary.
Agit8ed,
“The Roman Catholic Church is NOT full of paedophiles masquerading as priests. A lot of them are good Godly folk, who just happen to believe the wrong theology..”
Did I argue otherwise? Possibly you’re confusing moi with another bright commentator.
“To be a culture you need to produce offspring and develop some sort of society.”
Not according to my dictionary. You’re making all this up as you go along, aren’t you?
Agit8ted, I take exception (in a friendly spirit) to your astounding statement that the RCC “just happens to believe the wrong theology”.
It may well be true (and almost certainly is) that RC theology is partially flawed, as even Paul said “for now, we see through a glass darkly; only [in finality] shall we see clearly”.
But, tell me then, which particular branch of the Reformed Church has its theology 100% correct? It really is quite hard to tell, as every time there is a fundamental disagreement within the Anglican See, another schism takes place, just like a tree forming endless divisions and branches. Some branches are for women bishops, some against, some tolerate homosexuality as intrinsically normal, other branches don’t, etc etc…. How does one go about finding the “correct” theology amongst all this schism and endless branching-off, within Protestantism?
The RCC certainly gets things wrong from time to time, and as it grows to understand its past errors, it re-evaluates its theology. But at least it does so as a single community/entity. Thus, a historical “line” of learning and correction can be traced through the RCC, as if it were a child slowly growing up and maturing.
I do think you need to justify your statement, somewhat. If the RCC follows a false theology, then which Reformed church follows the right one, and why?
Tom
What are you getting annoyed about. Surely every member of any faith group on the planet is supposed to believe they are following the correct theological path and everyone not in their ‘club’ is in the wrong. That is the whole point of choosing to follow any particular religous organisation.
Hi Colm, just to assure you, I am not getting annoyed with Agit8ed at all. As I said, I take exception *in a friendly spirit* to his statement. That is to say, I’m not shaking my fists at him, just wanting to debate in a friendly manner.
Tom,
Forget about debating with Agi in a friendly spirit; he’s in a hissy-fit tonight. Last night it was Pete Moore’s turn.
Go figure. I think it’s their time of the month
Petr Tarasov,
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group: Caribbean culture
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/culture?region=us
The context for this discussion is the national debate currently taking place in the United Kingdom, which to my mind is a NATION; not a club or a society.
Colm,
‘Heterosexuality and homosexuality are respectively larger and smaller parts of the SAME culture.’
Homosexuals are a part of our majority heterosexual society, as they are in any society.
But homosexual marriage has not been part of our historical understanding of marriage, and my concern is what happens once our society accepts a redefinition of marriage. Where will it lead, and how do you then deny any other minority group the right to their preferred expression of marriage?
Also, if as has been argued here the accepted concept of marriage be replaced, I think we will see the dissolution of all that our culture stands for and a consequent return to dis-organised society.
Agit8ed,
“Where will it lead”
Equal protection under the law.
“and how do you then deny any other minority group the right to their preferred expression of marriage?”
Why are you so bothered by the thought that you won’t be able to deny minority groups something?
In any case, it’s easy – if you can come with good reasons to ‘deny’ those other groups then there will be good reasons to do so. Otherwise, there won’t.
But if the ONLY reason you can come up with for denying group A is that otherwise you couldn’t deny group B, and vice versa, then you don’t have any good reasons to deny either of them. In which case the problem you raise simply doesn’t exist.
But then you probably knew that. Allowing adults to marry doesn’t mean we must allow children to marry. Each question can be taken on its merits. There is no slippery slope.
Frank,
Denying minority groups is not the issue. Societies are built on moral values which means that freedom comes with limitations for the good of all.
Children like to know there are boundaries, and the unhappiest children are those who are exposed to things they are not ready for or live in situations without boundaries.
“Each question can be taken on its merits.”
Who decides what the merits are Frank?
If you are going to allow marriage to take any form that any group wants, how will you deny men multiple wives? Or bring the marriage age down to 13, 14? Why not? It’s okay in some cultures. Why not have multi marriages where a group of men marry a group of women and they share around? Who would that be hurting?
What’s your guiding principle for a healthy stable society Frank?
Agit8ed,
“Denying minority groups is not the issue. Societies are built on moral values which means that freedom comes with limitations for the good of all.”
Your ‘morals’ and rationalisations for treating gays as second class citizens have no place in a society of laws. People only have to obey the law, not your ‘morals’.
“If you are going to allow marriage to take any form that any group wants”
Strawman. The form of marriage that YOU want is allowed. Does THAT mean that any form of marriage is OK? No? Nor does treating homosexuals as equals.
“Or bring the marriage age down to 13, 14? Why not? ”
Marriage is a property contract. Children cannot enter into property contracts that are binding on them, and are also below the age of consent.
“how will you deny men multiple wives? ”
I don’t lie awake at night worrying about how to deny people. Like I said if nobody can come up with a reason to do so then maybe there isn’t one. If there isn’t an issue there isn’t a problem. On the other hand if there is a good reason, then that is how.
“Marriage is a property contract. Children cannot enter into property contracts that are binding on them, and are also below the age of consent.”
But presumably, as happens in some communities living in Britain, where such unions are approved of, surely they should be allowed?
On what basis Frank, do you see a healthy progressive stable society formulating its values? Cultural? Majority? Freedom of Expression, What? I am interested, as I can’t see how it can be done without deciding that some freedoms are harmful to society and others are beneficial. How and Who decides?
Agit8ed,
“But presumably, as happens in some communities living in Britain, where such unions are approved of, surely they should be allowed?”
Not unless you also propose to lower the change of consent and overhaul the laws regarding property contracts accordingly.
“On what basis Frank, do you see a healthy progressive stable society formulating its values?”
Societies don’t need to and indeed can’t have all of their values in common. I’m not talking about multiculturalism or anything like that – just look at this blog, where people from similar backgrounds and cultures have polar opposite values with limited overlap. We don’t *need* to impose our values on everyone, and indeed one of the values that we probably *do* have in common is that we should do so to the least extent possible.
“Who decides?”
Almost always, the people directly involved and nobody else. Anybody else who proposes to intervene should have a bloody good reason and exhausted all alternatives.
“Societies don’t need to and indeed can’t have all of their values in common. I’m not talking about multiculturalism or anything like that – just look at this blog, where people from similar backgrounds and cultures have polar opposite values with limited overlap. We don’t *need* to impose our values on everyone, and indeed one of the values that we probably *do* have in common is that we should do so to the least extent possible.”
So Frank,
applying that reasoning to say the generations that fought thefirst and second world wars, how would we have functioned as a cohesive and united society so as to effectively resist our enemies?
Aren’t you arguing for a more free society whilst enjoying the benefits and freedoms given you in a more structured society? Aren’t you making assumptions that the same line of reasoned thinking such as respect for the individual and compassion and services which has created this society will automatically be employed in a more relaxed society?
Agit8ed
There was once a time when their was a broad acceptance of slavery and the slave trade in Western Christian societies. Was it wrong for a minority of people to begin the process of campaigning to change that attitude on the grounds that they were ‘imposing’ alien values on a settled culture ?
The argument against slavery originated amongst Evangelical Christian theology, and was carried forward by those Christians, especially William Wilberforce. But slavery wasn’t their only concern,; they were also active in other social issues in this country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/williamwilberforce_1.shtml
http://www.reformationsa.org/articles/William%20Wilberforce%20-%20Campaign%20to%20End%20Slavery.htm
If you consider that literacy only became more widespread in the 17th century
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h29-fr.htm
you can see that more people were able to read the Bible for themselves, and break away from the established positions of the Roman Catholic/Church of England teachings.
What you are arguing for Colm, is that Christianity continually update itself to reflect the current value system of society (relativism). I would argue that the New Testament and the sayings of Jesus are the greatest expression of freedom ever.
Now if you don’t like what Christianity stands for, ignore it! Deride it! Mock it even.
But Christianity leaves no room for relativism or populist values.
“Your ‘morals’ and rationalisations for treating gays as second class citizens have no place in a society of laws. People only have to obey the law, not your ‘morals’.”
Frank.where did I say homosexuals are second class citizens?
I’m talking about sexual orientation, not about being Irish.
And since when were laws plucked out of the air, rather than a moral code??
Agit8ed
The Christian moral code in Europe and America of the 18th Century permitted the owning of slaves and the African slave trade. Was it wrong to change that ?
Colm,
“The argument against slavery originated amongst Evangelical Christian theology, and was carried forward by those Christians, especially William Wilberforce. But slavery wasn’t their only concern,; they were also active in other social issues in this country.”
It was heterosexual Christians who argued against it, not non aligned homosexuals!!
Where WERE the homosexuals at the time? Debating politics?
Agit8ed
I am reading a book at the moment all about the campaign to abolish slavery. I know exactly who was involved in the campaign and believe me, they were all as queer as a 10 bob note
Well, that’s my take on events and I’m sticking to it
“I am reading a book at the moment all about the campaign to abolish slavery.”
Whaddya want? A medal or a reference??
Go to bed..
Tom Tyler,
I did respond to your question about Roman Catholic theology, and my saying that there are many good/godly Catholics who simply have the wrong theology.
It took me half an hour to compose, and has disappeared in less than a heart beat.
So for openers, I said that ther is no NT endorsement for a celibate male priesthood, nor the Pope being God’s representative on earth (that’s the Holy Spirit’s role) nor for intercessory prayers to Mary as the mother of God.
Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation (John 3:16)
All else is up for discussion.