United Liberty
Christian caller to talk show unable to formulate secular argument against same-sex marriage
Thu, 11/13/2008 - 5:38pm | posted by Michael O. Powell
This video is a clarifying one. The caller, when given a chance, is unable to provide a non-religous example of what bad juju will come about due to same-sex marriage.
It is difficult if you have a Christian world view to opine on a non-Christian world view. What would be a non-religious example of an argument against murder. It is wrong, unnatural, and a sin (thus being in a country that is based on Judeo- christian laws it is illegal) as it should be.
There you go.
Gay marriage is illegal, it is unnatural, it is not the Judeo-Christian structure for a family which is created for the benefit of children. And Prop 8 would also usurp other rights such as the rights of parents to teach their children the morals they believe in. People to hire who they choose. Etc - the ads are still online.
I think the non-religious argument for criminalizing murder is that the act necessarily involves infringing on another person’s rights - the right to live. You cannot have a victimless murder.
I think a non-religious argument against gay marriage is that “marriage” as contemplated by Prop 8 and other such laws is completely a creation of the state, and as such, the state has the power to place limits on it. The state, as voiced by the will of the people in an election, has decided on a regulation to limit it to one man and one woman, which is a legitimate use of its power.
With that said,I do not believe the state could prohibit gay marriage as a religious event. It is a compact between man and God, and if your religion believes that God does not prohibit two men or two women from entering into that compact, any state intrusion on that belief would violate the 1st Amendment.
Am I not a victim by having my 1st amendment rights taken away. Are my children not victims by being denied their natural desire to have parents that love and teach them when morals can not be taught. Are not single people who want to adopt children rights violated because they are not married.
How are same sex couples victimized by having civil unions with the same rights.
Am I not a victim by having my 1st amendment rights taken away. Are my children not victims by being denied their natural desire to have parents that love and teach them when morals can not be taught. Are not single people who want to adopt children rights violated because they are not married.
How are same sex couples victimized by having civil unions with the same rights.
What about your 1st Amendment rights are violated by same sex marriage?
If it is because two dudes or two chicks are married, that makes no sense. Perhaps your marriage to your wife violates my First Amendment rights, as I don’t want to see anyone married.
I do not believe that discrminating against same sex civil marriage has any 1st Amendment implcations. It might have equal protection implications, which is the basis that courts are striking down the limits. Even then, I think it’s a bit of a stretch. Most courts have held that gays are not a suspect class, and therefore, not entitled to heightened scrutiny when analyzing discriminatory law. This does appear to be changing though as more and more courts are slowly expanding heightened scrutiny to homosexuals.
Bottom line: While I believe states have the right to limit marriage, I personally, have no problem with gay marriage. I would have voted against Prop 8. Within our lifetime, we will see gay marriage in the majority of states.
Atheists love to pull Christians into this trap. Lets have a conversation, but you can’t use your beliefs. The Christian is drawn into a conversation predicated on atheists presuppositions such as naturalism, positivism, and empericism. Then the Atheist thinks he has trumped the Christian because the Christian can’t make a coherent argument within atheistic presuppositions. Well of course he can’t, a Christian world view does not posit such presumptions. A word to all theists, don’t be drawn into a debate where the rules of what you can include are set by the atheist in the conversation. He is entitled to his presumptions, and so are you.
Well to actually take religion out of the argument would mean to make the argument from the viewpoint of an atheist. It takes a little mental gymnastics but here you go …
No God means that we are a product of evolution. And from this point of view how does one decide what is good and what is bad? What is evil to one person is not evil to the person doing it. Good and Bad are relative. Good is the strong because the strongest live to create the next generation. We can see in studies that children are best when raised by their natural parents, who have a instinct to love them. Same sex marriage has no place in this world view because it accomplishes nothing. Their desire to marry is no different than the desire of others for them not to. Both desires are equality fair, if you want to use that word but fair is irrelevant (it presumes something which does not exist in evolution). The strongest are the unions that create children, those unions that don’t in nature simply die and no longer exist.
… I’m not good at the atheist viewpoint, but even from that viewpoint same sex marriage can not be argued as a necessity.
Speaking as a non-atheist and non-religious person, I’m curious to hear a secular, as in non-religous, argument against same-sex marriage. There isn’t one.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
In both Canada and England they have same sex marriage, and they also have Hate crime laws preventing speech against same sex marriage. Adoption organizations have closed down because they are not able to exist with the coercion.
Non-Religious, Non-Atheist, Non-Canadian, and Non-British … The argument that same sex marriage is analogous to civil rights movement is incorrect Jeremiah Films Documentary - non-religious
As a Non-Religious, Non-Atheist, Non-Canadian, Non-British, and non-black person … Old people recognize there is no need to have same sex marriage if same sex unions exist with all of the same rights.
As a Non-Religious, Non-Atheist, Non-Canadian, Non-British, and young white person. _Most_ of them are OK with Same Sex Marriage (per their vote), and Abortion, legal drugs, pron, … If any are listening they can speak up for themselves.
But same sex unions do not exist will all of the same rights.
- A committed homosexual relationship cannot result in eventual citizenship through marriage for a non-citizen.
- When inheriting property via probate, the “immediate family” is given priority over a homosexual partner. In some states, this priority can trump specifically prescribed instructions in a will if there was a same-sex relationship.
- IF domestic partnership benefits are available (usually only in industries with a heavily homosexual workforce), the insurance premiums are paid with “post-tax” dollars, while people in a “traditional” family are allowed to pay with “pre-tax” dollars. Also, Flexible Savings Account funds are not shareable in domestic partnership situations.
These are all federal level changes. I agree that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, like most Libertarians, however until such a time as the government can keep its big, fat, theocratic nose out of things, fix the equality issues at hand.
Until such a time as they are equal, there will be a movement toward equality. Unfortunately, people like you and Lorin who oppose gay marriage are patronizing the community with the idea that “you can play house, and we will pretend to give you some of the aspects of what I get to have (whether by choice or by biology, I don’t want to argue that case at all) , but you will never actually get to have the same rights as I do, because what you are doing is wrong in God’s eyes.” Give me an argument based in logic, NOT IN FAITH, for how gay marriage is “wrong.”
Your rhetoric is confusing. Are you for or against gay marriage?
Wether there is one or not is less the point. Let a secularist make that argument. To ask a believer to suspend their belief while stating their views seems odd to me. I wouldn’t but lots of Christians are more accomodating than I am.
What is the necessity of “traditional” marriage?
By your argument about “the strongest are the unions that create children, those unions that don’t in nature simply die and no longer exist” shouldn’t we cast aside couples who cannot or refuse not to produce children as wrong?
I suggest you see the opening of “Idiocracy” to see the lunacy of such an argument.
Wayne, you just did what I said shouldn’t be done. lol You don’t win a debate by ceding ground before you have even started.
This is of course about coercion. Forced acceptance is as wrong as forced rejection. Adoption agencies, private organizations, churches, and business people will be pressured, sued, harassed. It has already happened, and will start happening here. When there is a conflict between a pseudo-right such as the “right” to marry, and a real right such as private property, freedom of association, and freedom of worship then I have to stay faithful to the real ones, and not the made up one.
As far as I’m concerned government has already violated the first amendment by intruding in the realm of marriage. Which is by in large a very religious act. If they are to intrude in this realm they must not cede to majority tyranny and either relinquish their control in the realm or allow equal opportunity. This is a complete sham and complete violation of the separation clause. We should all be ashamed for allowing this to happen. And to the christian who espouses that they must cede ground before taking part in this debate. Well, yes, obviously. Religion has no place in government, if you cannot argue without espousing your religious dogma then you are no place to make arguments involving government policies. Case closed.
Lorin, as a Libertarian dont you believe that the government shouldnt force their values on to others? I am new to this website but have found your arguments completely opposite of a Libertarian.
As libertarians who support same sex marriage, I’m interested in hearing your positions on polygamy and “under-age” marriages.
If three consenting adults want to get married and go through the problems of having to deal with more than one spouse, I don’t see the problem. It doesn’t affect me.
Why do you put “under-age” in quotes? I would say that the under-age one is slippery because it’s usually associated with arranged marriages, which I’m not for when the people being arranged don’t consent. Also, teenagers (anyone under that age getting married is unacceptable) aren’t exactly mature enough to make rational decisions.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
It is in quotes since “under-age” is an arbitrary decision. Who should make this decision? The parents of the teenager or the government? I know it is slippery, but so is letting the government decide the age at which something is acceptable.
This is one of those wedge issues that keep libertarians from making any real gains within the two party system. We might agree on a thousand political or international policy debates, but we get so mad at each other over this issue that we can’t seem to form a cohesive movement.
I am not saying that this is what’s happening in this debate, but I think it does happen in the larger picture.
I used to think this was a small issue, but it is one that the gay community finds extremely significant. They are as motivated by it as blacks were for civil rights. I would rather not live in a country where a portion of the population feels like second-class citizens.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Post new comment