Gay Marriage: Is It Perhaps Moral to Oppose It Independent of Religion?

[ANImaniac89]

Not sure if trolling or just really really stupid.

Just making gay marriage legal would not cause the average person to suddenly change there sexual orientation just for the hell of it.

and I'm not even a supporter of gay marriage, I'm indifferent to the whole issue.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

But without god, what's moral?!

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm
http://mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html

 

[Suikun]

But without god, what's moral?!

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm
http://mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html

Ethics debates are the most fun thing evar. I love asking friends the "damned if you do; damned if you don't" ethics questions just to see them squirm.

I guess that's what I get for being a philosophy major.....

Oh, and before I forget; I applaud your attempt, OP, but the assumptions you make are pretty far-fetched or outright untrue.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

The sad reality is that humans aren't programmed to seek the truth; we are programmed to win. Even if that means sticking to an argument that is obviously wrong and defending it until you die.

Win? We're not even programmed that far. More or less, we're blindly equipped with crude implements that are good enough to help most of us not die or pass on our genes in a savanna.

Untrained, we're very vulnerable to logical fallacies. Trained, we're slightly less vulnerable.

That too, but our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph (even if we are wrong). It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning.

 

[BlackWidower]

Less people = smaller unemployment and fewer overpopulated areas.

That's not quite how the economy works. Less people does mean fewer people to take the jobs, leaving them free for others, but it also means less jobs, because fewer people to pay the workers and less demand for them. For instance, retail. If there are fewer people going to any particular store, you would hire less salespeople.

Also, I don't see how this world is overpopulated. I need someone to explain this to me. There are a few densely populated urban centres, sure. But there's even more unpopulated countryside. Now, there are people starving in some countries because we can't grow enough food. But once we get over the organic bullshit, we will be able to feed them, no problem. Basically, I'm saying: Fuck Greenpeace!

Eeeeeh, there are scientists trying to prove that homosexuality (As in, homosexual couples being around/raising children) damages our kids. Or something. I don't keep up on that whole whatever.

Yeah, and they're failing at it. The only way they'll succeed at that is if they count 'grow up to be upstanding and model citizens' as 'damage.'

 

[EuZic]

oh and this is our own fault you know.. we let every entitled twat in their cerebral spring feed us their brainfarts so that we can vent. not ok.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

The sad reality is that humans aren't programmed to seek the truth; we are programmed to win. Even if that means sticking to an argument that is obviously wrong and defending it until you die.

Win? We're not even programmed that far. More or less, we're blindly equipped with crude implements that are good enough to help most of us not die or pass on our genes in a savanna.

Untrained, we're very vulnerable to logical fallacies. Trained, we're slightly less vulnerable.

That too, but our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph (even if we are wrong). It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning.

No, it isn't.

 

[LHZA]

There are a number of economic studies out of schools like UCLA and such that have found gay marriage to be beneficial economically. Even the Christian Science Monitor ran an article that stated how good for the economy gay marriage was in places like Massachusettes, though being the Christian Science Monitor they had to mention the "social cost". Here's the article for any of you who are interested in actually reading it (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/0527/p02s07-ussc.html/%28page%29/2).

 

[maturin]

Producing a child with someone you can't love (because they're the wrong gender) is undesirable and morally questionable.

If you stupidly assume that all the current gay people are living a lie and having children with their straight spouses, the fact remains that this is a terrible state of affairs for the individuals and families involved and should stop regardless of what the state of gay rights is.

 

[chadachada123]

As noted, the population thing is complete bunk. More gay couples will not mean less straight couples, and marriage of either does not affect the other.

Regarding the 2nd point, this would also apply for couples that marry but don't have children, and couples that marry and then divorce. If you're willing to apply the same penalties for these two groups, then I'll concede that your argument holds from a utilitarian standpoint. Except, you'd also have to admit that gay couples that have children (but made from a surrogate) and gay couples that adopt (who save us far more money than couples gay or straight that have children of their own) should enjoy the same benefits as straight couples with children, making your argument ultimately futile.

What you should instead do, if you want marriage to exist at all while maintaining at least the illusion of basic human decency and equality while maximizing utilitarian efficiency, is scrap the entire idea of marriage and instead make tax benefits based on children, given to the parents and their spouses.

Regarding surrogation, my gay best friend, a girl that I used to work with, was discussing the idea of childbirth. She's in a committed relationship with her girlfriend, and she told me that, were they ready for children, they both would want me to be the father for my genes. Feels good man. I don't know if I'd ever go through with it.

 

[Stryc9]

The title here hints to me that the author opposes gay marriage because of religion, but thinks he has found this amazing argument against gay marriage for non-relgious people. (Their clear assumption that all religious people automatically oppose gay marriage, so the only people left to convince are those who do not have religion)

More than hints man. This completely reeks of still using religion to make a point against gay marriage. He's just not using the typical wording with phrases like, "goes against the Bible", or "gay marriage is un-Christian", or "homosexuality is an abomination against god" followed up with the relevant quotes from Leviticus and links to the Westboro Baptist Church site and Christwire.

The biggest part of his argument centers around population and religious people are all about population. If you're not increasing the population you're doing it wrong. Reasonable people would be looking for ways to balance out the population instead of increase it.

 

[BlackWidower]

But without god, what's moral?!

You mean this god?


Also, don't forget: your god condones slavery. Is that moral?

 

[LordFisheh]

So by your argument, morality should be defined by what is beneficial to the state and to society. One flaw - where does that stop? Could we perhaps consider recreation to be immoral; it's unproductive and unhelpful to the state and society. Sure, some is necessary for well being - but surely anything beyond that amount, by your logic, is wrong. Besides, if people worked harder and longer, perhaps the US would not be facing the economic problems it is now. And that's all that matters, right?

And while you can easily say 'yes, but that's going too far', that still leaves the question of who gets to decide how far is too far. You? God? Whatever method, we get one person or group of people enforcing its will on others whether they like it or not, and somehow creating a 'right' answer to a value judgement.

There's also this. It's generally accepted that birth should not determine one's standing in life. It's unfair for power to be inherited from monarch to son, it's unfair to be denied an education because you were born poor, and it;s unfair to be denied human identity because you were born the 'wrong' ethnicity. And yet you find it not only acceptable but moral to pile duties and responsibilities upon people - going against their individual freedom to marry as they choose - simply for having the misfortune to be born in the country where your laws are in effect. They never chose this. And what makes economic power 'good'? You sacrifice free choice for duty to the state, but why? It's efficiency for the sake of efficiency - it's not what people want, it's not what makes them happy, and it's not what they choose.

 

[Something Amyss]

That too, but our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph (even if we are wrong). It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning.

That sounds like communist talk to me!

(sorry, I couldn't resist. This thread needs some levity)

 

[someonehairy-ish]

It is immoral to oppose it whether you are religious or not. If your religion is against it why not let them do it because God or whoever is presumerably going to sort them out in the afterlife anyway...

 

[chadachada123]

Producing a child with someone you can't love (because they're the wrong gender) is undesirable and morally questionable.

I don't think that child production requires you to love the other birth parent, but lying about your relationship with a person and your sexual orientation is very morally wrong.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah. I was surprised too. I am a high school teacher and when I was getting my credential we looking at a lot of evidence indicating that to be true. The theory seems to be that gay teens either concerned about being outed, or struggling with their sexuality are more likely to engage in risky heterosexual behavior. i.e. "If people find out I'm gay, they'll hate me, so I'll prove I'm not by sleeping around." or "I hear being gay is bad, so to try to counter these weird feelings I'm having, I'm going to 'prove' otherwise by having lots of heterosexual sex."

Regardless of the reason, those who identify as homosexual later in life are statistically far more likely to have had children as teenagers.

Indeed. It does make sense, though I guess I tend not to think of the need for a beard.

 

[maturin]

Producing a child with someone you can't love (because they're the wrong gender) is undesirable and morally questionable.

I don't think that child production requires you to love the other birth parent, but lying about your relationship with a person and your sexual orientation is very morally wrong.

And, unlike having two dads, the potential effects on the child don't need to be argued because they are obvious.

In traditionalist terms, a hostile attitude towards gays causes broken marriages and scandal.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

The sad reality is that humans aren't programmed to seek the truth; we are programmed to win. Even if that means sticking to an argument that is obviously wrong and defending it until you die.

Win? We're not even programmed that far. More or less, we're blindly equipped with crude implements that are good enough to help most of us not die or pass on our genes in a savanna.

Untrained, we're very vulnerable to logical fallacies. Trained, we're slightly less vulnerable.

That too, but our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph (even if we are wrong). It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning.

No, it isn't.

One of our evolutionary compulsions... oh I see what you did there

anyway, we're getting off topic so I guess I should post about the original issue. The argument is so stupid; I have no idea what this tosser is ranting about...