Are there arguments against Gay Marriage which don't use religion?

I have not see any good non religious arguments against gay marriage. Marriage has not been the same throughout the ages. Polygamy has been around for ages and monogamy has only been widespread for about a 1000 years. Marriage should be a right for all and not be limited to a few. Could someone give me a good reason that same sex marriage is wrong?

What do you mean by secular?
By secular, do you mean “observable in nature by a sane person?”

If you refine your terms you can prolly get some good answers.

Also, this horse has been ridden to China and back at least three times, so you could prolly search CAF and find a plethora of good material.

Alrighty, I’ll do that too. When I say secular, I mean a non religious argument. Using natural law is aye ok in my book.

So do you want to know why same sex marriage is not the same in nature and benefits to humanity as “regular” marriage, or why gay marriage should not be allowed civilly? (you know it’s already allowed civilly of course…)

Both is fine. I’m interested in the latter though.

If you are on a religious website why are you asking a question which does not allow for religion?

Here is my argument, a man and a woman can produce a child. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot produce a child. So nature intends for man and woman to be together. Now since you want to take God out of the picture, then why even have marriage at all? Just leave it at people being together, why the need for the ritual and ceremony?

Other than that I have no argument, I honestly don’t concern myself with what people outside of the Church do, and I’m in no position to judge anyone anyway.

Just my thoughts…

This is just what you’re looking for:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/sola-scriptura-and-the-gay-marriage-debate-how-protestant-theory-concedes-too-much/

The short answer is that for the Reasonable person and Catholic, the term “marriage” has a fixed definition. For everyone else, the term “marriage” doesn’t actually mean anything (not kidding). For example, for everyone else, the term “marriage” means “an arbitrary union of two people,” which isn’t a definition at all because anything done arbitrarily doesn’t have a purpose or fixed concept behind it. For Catholics, we simply look at the natural world and see what marriage is: a union of a man and woman for the purpose of providing a stable environment to conceive and raise children within. That definition/concept is not arbitrary; it’s fixed, and it’s coherent.

The gay marriage debate is nonsense precisely because gay marriage is saying “we want the right to have an ARBITRARY union”. That’s stupid. Why would anyone want the right to engage in something without any actual significance? Any two or more people can love each other and want to spend their life with the other. Friends and communities do that all the time. There doesn’t need to be a “right” or ceremony.

This ties into the meaning of “sex” as well. For Catholics, we look to science and say sex is an act of procreation in fundamental purpose. For everyone else, they say sex means ANYTHING at all that gives pleasure. That’s ridiculous. They say rubbing something or plugging any random hole is sex, but that’s arbitrary and stupid. The moment you force them to sit and make a CONCRETE definition is when they completely collapse like a house of cards because they cannot make any one, coherent definition that wont at the same time completely refute their own stance. I confronted one guy on this issue and he totally saw my point and as a result he openly admitted that poking someone in the eye with your finger is a form of sex if that causes someone to experience pleasure. Not kidding. :eek:

Men and women produce children, which is another way to say the following:

Without the union of a man and woman, human beings do not exist. So the sexuality of men and women are “ordered to” a good thing. That good thing is human beings existing.

For children to flourish, the mother and father should nurture them in a family.
Objection 1) Not all parents are good parents.
Objection 2) People other than parents can raise children well.

Both are true.
But, as an institution, the marriage of a man and woman is uniquely ordered to the existence and flourishing or human beings.

So, that is not an argument against gay marriage per se, it is an argument for marriage of a man and woman, and why that marriage should be recognized as unique, and supported by society.
It is an argument against equating the two unions and trying to make them the same under policies and other types of support and recognition.
The current effort at recognizing gay marriage tends to equate the two in an unrealistic way.

Si. Argument from design and purpose. The anatomy of the male reproductive organ serves a primary purpose which should only be expressed in the most stable of settings, marriage. Sure, marriage is more than that, but that is one of the fundamental basis of marriage.

So much arguing from ‘some’ gay Christians that same-sex feelings being natural shows God is okay with it. Therefore He made them that way. But then they forget that God also made it so that they don’t have kids and wouldn’t that show God does not approve of same-sex behavior or marriage?

A secular argument against gay marriage is that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman in Western civilization.

There are probably more people on this site that share the same view. And some of them have already thought about secular answers. Though I think more answers would be provided in the Philosophy sub forum.

The Natural function of sex. We all we born from mothers and fathers. We are not entitled to rewrite the human nature.

The Wihterspoon Insitute has really great arguments on their website. Also, Catholic Answers has an article called “How to Make the Case for Marriage” by using non-religious language.

🖒

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Only and man and a woman together can naturally produce children.

But…God also made many heterosexual unions unable to have children. Therefore, should they not have married? Most think not.

But…the Catholic church and others have not always thought or found that tradition is best.
For example, in the Church it used to be tradition that priests married and then the church changed that. It used to be tradition that mass was in Latin, but the church changed that.
It used to be law as per the Old Testament that a rapist had to marry his victim. After much thought and time, we have changed that.

Therefore…just because something is tradition, doesn’t mean it is best.

As per “Natural Law”… the dictionary definition includes:

An observable law relating to natural phenomena.

Natural phenomena shows that in humans and animals, it is observable that some are naturally attracted–emotionally, physically, mentally–to the same gender.

So Natural Law could be an argument *for *same-sex marriage.

.

the whole point of marriage was for the betterment of children. Children being the natural by-product of male/female sex. Polygamy has been around but only on a very small scale and usually supported only by those with enough to provide for excessively large families. So although it is variation on marriage it still required the union of a male and female.

which brings us back to the idea that marriage is all about kids. The only reason the state is involved is to protect the rights of children. Their right to the biological parents, their right to both a mother and a father according to nature.

with gay marriage it doesn’t fall under any of these conditions. It is a naturally sterile union. It also discriminates against other naturally sterile unions. Why can two unrelated women receive marriage benefits but two sisters can not? Both are women, both love each other and live together. What does a close blood tie have to do with two sisters being denied marital perks?

I have an elderly mother who lives with me. Why can we get married so I can claim her as a dependent and put her on my health insurance.?

to the state, marriage was never about love but about sex and the natural by-product of sex which is kids.

You mean besides the fact that men and women are different, that their union is biologically different than any homosexual union, and that as such homosexual marriage is an ontological impossibility in the same way that a triangle with four sides is an impossibility?

Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman. In polygamy, the wives are married to the husband, not to each other.

No one has a right to be married. But people with homosexual attractions are, and always have been, as free to marry as anyone else; the problem is that they don’t want to be in a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Marriage by definition is a relationship between people of opposing sexes.

The sun rises in the east, sets in the west. It provides warmth and light.
Except for…
when it’s night,
and winter.

So, because the sun is not always producing light and warmth for our us, by your rationale, we should also call the moon, “sun” . We should deceive as to the objective nature of the moon and sun then.
Right?
:shrug:
Objection 1): welll, the sun is still producing light, we just can’t see it.
Answer: yes, the sun has a nature, a form, and a purpose, whether it is producing the results it is ordered to at any given time or not.
The way the sun is, is not determined by results. It simply is that way, by nature.
.
.
.
.
.

:hmmm:

But…the Catholic church and others have not always thought or found that tradition is best.
For example, in the Church it used to be tradition that priests married and then the church changed that. It used to be tradition that mass was in Latin, but the church changed that.
It used to be law as per the Old Testament that a rapist had to marry his victim. After much thought and time, we have changed that.

Therefore…just because something is tradition, doesn’t mean it is best.

As per “Natural Law”… the dictionary definition includes:

An observable law relating to natural phenomena.

Natural phenomena shows that in humans and animals, it is observable that some are naturally attracted–emotionally, physically, mentally–to the same gender.

So Natural Law could be an argument *for *same-sex marriage.

Word games.
Homosexual behavior is observable in nature. That proves that…
guess what…
homosexual behavior is observable in nature.

Ok :shrug:

Now what?

Surely you’re not trying to claim that because homosexual behavior is observable, it is the same thing as what has always been considered “marriage”?

You are playing word games, not making a rational point.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.