It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
This is a well-written article done by an MIT student which is about 8 years old. There are no religious references - a pure secular argument. It's been recently spreading through Facebook and the article is here if you'd like to read it on the site. Here's all the article if your too lazy to go to the site:



tech.mit.edu...
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

ADAM KOLASINSKI
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.


edit on 12-5-2012 by Reprobation because: (no reason given)


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Sat May 12 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote of ENTIRE article




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Reprobation
 


He continues and ends it:



But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
A buddy had this on his FB page today.

Made me laugh.


On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following
response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia



So....yeah....best answer yet.

Cuhail



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
SnF.

I like the article. Religion is not the only reason people disagree with gay marriage.
I really want to see the opinions of the gay members on the article.

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
People are still against equality when it deals with two consenting adults, sad and primitive.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
1. Being raised by two loving parents is surely better than being tossed around in the foster system or in an orphanage, so I would have to disagree with his assertion that adoption is a non-issue.

2. There are advantages to letting these people get married. If a lesbian is artificially inseminated, having her legally joined to her partner keeps her from being able to take advantage of the social safety nets. It allows people who might not otherwise have insurance to get insurance. It saves having to find a "next of kin" in the case of death or incapacitation, and this can be a big issue since so many gay people are estranged from their families.

3. Most importantly: This is a civil rights issue, so no burden of proof exists. The laws of the nation forbid gender discrimination, and restricting marriage to male and female blatantly does this.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
The politicians need to address this:


The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


Defense of Marriage Act



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 







Excellent.... that right there highlights the hypocrisy of religion and religious "rules" and how religious zealots pick and choose which bits to ignore and which to enforce.




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
What about how marriage affects your insurance rates? If your married you can get lower rates on your car insurance, I'm guessing it is because they consider you more reliable because you can maintain a marriage. I believe that if straight couples can get this benefit, then so should homosexuals.

I would agree that if marriage was an entirely religious institution then homosexuals should not be allowed to marry under whatever religions supposedly forbid it. However, marriage is also a legal institution so all couples should have the right to it.

This argument alone should either be the grounds to legalize gay marriage, or get rid of marriage as a legal institution.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
The politicians need to address this:


The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


Defense of Marriage Act



So its "unconstitutional". When the constitution was formed it would not have been allowed for blacks to legally be considered a whole person. So using the constitution as your only line of defense is not really convincing.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The student is very programmed and does not understand what "State" is, and what "Constitution" is, nor history itself. For marriage, obviously named many things throughout history but even done in the far past, all around the globe, for natives with history spanning a conservative 10 000 years, but in reality much much longer, even knew what wives, and family were.

Now, its really not up to "State" for that is the difference between being held hostage by an "illegal fascist government who dictates your living conditons and yes it is higly illegal, highly defined as "harm", slavery is "harm" under common laws, which are the only real laws, corporate laws are TREASON, because they're also slavery and HARM.

"State" is your direct employee, and your servant. The Constitution is not your rights. It takes away from your infinite inalienable rights, and tries to put restrictions on some of them.

It does not give you them. This is what is misunderstood by this "student", what State is, and what our rights are. And the US is not defined as a fascist system (on paper).



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The difference between free countries and illegal fascists ones, is we are not here to serve the "State", its there to serve us.

Nor can people take away the infinite rights of minorities.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Reprobation
 


Someone is not looking at the whole picture.


The argument is basically that gay people cannot have children so shouldn't be permitted to marry.

1. But gay people CAN have children. A lesbian couple friend of ours has a beautiful child. (He's in his 20s now.) MANY gay people have kids and families - naturally. Those kids go on to become productive members of society.

2. Gay people also adopt. And they tend to adopt across races, older kids and kids with special needs... Kids that the heterosexual couples don't want, as a rule.



An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.


They are taking kids OUT of the "system" and putting them in loving families and taking financial care of them - so the state doesn't have to.
That saves the state money.

3. Old people can't have kids. If gay people can't get married because they "can't" reproduce, then let's have another litmus test, why don't we? No one over 50 can marry. They can't have kids, so what's the purpose?

4, Gay weddings. Need I say more about contributing to the economy? When the average wedding costs $25K, imagine the cost of a gay wedding.


5. And finally -

Saving Money is not a reason to deny someone their civil liberties.



In fact, it's a more lame rationale that the religious use.

Source 1
Source 2
.
edit on 5/12/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Originally posted by xuenchen
The politicians need to address this:


The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


Defense of Marriage Act



So its "unconstitutional". When the constitution was formed it would not have been allowed for blacks to legally be considered a whole person. So using the constitution as your only line of defense is not really convincing.


Actually, I wasn't "defending" or 'condoning" anything.

What led to that conclusion ?


The quote says Obama has "determined" sec. 3 to be unconstitutional along with some low courts and those cases are on appeal.

Congress needs to either repeal the act, or change it.

"Legally", it is not unconstitutional yet.

I wonder why this has not reached the Supreme Court by now ?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This is still a vote for discrimination. I see no real difference between the secular case and the religious case, it's all the same to me.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Great article.
Counter responses are the same old rant about equality.
Wtf !! you know what , both relationships aren't equal.
It's like a less bright child demanding the same recognition as a brighter one in the name of equality...
The more you distance the procreation part of marriage from it, greater will be the damage to your society.
It doesn't need Einstein's brain to prove that a child needs the company of both the sources of his existence.....



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I've come to the realization that gay marriage is an inevitability but there is a point most people are seeming to forget.... No matter what happens it is always going to be "Gay Marriage" and not "Marriage" thus creating in itself a whole new definition for the institution, so the equality you're looking for doesn't exist. So it'll be equal but no so equal at the same time..




top topics



 
8

log in

join