A secular case against SSM

[_wenglund]

I contend that discussions on SSM tend to approach the issue upside-down (the onus is errantly put on those wishing to preserve traditional marriage rather than on those who are requesting the change, and the question possed tends to be "why not SSM?" rather than as it should be "why SSM?") and such discussions tend to devolve into appeals to emotion and name-calling rather than resorting to carefully reasoned arguments that seek everyone's best interest.

It is my intent here to turn the discussion of this issue rightside-up and to consider the matter rationally. With that in mind, and since we are talking about laws and rights governing marriage, there is a series of points that I believe may prove useful to reasonably consider in logical sequence.

The rationale in doing so is, for nearly a quarter century now, gay advocates have been asking governments around the world to conduct a radical social experiment on the foundational institution of society. Instead of mindlessly acquessing (as has happened in a few nations and states), it makes sense for concerned citizens to carefully consider whether such a move makes sense and has a good chance of acting to improve the human condition and progess mankind, on behalf of our children in particular..

1. What reasons did governments have to regulate and sanction (i.e. extend the legal right of marriage to) opposite-sex marriages to begin with?

2. Do these same reasons apply to SSM?

3. What has been the track-record of legalized SSM thus far?

4. With the answers to the above questions in mind, does it make sense to legalize SSM?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_JohnStuartMill]

lol

[_EAllusion]

Rights and privileges should be equally distributed among the people unless their is a valid reason to discriminate between groups. Whenever the government discriminates, the onus is on it to have a valid reason for doing so. That's not to say it can't have a reason, but it must have one. Whether or not that discrimination is the status quo does not affect this. There always needs to be a justified basis for the government to continue to discriminate. That's why it seems natural to demand a good reason for the government to discriminate in the case of marriage. One answer SSM opponents give is that it will endanger society in some way if gays had the right to marry. Okay, if that is the argument, then it can be addressed. But the direction of the onus is clear there.

But EA! Everyone already has equal rights. They have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Heh.

[_wenglund]

Rights and privileges should be equally distributed among the people unless their is a valid reason to discriminate between groups.

Let's test this presumption by having you answer the first question I asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

Did they force you to stop posting about same sex marriage on MAD? I'm just curious, because I remember seeing a thread about banning the topic, and then you showed up back here.

Why are you so obsessed with it?

[_EAllusion]

Rights and privileges should be equally distributed among the people unless their is a valid reason to discriminate between groups.

Let's test this presumption by having you answer the first question I asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't respect you enough to submit myself to your Socratic games you are known for. That said, governmental regulation of marriage arose organically and independently in different cultures generally, though not exclusively, as a means of forming, controlling, and resolving disputes over property distribution between families.

That's the wrong question to ask though, since we are really interested in why governments are just in involving itself in marriage the way it does now. It's origination only matters to the extent that it provides a moral basis for doing what it does now. So what we really need is the appropriate justification if any for the government sanctioning and regulating civil marriage. I know my answer to that. I know the answer you want to imply too. But instead of playing Socratic games, how about you just tell us and get on with your argument.

[_Gadianton]

Wade,

What if a critic started a thread called, A scientific case against the Book of Mormon. And then in the thread, asked questions like:

"List all the reasons scientists have for believing the Mayan civilization existed."

"Do these same reasons apply to the people wrote about in the Book of Mormon?"

Would you think that you were being set up, that the point of the thread in advance would be to reject the Book of Mormon no matter what answers were given?

[_JohnStuartMill]

lol

[_wenglund]

It's origination only matters to the extent that it provides a moral basis for doing what it does now.

Wrong. It also matters in determining the nature of the right (negative or positive, permission or entitlement, universal or limited, absolute or conditional), as well as from whence the right is derived (naturally or legally), and the rational basis for the "right".

But, I don't respect your uninformed opinion enough to care whether you wish to engage in this reasoned discussion or not, or if you simply dismiss it as a game. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to actually think intellegently through the issue. You certainly won't be the first here to close their mind and conveniently evade engaging in a rational manner..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Signed,

Wade Englund, Ph.D.
Professor of Moral Philosophy, Stanford University