Wednesday, April 15, 2009

"The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage"

"Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation."

–– Adam Kolasinski

10 comments:

UnBeguiled said...

So only fertile couple should be allowed to marry?

The Cogitator said...

Ask Mr. Kolasinski about that. My case against "gay marriage" is not secular, but religious. I posted the quotation from Kolasinski merely to show that the chestnut about restrictions on gay marriage being the new (racial) apartheid is bad even on secular terms.

I surmise that Kolasinski would say infertile couples have an edge, in secular-social terms, on gay couples since, first, heterosexual infertility is theoretically curable (in time), and therefore a good investment for society to overcome in reporductive terms, and, second, the benefits of mother-father upbringing for children still merit infertile marriages that adopt. I would not be surprised, moreover, if he did endorse the idea that a couple seeking marriage despite a KNOWN inability to produce children and/or an EXPLICIT refusal to adopt children, should be denied the social-fiscal benefits of marriage.

Cheers,

UnBeguiled said...

My case against "gay marriage" is not secular, but religious.You are certainly permitted to object to same sex marriage for whatever reason you wish. But our government, for now, is secular.

I think you might get into constitutional problems if you attempted to outlaw same sex marriage because the religious writings of your particular sect say it's wrong.

-----------------

the benefits of mother-father upbringing for childrenWhat benefits? Empirical data say otherwise.

The Cogitator said...

unBe:


Kolasinski directly addresses the empirically studied aspects of dual-parent upbringing. Chalk up another point for your sloppy, dismissive attitude towards reading what I actually write/cite.

The Cogitator said...

Moreover, the issue is not whether anti-homosexual claims have a religious or a "non-religious" basis (whatever that might mean exactly), but whether those claims are true and good. All the better, I say for those claims to find a hearing without "relying on" religion; then at least evangelical atheists like yourself won't have yet another reason to whine about "fundies" ramming conservative legislation through the courts by brute, irrational lobbying force alone. If ever there was a legislative "ram job" it was Roe v. Wade.

UnBeguiled said...

I read it. There is no data presented. He waves his hand at a 10 year old book about fatherhood. Then he gives us this gem:

"However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause."

Like the common wisdom that the sun goes around the Earth? Or the common wisdom that blacks are stupid? Or the common wisdom that women are incapable leaders?

The Cogitator said...

Fine. You can have your little prophecy. It's still a muddle headed argument. And gay marriage is the end of productive society. Taht's my prophecy, I guess, with Stanley Kurtz and northern Europe as my divining bones.

The Cogitator said...

I have to wonder why gay couples invariably diametrize into a dyke/fairy polarity. Why is there always a bull/twink polarity in gay couples? What are they getting at, I wonder?

Send me whatever book you like, I really will read it. I value the insights.

Cheers,

The Cogitator said...

Hey unBe, I wanna ask you, as my resident (no pun intended) atheist, i you deny the causal efficacy of "the mental", what do memes mean for you?

I do think if we could share beer (or eight) over these topics, we'd do that much better. Come visit Taiwan.

Cheers,

UnBeguiled said...

I don't deny causal efficacy of mental phenomenon. I'm not an epiphenomenalist.

I am skeptical as to whether memetics has any explanatory power. I certainly don't think religions can be fully explained as mere memes.

I will share two anecdotes.

The gallbladder and pancreas both drain into the gut via a short common duct that is regulated by a muscle called the sphincter of Oddi. Various disease states can result in impaired drainage of these organs and subsequent pain.

Many years ago the meme began that morphine caused the sphincter to spasm and thus could exacerbate the pain. Demerol supposedly caused less spasm and thus was the preferred analgesic.

Demerol otherwise sucks because of various side effects whereas morphine is clean and safe. The meme is just plain false. Nevertheless, it led to the widespread use of a bad drug over a good one for about fifty years. The meme was just something everyone "knew" was true.

I have been having some work done on my home. I love watching the carpenters because of the little "tricks of the trade" they use. For example, they may need to fasten a board in a certain place but not have anything to nail it to. So they will install a "nailer" board in hidden location. These trade tricks I'm sure are rarely written down but are passed down.

So, bits of information are passed from mind to mind. Some useful, some harmful.