http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

We were talking in my student atheist group last week about gay marriage, and I brought up the point about religion’s connection. I asked the group if anyone had ever heard a secular reason to ban gay marriage ( my hypothesis being that all restriction of gay rights stems from the hate provided by scripture). I was looking for a "reason" that had no roots whatsoever in religion.

Some people came up with socioeconomic reasons (they didn’t agree with them, just provided the perspective), citing that a number of public figures have said gays would be taking advantage of the government by reaping the finacial benefits of marriage that are provided for couples who can have kids. (The answer to this involves a heterosexual couple that is sterile, but I wasn’t trying to argue against it, I just wanted to hear the secular reason)

Anyone else heard a good reason gays can’t get togethor that doesnt violate the seperation of church and state?

Even that wasn’t a real secular reason. That was only a secular justification dreamed up by religious people to try and come up with a secular justification since they know that we cant base laws on the Bible.

I wish I knew how to contact Elton John to give support for his speaking out against religion.

[quote author=“rationalrevolution”]Even that wasn’t a real secular reason. That was only a secular justification dreamed up by religious people to try and come up with a secular justification since they know that we cant base laws on the Bible.

I wish I knew how to contact Elton John to give support for his speaking out against religion.

I’m not sure what you mean…what was religious about the economic impact (although misguided) of gays marrying?

Re: Go Elton John!

[quote author=“Jaik”]http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

Yes, I saw this, Jaik. Thanks for pointing it out, I was thinking of posting the same. Good for him at least to get the subject out in the air a bit more. I wonder if he is in contact with Dawkins at all ...

:wink:

[quote author=“Jaik”]Some people came up with socioeconomic reasons (they didn’t agree with them, just provided the perspective), citing that a number of public figures have said gays would be taking advantage of the government by reaping the finacial benefits of marriage that are provided for couples who can have kids. (The answer to this involves a heterosexual couple that is sterile, but I wasn’t trying to argue against it, I just wanted to hear the secular reason)

I know you don’t agree with this supposed argument, but anyway you don’t need to resort to infertile couples in order to make it. Many married couples decide not to have children for other reasons: philosophical, economic, whatever. But they are allowed to remain married.

So, are they going to tell couples that decide not to have kids that they can’t be married either?

And even then the argument wouldn’t work, since gay couples can have children. Lesbians and gay men sometimes find willing partners for in vitro fertilization. And of course they can (or should be allowed to) adopt.

So none of these supposedly secular arguments against gay marriage works.

Re: Go Elton John!

[quote author=“dougsmith”][quote author=“Jaik”]http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

Yes, I saw this, Jaik. Thanks for pointing it out, I was thinking of posting the same. Good for him at least to get the subject out in the air a bit more. I wonder if he is in contact with Dawkins at all ...

:wink:

[quote author=“Jaik”]Some people came up with socioeconomic reasons (they didn’t agree with them, just provided the perspective), citing that a number of public figures have said gays would be taking advantage of the government by reaping the finacial benefits of marriage that are provided for couples who can have kids. (The answer to this involves a heterosexual couple that is sterile, but I wasn’t trying to argue against it, I just wanted to hear the secular reason)

I know you don’t agree with this supposed argument, but anyway you don’t need to resort to infertile couples in order to make it. Many married couples decide not to have children for other reasons: philosophical, economic, whatever. But they are allowed to remain married.

So, are they going to tell couples that decide not to have kids that they can’t be married either?

And even then the argument wouldn’t work, since gay couples can have children. Lesbians and gay men sometimes find willing partners for in vitro fertilization. And of course they can (or should be allowed to) adopt.

So none of these supposedly secular arguments against gay marriage works.

I think you guys are missing my point. First off, I share your views on the subject Doug. I was saying that couples who are married but without kids are simply one answer (among many) to the fact that married couples dont need kids to be justified.

My point is, the economic reasoning has nothing to do with religion. It may have been created by people who have religious reasons for wanting to limit gay freedom, but the actual reasoning is seperate from religion.

[quote author=“Jaik”][quote author=“rationalrevolution”]Even that wasn’t a real secular reason. That was only a secular justification dreamed up by religious people to try and come up with a secular justification since they know that we cant base laws on the Bible.

I wish I knew how to contact Elton John to give support for his speaking out against religion.

I’m not sure what you mean…what was religious about the economic impact (although misguided) of gays marrying?

I’m saying that this is an argument developed by religious people in order to try and make a case that can hold up in a court of law, etc.

This is just like Intelligent Design type stuff, its just religious people trying to make stuff up that doesn’t rely on the Bible, yet their real motivation is to uphold the views of the Bible.

In other words, this argument itself would never have been presented if not for the underlying religious sentiment.

Re: Go Elton John!

[quote author=“Jaik”]I think you guys are missing my point. First off, I share your views on the subject Doug. I was saying that couples who are married but without kids are simply one answer (among many) to the fact that married couples dont need kids to be justified.

My point is, the economic reasoning has nothing to do with religion. It may have been created by people who have religious reasons for wanting to limit gay freedom, but the actual reasoning is seperate from religion.

Hi Jaik, I know you share my point of view ... that’s why I started by saying that I knew you didn’t agree with their argument.

Strictly speaking you are quite right: one could potentially come up with some sort of jerrymandered economic criterion to exclude gays, although using kids won’t do it. And whatever it was would be essentially bigotry dressed up in a nice costume.

I also do agree with rationalrevolution that in fact these sorts of arguments are window-dressing for the deeper, bigoted religious beliefs, stemming from blinkered reliance on the Bible.