Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[Catholic_Lady]

My husband left for a trip and I'm bored. Meaning It's one of those evenings where I look for any excuse to post lol. 

I was browsing my facebook news feed today and came across this article called The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, posted by an acquaintance on my friend's list. I thought it was very out of character and was curious to hear you guys' opinions/comments/counter arguments on the points being made. Fire away!! 
  

I am an atheist, and have no religious reasons for denying gays the right to be married; but, I have very secular reasons. 

1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children. 

2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too. 

3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems. 

4. Gays are not the proper role models to raise children. Children need a real female mom and a real male dad, one of each. All recent studies prove that children are best raised by a man and a woman. New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter. 

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment.

As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. 

Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. 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.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there...024CEDB973

[abaris]

Why does that surprise you?

Bigots can be found everywhere. Don't make the mistake so many make - that atheists follow some kind of dogma. I always give the example of Ayn Rand. She was an atheist, but in my book, a despicable hag. I wouldn't have pissed on her if she was on fire.

Atheism, as we repeatedly say, is just the absence of belief in any deity. Otherwise we can be anything and everything. Atheism doesn't define me. Outside of this forum I don't spend a single second thinking about it.

[Mr.wizard]

None of those are reasons to not allow gays to marry, none of them have anything to do with marriage. Even if you deny gays the right to marry they will still be gay. Also Marriage is legal contract between 2 consenting adults, love is not a requirement for marriage, the reason polygamous marriage are not legal has to do with child custody, divorce and division of assets.

[Divinity]

1. BULLSHIT. Who gives a fuck what the primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is? Humanity has evolved beyond the need to propagate the species.


2. That's because people had to hide they were gay for so many years. If the goal is to stop the spread of STD's then the answer is to accept homosexuality rather than condemn it.

3. Gee, could that have something to do with how the fuck they're treated?


4. Bullshit. I raised six kids, and they turned out perfectly fine. In fact children with single mothers tend to do a good job. The real differences come from poverty. So yeah, bullshit.

No, until recently the primary purpose of marriage wasn't procreation. That's a stupid fucking thing to say for anyone. People got married because of land rights. It was more of a fucking business transaction than one that led to people having kids.

Another bullshit statement that "married persons care more about themselves, it's disastrous'. That's suggesting that women should stay with abusers, which is a pretty religious way of looking at things, and makes me think that this guy isn't really all that secular.

Another bullshit statement. Gay couples don't just get married to fuck. They get married so they can have rights bestowed upon them. You know, being able to visit a sick loved on in the hospital? Yeah. That kind of thing. Saying that gay love is just about sexual love is fucking bullshit, and the fucking moron that came up with it is a brainless neanderthal.

And then more bullshit about polygamy. It's barely different from the average theist argument against gay marriage bullshit, only with less "But Pedophilia!"

[thehedglin]

"1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children. "

This is a bad argument, it has little to nothing to do with the legal institution of marriage, and could be used in a variety of different ways to justify all kinds of stupid things. You could even use it to justify rape, denial of marriage to sterile or older people, we can safely consign this one to the garbage bin.

"2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too."

So what? What does that have to do with marriage, are you going to deny straight people with STDs the right to marry? If not, this is just another double standard that doesn't hold any water.

"3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems."

Take the answer to #2, replace STDs with drug addictions, and you have the answer.

"4. Gays are not the proper role models to raise children."

...


Do you know how gay sex works?...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children.

Which has nothing to do with marriage.

2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too.

Which has nothing to do with marriage.

3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems.

Simply not true.

4. Gays are not the proper role models to raise children. Children need a real female mom and a real male dad, one of each. All recent studies prove that children are best raised by a man and a woman. New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter.

Simply not true.  Biased studies don't qualify as evidence.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment.

Conservative bullshit.  Unproved and unprovable.

As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

Since the overwhelming majority of marriages are currently heterosexual ones, this hardly seems to be an issue with gay marriage.

Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.

So this dimwit would deny the right of widowed people to raise their own children, and would prohibit marriage between people past childbearing age.  My wife and I once attending the wedding of two people unlikely to ever have children.  He was 81 and she was 77.

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

The state has no business denying either of these unions under the aegis of marriage.

Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. 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.



So what?  If six people of various genders want to marry, who's business is it but their own?  Someone might want to tell this feep that marriage between one man and one woman has NEVER been a universal during the history of our species.

I suppose that it just goes to show that atheists can be as bigoted and fearful as anyone else.

Don't like gay marriage? Fine - don't marriage a gay person.

Boru

[Esquilax]

I'll be brief.

  

1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children. 

Is/Ought fallacy.

2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too. 

And one hundred percent of car accidents involve a driver. Therefore, drivers should not be allowed to drive cars.

... Not that I buy the baseless assertion to begin with, but hey.

3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems. 

Don't mistake correlation for causation, though of course what I said for the point above also applies here in full.

4. Gays are not the proper role models to raise children. Children need a real female mom and a real male dad, one of each. All recent studies prove that children are best raised by a man and a woman. New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter. 

"Therefore, I am announcing my campaign against single parents and widowers, as well as my new bill to petition congress to require that all married couples everywhere have children immediately!"

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment.

Appeal to tradition fallacy, yawn.

As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. 

Wake me when all marriages have children. Until then, the guy is talking about parents, not marriages. "Married couples," is a subset of "parents," not the other way around: you can't address all parents by targeting your argument to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.

So people do things that this author doesn't approve of, and therefore gay people should be made to suffer so that his opinions become more strongly enforced at a societal level. How breathtakingly selfish.

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

Why indeed? Notably, the author never provides a reason why, aside from an unstated premise that he personally finds it icky, as though his personal opinions are binding to everyone else.

In fact, I tend to think that's the takeaway to this whole thing: this person has a personal opinion that gay sex is icky- and it's gay sex specifically, since he himself brought up sex as the new purpose of marriage, rather than... say, straight up love- and so he's desperately scrabbling for reasons to oppose it because he knows, deep down, that nobody gives a crap about his opinions at a judicial level. As with every argument people try to make by coming to a baseless conclusion first and then going from there, every single point is fallacious at some level.

[Divinity]

The thing that's the most fucking bullshit about that argument is that it assumes gay love is only sexual love. That is the biggest bullshit that the asshole spews. Gay Love is the same love as any other love. Anyone who thinks otherwise can go fuck themselves.

[Spooky]

I can only echo what others have already said. A lot of what this person states is factually inaccurate.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

As abaris said, just because one is an atheist doesn't mean one can't also be a homophobic bigot.

You can be an atheist and a neo-nazi if you want, or an atheist and a progressive secularist. It's nothing more than a lack of belief as a minimum.

All one need do is look around this forum to see how much atheists disagree on a whole myriad of topics. Need I mention gun threads? Shit, I just did