The Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage

So I think it's possible that assumptions have been made in the debate on gay marriage. The big one is that the religious right are the only ones making arguments against gay marriage.

Although I still believe that without religious beliefs about homosexuality, the fight would probably be over a long time ago, I can only say that's a belief and not fact.

Some etiquette I'd like to see observe here: Please refrain from assuming that the article I'm about to post here has any religious affiliation without any proof.

Since the thread I started titled "Should Government Even Be Involved in Gay Marriage" turned to this discussion, I thought I'd research more before forming quick opinions.

My opinion on gay marriage still stands (it should be legal). The following article offers a strictly nonBiblical reason for not allowing gay marriage. Read and discuss. I'll offer my opinions on why I still disagree (the original link can be reached by clicking the article title):

 

This is the same BS dixon spews over and over. We've already answered all the questions. Why bring it up again?

 

Your argument boils down to this claim:

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.

"However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development."

What are the percentage of single mothers who is divorced from their husbands? Do you consider them inferior parents? Should children of single parents be taken from their parent to be given to a couple with both a husband and wife?



Lets go issue by issue:

Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

What restrictions? I am not aware of a single law which forbids infertile couples from marrying.

Meanwhile- homosexual couples do have children- as Justice Kennedy pointed there are about 30,000 children of homosexual couples in California.

Meanwhile- the infertile wife, who never works a day in her life, can collect the social security of her husband. Why on earth should we discriminate between her- and the wife of a lesbian?

Not one of these arguments stands up upon examination- in every case there are exceptions already given for non-gay couples and parents.

Really the argument comes down to you saying " I don't think gay couples should get the same benefits as straight couples"- i.e. that gay couples should be discriminated against.


But your actual article shows that 'fecundity' is not a requirement of marriage.

 

This entire nonsense argument can be debunked with one question:

What is the state-interest in providing marriage benefits to non-fertile heterosexual couples?

 

The opening argument is erroneous, because lawmaking - no matter what the subject - always involves the very basic civil rights of due process and equal protection of the laws.

The idea that the regulation of marriage justifies the regulation of marriage, including any specific regulation thereof, is a case of circular reasoning.

Actually, that's precisely the claim, as he's stating that as a matter of law they are equivalent in the validity of their disqualification from participation.

People in same-sex marriages pay taxes, insurance premiums, etc. etc. etc. It's basically an argument that same-sex couples are a drain on society and its resources, willfully ignoring their contributions.

And no, states do not restrict from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. Funny that he then goes on to give us a list of the exceptions to that.

There is no need for fertility tests or mind reading. We could have a law that says people must avow their intent to produce children, and one that ends the legal benefits of the marriage when they fail to fulfill that vow in a known time frame. We can put an age limit on marriage. We can withdraw the legal benefits of marriage when a couple's last child reaches adulthood. And we can build into the law qualifications for reinstatement when a previously disqualified couple actually produces a child. There is nothing whatsoever that says we can't exclude non-productive couples from marriage if the regulation of marriage justifies whatever regulation we decide upon, as argued earlier.

Not a bit of it. It's the burden of the government to show how the restrictions it places on our lives and our rights are justified, not the other way around.

Ridiculous, since gay men are just as capable of procreating as lesbians, even if they aren't the sex that carries a fetus and gives it birth.

Moreover, the law does not require a marriage to include a sexual relationship - that's up to the couple consenting to marry and the terms they agree to as a part of that marriage.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the children of same-sex couples are actually unable function in a society of two sexes, so the whole argument is a red herring.

Except that it doesn't - not in the least. Same-sex behavior may not be reproductive, but it's definitely not "preclusive", which means to make impossible. It doesn't make the persons who practice such behavior sterile. It doesn't preclude reproduction in the least. Same-sex couples use the same methods as straight couples unable to have children via conventional methods. Marriage simply is not about procreation, and most definitely not about the method of procreation.

Falsehood. I live in a state that actually precludes (used properly) that ability of same-sex couples to enter into agreements that attempt to duplicate the legal effects of marriage. These legal instruments can be easily challenged and defeated as a result.

And in case you missed it - gay people are a part of society and deserving of the full protection of the laws of the states they help finance through their tax dollars.

What a load! Not even worthy of address.

Knew we'd get there eventually. Always be sure to work in the "gays are a danger to society" angle.

Can't blame same-sex couples for something that heterosexuals already did a long time ago.

Fearmongering. It's no secret that people marry for love, and a number of other things, too. Love is not a requirement of marriage - but it certainly helps. Never liked this 'love' argument, as it attempts to play on people's emotions.

Basically, the withholding of marriage from same-sex couples is just an attempt to maintain the stigmatization of same-sex relationships. All the arguments made in favor of that denial are just window dressing.

 

Same argument over and over, the horse is long dead and smells rotten.

There is no way around the logical assertion of sterile couples, elderly couples, and those who don't want kids.

Not to mention the fact that homosexual couples can and do have children utilizing the same methods that heterosexuals do, I.E. invitrofertilization, surrogate mothers, and adoption as well.

There really isn't any new argument here, just the same tired one that's been killed a millions times before.

 

Working through the article in order;

Just because something is regulated doesn't mean it's not a civil right. Free speech and free movement are regulated too.

Marriage isn't just about children and these days a growing number of married couples never have children while a growing number of unmarried couples do. Anyone arguing against homosexual marriage on these grounds should be arguing for a whole load of other changes to maintain any kind of logical consistency.

Dismissing all other the various married couples who can't or choose not to have children doesn't make them go away. If exceptions can be made for some of these couples on the basis of practicality or low numbers, those exceptions could equally apply to homosexuals.

The arguments used in favour of marriage as a basis for bringing up children is that is fundamentally stable and reliable (I'm not entirely convinced but it is the position being presented here). This would extend beyond the existence of children. If marriage is such a strong stabilising force to support positive relationships, why wouldn't that apply to homosexual couples as well?

I actually think recognition of homosexual marriage will have a stabilising factor on homosexual relationships via that social acceptance. It must be much harder to maintain a relationship if you feel the need to hide it or you are treated with contempt because of it.

There is zero proof that children need a male and female parent. Loads of people have grown up without one or both for various reasons and many of those have gone on to excel in life.

The evidence of the benefits of having a male and a female parent are disputed at best. I think the factors that influence a child's development are so wide and varying as to make it impossible to attribute anything to such a simplistic factor. There are certainly plenty of cases where removing one or both parents is clearly best for the child while in the case of adoption, it would generally be beneficial for a child to move from disruptive foster care or state services in to a stable, loving home regardless of the number or gender of the people taking on that responsibility.

The assumption that "sexual love" is the sole basis of long term homosexual relationships (yet not for heterosexual ones) if both ridiculous and insulting.

The idea that permitting homosexual marriage automatically permits incestuous or multiple marriage is legally and logically flawed. Given the whole article in based on the fact that a positive argument must be made in favour of homosexual marriage, it's actually a contradictory and somewhat dishonest position.

 

I think this is very pertinent

It would be expensive to detect non-fertile heterosexual couples therefore it would not be in the State's best interest to expend the resources finding these candidates and then excluding them from marriage.

 

Basic fertility tests aren't all that expensive or difficult. It could even be the couple's own responsibility to provide documentation or make declarations of it as they do with a number of other things (age, nationality, marital status etc.). It's also easily apparent in cases where the woman is post menopausal. This was only dismissed in the article on the basis of low numbers yet it's likely the numbers of gay marriage will be relatively low too.

Obviously administrations don't to this, in part because it would probably be illegal, in part because it would be unpopular but mainly because they know marriage isn't just about procreation.

 

It's not pertinent at all. Same sex couples have kids.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/26/same-sex-marriage-families/2461375/

No, it's not. Have the couple provide proof of fertility on their own dime. It doesn't have to cost the taxpayers a cent.

 

No it wouldn't. Women after menopause cannot procreate, and it is not expensive to find that out. In fact, after a certain age you could say with nearly absolute certainty a couple cannot procreate. And ages are already checked to ensure couples are not too young. At the very least you could deny marriage licenses to elderly women.

Your argument assumes the only infertile couples are those with some type of disorder. That assumption is false, as the vast majority of infertile couples are just old.

In addition, fertility tests are not expensive, and the state would not have to pay for them. So the point is moot from the get-go. But even if you point was true, say it were incredibly easy to detect non-fertile heterosexual couples--no cost at all. Would you then under such circumstances say such marriages should be banned?

 

I like to throw prisoners in there as well, as an easily identified population... who's constitutional right to marry is protected explicitly for reasons SCOTUS has enumerated independent of their ability (or lack there of) to reproduce.

 

Yep the gay debate is over a Distraction on the fringes of society ,to turn attention away from the GFC 2.0,that is developing .

The acceptance of Obama ect is to try and have at least a real social base .no matter how insignificant .

Despite the Extreme right-wing Character of the GBLTI ,Gay lesbian Radical liberation Movement . the only real harm they do is they think themselves something other then Homosexuals who have a Perfectly Natural sexual orientation.

Gay Marriage ,MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!

So YMCA the Village People and 80's retro politics.

What is Gay who gives a crap when the economy and society itself is being ripped apart by the Market economy called Capitalism!

Woopty Dooo you are Gay big deal.NEXT !

 

The whole "hey we need to focus on economy, instead of gay marriage" might sound like a noble sentiment.

The problem is that people who use that mantra, feel pretty strongly about gay marriage to still demand government keep it's hold on it.

If we really need concentrate on the economy and stop fighting over gay marriage, here's an idea STOP FIGHTING AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!!!! If it doesn't really matter, why fight it?

If the economy is more important, then let the gays have their marriage so this country can concentrate on bigger and better things.

Also with your seemingly apathetic view on gay rights, I wonder why you even bother commenting in the gay rights forum.

 

Whats wrong with "who gives a rats arse about "Gay anything" attitude" ,lets do the Math.

Gay is not the same as being Homosexual [which I see as a Normal healthy expression of human sexuality]

Gay is a Political Agenda ,based on a tiny, tiny minority of the Homosexual community. So if we accept that Homosexuality encompasses approx. 10% of the General population then we are talking about a tiny minority of a Minority .

So the blather and colourful marches and soul seeking ect ect so that Harry and Mike can get full Catholic nuptials,with all the trimmings .Well sorry as capitalism faces Depression and WW3.

Sorry if I seem a bit apathetic. have all the supporters of Gay Marriage ever considered that the whole thing is an attempt of the Gay Marriage Industry to make a quid.

And if achieved then full Equality is achieved?

Hello planet Earth to Gay activists [extremely Right-wing Middle class Radicals],Marriage is an outmoded mechanism that makes humans property ,as women are seen in Marriage as Inferior ,Domestic Violence ,marital Rape ,incest as well as the Emotional damage towards Women and Children is well documented .

The Social Institution responsible for these horrors ,um let me think which social Institution is central in the Oppression of Women Globally ?

UM ah Um that's a Hard One ?

Oh ,that's right MARRUIAGE is that Institution ,my guess from experience is that if having independent support and Means that overwhelmingly ,women would get away from marriage and the divorce rate would be up to 90%

And along comes our "gay activist " crew just as the very Institutions ,the Churches of collective God Nutters are crumbling ,Child Rape in the Catholic Church just as an example .

And throws them a Lifeline Can't get married proper if Catholic for example UNLESS MARRIED IN THE CHURCH!

And it goes on ,and on ,and on ,.

Now what we ask will be the NEW fight once or "Gay activists" achieve their goal ????

If I thought for one minute that these middle class Radicals a Tiny tiny minority of the Homosexual Community would then go away and be "happily married " and Then Face the 'Equality ' of the Divorce process.

Hey, I would be screaming the Right to Gay Marriage from the rafters .

But Unfortunately give a Right wing Middle class radical a inch they get louder and louder .

For if you are not informed the goal of the LG Rights movement is to set up their own Gay and Lesbian HOMELAND , their present demand is to establish this "Gay Homeland " by carving a County out of California thus.succeeding from the USA!

See the Lunatic perspective of this extreme right -wing POLITICAL formation defined as LG-------BTI.

For the record I am Pro Gay Marriage JUST TO SHUT THEM THE F UP.

And to disrupt the National Life of the USA as much as Possible as they demand that the Mormons and Catholics be FORCED to carry out marriage RITES !

Them Southern Baptists are all for it I hear!

Pentecostals will be most happy to oblige.

I can see it now Fred and John ,hand in Hand as the Federal Troops or National Guard occupy the Church and Surrounding area ,so true love can be celebrated .

My read of the USA ,is that Bullet proof vests will be essential for any of the soon to be betroved gay Couples .

Hey Maybe the Gay Marriage Thing is being promoted by the Bullet proof Vest Industry!?

I am anti-marriage as Humans are naturally Polygamous, and Love has never been dependent on a Piece of Paper from any Government!

For those Interested in "What is the Gay and Lesbian Agenda" hey go to source let them speak.

http://gayhomeland.org/gay-nationalism.html

Which County of California will be carved out of the Territory of the USA?

Gay anyone?

Now back to the Global Depression and threat of WW3,which effects ALL OF SOCIETY !

 

I don't want Gays to be comfortable being Gay because I'm not comfortable with them acting Gay in public. Gay day parades where they dress up in costume and do their sexual gyrations and (*)(*)(*)(*) should be outlawed. What is wrong with simply acting like a normal person and then living your life the way you see fit. Live it, don't flaunt it.

 

Hmmm whose problem is that exactly?

And if you object to elderly couples holding hands- should we outlaw that in public too?

Yeah- because 'Gay Pride Parades' are forced upon you in the pan handle how often? I have a suggestion- if you don't like the parade- don't go to it. I mean- if you don't like Chinese- don't come to the Chinese New Year Parade either.

Exactly- as long as we live our lives the way you dictate to everyone, you will be happy.

By the way- stay away from New Orleans during Mardi Gras...and from many parts of Florida during Spring Break.....you might be offended.

 

You know you don't actually have to attend those parades right? You are well witching your rights to stay home so you never have to see two guys holding hands in public. You are not within your rights to tell others what they can or can't do while in public however

 

Don't "normal" couples hold hands and kiss one in a while in public? Don't "normal" people ever dress up and "do their sexual gyrations" in public? Oh wait- they do, Mardi Gras and Spring Break:

 

So you admit Gays are abnormal.

 

He is admitting that 'Gays' are as abnormal as heterosexuals.

 

Nope. I'm saying we don't do anything in public you don't do. You do realize what putting words in quotes means, right?

 

The reason the OP is wrong is because there is no reason outside of religion that gays should not be allowed to marry.

 

It's against nature. You can't plug two male plugs together. That isn't how things work. You keep repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

No its not. There are plenty of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. The very fact that homosexuality exists in nature is proof that it is not against nature. Its just another one of nature's variations.

By the way, every male has an outlet in his rear end, so your plug analogy fails too.