secular argument against gay marriage

[dreamcatcher]

This is actually an old article so many of you may have already read it, but for those who didn't, it's an article on why gay marriage should be illegal without using religious justification. Just wondering, do you agree or disagree with this? (I'm sure most of us here would disagree with him!) How would you counter his argument? I can think of several reasons but I just wanna see what everyone else thinks.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech

"The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing."

[Ridiculous]

propagation of society is a compelling state interest

This seems to be the basis of the argument. However, it simply isn't true a lot of the time. Many, many countries are already struggling to support their current populations amply, with dwindling job markets and economies. Some countries (such as China) are actively decreasing their populations through one-child policies. Other countries are considering similar policies to remove population growth (e.g. Vietnam). Couples that don't reproduce are actively encouraged by these countries.

Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them.

Any heterosexual marriage where the woman is over 50 years old essentially makes them infertile (menopause) or atleast unviable for giving birth (due to the increased risk of serious disease in the child). I can be pretty certain that marriages where the female is over 50 years of age are far more common than gay marriages would be. To say that 'Oh, we can't be bothered to exclude older couples" BUT are willing to exclude homosexual couples is unfair. It's not like it is harder to screen for older couples than homosexuals, an excuse that was used for not barring other infertile couples.

Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. 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.

Bullshit. Not only is that "Life without Father" article cited not about homosexual relationships at all - rather about children that only have a female parental figure - there are many studies that show that having parents with a stable relationships, regardless of their sex, is the most important aspect for a child. Obviously allowing adoptive homosexual couples to get married would only encourage these stable relationships.


The rest of the article essentially boils down to "Marriage has always been about making babies, and I'm scared that it is moving away from that!" To keep something the same for an arbitrary reason (tradition) when this results in a group of people being unfairly discriminated against, ostracised and marginalised is pretty awful.

[Chouchou]

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

I'd say that gay couples raising children who otherwise would have languished, with uncertain futures, in the foster care system, is in the best interest of society. Instead of producing their own biological children, they can serve as parents or guardians of existing children and provide them safe, loving environments in which they can blossom into well-adjusted adults who are assets to society.

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. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. 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. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

"It takes a village to raise a child." I seriously doubt that many gay couples are the only adults involved in their children's lives; no doubt many friends, family, and members of the community are involved in the care and nurturing of the children of gay (and straight) couples to varying degrees. The parents don't parent alone.

[dreamcatcher]

I completely agree with both you. I just thought it was interesting that for a change someone decided not to use religion as an excuse for being against gay marriage. My biggest problem is with him saying that marriage is necessary because it leads to procreation so gay marriage does not qualify. That's definitely not true. In the olden days people got married because of power, money, and land, not to "continue the species". Women were treated as cattle and sent to marry a man they had never met in order to gain new territories or make alliances. Also marriages helped establish the legitimacy of children (seeing as many men had illegitimate children on the side) and continue the family lineage. Marriage has never really been about procreation but instead of forming a union or alliance between two people. So his entire argument is completely flawed.

[Rooni321]

What I hate about that argument is that they're not asking to marry their cousin or relative or more than one person. They're asking to marry the one person they feel can be their spouse just like any other person who loves someone of the opposite sex. Its the same. At least they're not causing potential birth defects through incest and can potentially adopting children that need a home. We shouldn't be treated any different because we like the same sex, we can't help it.
And besides:
Marriage liscenses cost money. Weddings(if that is chosen as well)cost money. More money for the greedy states if gays can get married. Yaaay money.

Yes, gay marriages can't provide a mother and a father to a child but what about those drop out dads/moms or a deceased parent? In turn there is only a mother or father.

and that part about hospital visits: what if the person is done writing the will and is killed by their partner (probably not likely but its a possibility)? Who wants to go through that when marriage can give the rights to hospital visits?

Also, how can you put all your love and respect into 3, 4 different spouses all at once?
That's obviously not a marriage the state should want to put together because how true can that love really be? How affectionate and deep can that love truely be?
Who says straight couples can't do that anyways? Staright couples divorce and remarry all the time as it is!

My biggest thing with gay marriage in general is, well I don't really want to get married but who am I to deny it to someone else who wants it? Who's business is it anyways?
We're not trying to push our sexuality on anyone, we're just trying to pursue ours just like anyone else can.
As long as someone isn't forcing the system to go rainbow and make everyone gay then it shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

[Mogget]

Originally Posted by Rooni321

Also, how can you put all your love and respect into 3, 4 different spouses all at once?
That's obviously not a marriage the state should want to put together because how true can that love really be? How affectionate and deep can that love truely be?

It's called polyamory. It's a thing. People in polyamorous relationships say that while they can't devote as much time to each individual partner, they are fully able to love and respect all their romantic partners (it's not uncommon for poly people to be in several romantic relationships and have casual sex with other people). Not having been in or around a polyamorous relationship myself, I don't know how true that is, but for a considerable number of people being in love with and having a relationship with multiple people is a fact of life.

Polyamory, and non-monogamy in general, is more common in the LGBT population than in the straight population. A significant percentage (like between a quarter to half) of gay couples have open relationships, some of which are polyamorous, others of which aren't.

[Robert]

Nothing wrong with marrying your cousin, nothing wrong with marrying more than one person, nothing wrong with marrying someone with a disease.

What exactly are the arguments against all this?

It's a rather stupid article. Gay people, along with other communities (including those denied to get married), supporting the government spending by the tax they pay. Denying their right to 'claim' their couple benefit will make as if the government is trying to make gays as cash cows to support straight couples who can have children and claim benefit not only for their spouse but also their children at the cost of people whose right to marry (including gays) are stripped by the government. Where is the sense of justice? The people who use or misuse their spose benefit, so far, are straight couples (in majority), so why punishing a community who even doesn't have its right (yet) in fear that they may misuse the spouse benefit?

The other stupid things about the article are:
1. The writer assumes that the government's interest in marriages are the children produced. He also understood his stupidity by acknowledging that in fact gay couples may have children, then he shifted his defense to the psychological mumbo jumbo of children development.
The amounts of broken home children and abused children raised by complete straight parents are increasing, so perhaps the writer should take this into account. Children need more stable and loving relationship than a complete father and mother, in my own experience.

2. He assumes that gay couples married just out of sexual things. By this, he denied the ability of gay people to love and to nurture, and even left completely his seemingly wise psychological approach altogether. As mentioned by some friends previously, there are a lot of motives to get married, and it's not different between gays and straight couple, since we are all human beings. Actually, in my experience in gay forums, I encountered a lot of touching stories of a gay who left his love because he wants him to be happy and to get married. So the assumption that gay couples = sex animals is insulting.

In my opinion, this article is judgmental, short-sighted and tendensious at the least.

John