Three secular arguments against same-sex marriage

[editec]

One secular argument FOR same sex marriage?

Because marriage is a contract involving PROPERTY and every person ought to have the same right to enter into a PROPERTY CONTRACT with any person they so desire.

 

[theHawk]

What a disingenuous piece of crap. "We aren't banning the sale of automobiles. Only automobiles with engines."

You ever actually read any of the so-called gay marriage bans?

Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

But hey, don't let that stop your strawman arguements...

Which of course banned Same-sex Civil Marriage in California with it's passage.



>>>>

It doesn't ban anything you moron. All it says is the state won't recognize. Anyone can still get married by whatever church is willing to do gay marriages. It doesn't criminalize or ban anything.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You ever actually read any of the so-called gay marriage bans?





But hey, don't let that stop your strawman arguements...

Which of course banned Same-sex Civil Marriage in California with it's passage.



>>>>

It doesn't ban anything you moron. All it says is the state won't recognize. Anyone can still get married by whatever church is willing to do gay marriages. It doesn't criminalize or ban anything.

Let me get this right. The State Constitution bans Same-sex CIVIL Marriage from being allowed by the government.

I point out that it the government does ban it from being legally recognized.

And I'm the moron?

BTW - I didn't say that the Prop 8 criminalized it, I said it banned CIVIL Marriage, i.e. that which exists under the law. Prop 8 absolutely did ban any new CIVIL Same-sex Marriages in California, although the one performed between June and November are still valid because the authors of Prop 8 didn't include a prior date of activation, it constitutionally couldn't become active until November 2008.


>>>>

 

[Qball]

Of course anyone can have any opinion that they want and thank you for a respectful and well articulated OP.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Whether Traditional Marriage was the cause or a by-product of a desire to discriminate against LGBT citizens of the United States is pretty irrelevant to an examination of current discriminatory laws and a decision as to whether there is a compelling government interest in continuing said discrimination.

First of all, thank you. I tried to make a thoughtful OP that arouse discussion and not an argument.


Now to your point here: If you submit that traditional marriage isn't borne out of a desire to discriminate, at the very least it should cast doubt on whether it can be fairly defined as discrimination today. I get what you're saying -- if something winds up being discriminatory, it's intent is irrelevant -- but I think people make an implicit assumption about traditional marriage given the numerous comparisons to the civil rights movement. Anti-miscegenation laws, for example, were borne out of a desire to discriminate, though it was believed for good reason. The same can be said for many other race-based laws this country has wisely done away. There has always been more to the institution of marriage than the man-woman model, which is why I don't think anyone can summarily dismiss it as an arbitrary distinction because it helps their argument.

I agree, legislation cannot correct discrimination in the past. However it can prevent the continuance of discrimination.

You're right, but like I said, I think there needs to be some consensus on what is discrimination before we start trying to prevent it.

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Again I agree. The ONLY purpose for legalizing Same-sex Civil Marriage is to place into effect an end to government discrimination without a compelling government interest. If the government is going to award Civil Marriage licenses, then there should be a compelling government interest in denying like situated groups.

If you were to do some research, you can find that groups opposing the legalization of Same-sex Civil Marriage have been airing ads which use scare tactics with the idea that voting to approve Same-sex Civil Marriage would lead to average citizen businesses having the right to discriminate (as in choose to service a customer or not) removed. Actually that has nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage. For example the School Counselor in the ad, the VT Bed & Breakfast, The Photographer, etc... Pssst - those cases have nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage as the complaints were filed under existing Public Accommodation Laws, not Marriage laws.

I support the removal of Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses as I think they (IMHO) are contrary to the United States Constitutions 1st Amendment and the right of assembly. Part of the right of assembly is not only choosing who you wish to assemble with, but also choosing who you choose not to assemble with. It probably wouldn't be pretty for awhile, but hey, freedom and liberty are messy sometimes.

3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.

There are very few (and the only reason I don't say "any" is because there may be some obscure law somewhere) that are uniquely designed with the gender of the spouse in terms of functionality under the law. Take Social Security for example, it doesn't matter the gender of the higher wage earner, in the event of the death of the higher wage earner the surviving spouse can draw retirement at the higher wage earners rate once they reach retirement age. Same with estate taxes, home sale, etc... Gender is irrelevant in ability to be eligible for benefits.

I wasn't suggesting the law is outlined in gender-specific terms. I mean the historical basis for "marital status" being a consideration in a lot of state and federal policy is due in large part to the gender dynamic I explained in my OP. The gender dynamic itself is the basis for a lot of social policy, like with your Social Security example. Part of Roosevelt's rationale for even passing the Social Security Act was to ease the burden on widows (usually women) and their children.

One thing I'm not understanding is what the social and biological conditions in today's world provide that Civil Marriage between a man and a woman must be recognized while Civil Marriage must be rejected between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

I notice you keep saying "civil marriage". There's nothing stopping same-sex couples from legally tying themselves to one another in a common law sense (medical proxies, power of attorney, living wills, etc). But same-sex couples being kissed into the same legal framework that exists for opposite-sex couples, I think, requires a stronger argument than fulfilling a standard of fairness or notions of equality.

**********************************************

Many do make the argument that rejection of Same-sex Civil Marriage should be based on an inability to reproduce within the relationship. And on this board I've seen a poster state emphatically that for a family to exist that there must be a biological mother and a biological father in the home. Two spouses are not a family. A couple that adopts because they can't have children is not a family. A divorced mother and her child are not a family. Ya, seems kind of weird to me also.

Yet the census shows that about 25% of same-sex couples are raising children. If there are governmental advantages to being the legal parents of a child and Civil Marriage is then there to support the raising of children - why deny Civil Marriage to couples raising children. That line of reasoning made no sense to me.

Same-Sex Couples Census Data Trickles Out: One-Quarter Are Raising Children - ABC News

I wont wade too deep into this since it's another discussion entirely, but I will say I think the point is marriage makes mother and father relationships better because it's giving the child a sound parental structure. I think the point with same-sex couples is that they're already, by design, depriving their child of either a mother or father figure in the house anyway, so it's hard to say they're "improved" through marriage. But that's just my guess. I have no problem with same-sex parentage or adoption, but I don't think that changes the point of having a legal marital framework.

**********************************************

To date, no one has been able to explain a compelling government interest for treating two like situated groups differently based on gender as it pertains to the government. Those groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in same-sex couple.



>>>>

Well, I would point out that the question itself is a bit erroneous. Marriage is an individual right to have a husband or wife. While in some states you can have either/or, in most states you can have one if you're the other. You don't have a collective right to call your relationship a marriage because it's similar to how that state has chosen to define marriage. I may have a loving relationship with a woman, but if that woman is already married, the fact that we are "similar" to any other married couple wouldn't matter because if I married her I'd be committing bigamy. That's just an example, but the point is, it's not unconstitutional to not treat all groups the same. Individuals? Yes. Groups? No.

(And understand by "groups" I mean those defined by some type of habit, lifestyle, or just what they call themselves; I'm not alluding to protected groups like race or religion)

 

[Qball]

Those are counter-arguments against common arguments for same-sex marriage.

They're not arguments against SSM.

I think they're both.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.

The error here is there’s no such thing as ‘same-sex marriage.’

There is only marriage, and the laws governing the contract that is marriage, entered into by two equal partners, gender irrelevant. Same-sex couples seek only access to those same laws, unchanged, unaltered, as applied to opposite-sex couples.

All citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law, including marriage law.

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” Romer v. Evans (1996).

I get what you're saying, but marriage was defined as a man and woman before, in some states, it wasn't. So there is a relevant distinction there. "Equal protection" doesn't mean "equal access". One is apart of the 14th amendment and the other...isn't, you know? "Couples" don't have rights (see: polygamy) and since both sexes are allowed to do the same thing -- marry someone of the opposite sex -- they're not being discriminated against.

It’s a civil rights issue to the extent that a class of persons is being denied its 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law absent a compelling governmental interest, absent evidence in support of the restriction of the right, and where the state is motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘tolerance,’ ‘social justice,’ or ‘marriage equality’; it has only to do with the fact that one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote - we are subject only to the rule of law, not men.

But that was my whole point: you can't rationally argue that we define marriage in these terms solely out of animus. Even if you wanted to cynically argue that many people refuse to change their views out of animus, that doesn't invalidate the traditional understanding of marriage.

I'd also ask which "protections" same-sex couples are being denied. We're all either married or unmarried individuals in the eyes of the government. If being married confers more protections than being single, isn't that the real injustice?

For well over half a century in most states, perhaps longer in others, the doctrine of coverture was abandoned and written out of marriage law; marriage became a state-sanctioned legal union between two partners in accordance with the state, functioning also as a partner. With marriage a gender-neutral institution, the sex of the partners becomes irrelevant. See: Perry v. Brown, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2011).

When did we decide marriage is "gender-neutral"?

Marriage shouldn't be used to promote social tolerance because it isn't the cause of intolerance for gays and lesbians, nor is it based on intolerance.

Marriage isn’t being ‘used’ to do anything; marriage is contract law, as written by the states. The 14th Amendment requires all citizens have access to those laws.

No, it doesn't. And even if it did, gays and lesbians do have equal access.

The attempt to portray marriage as some sort of helpless ‘victim’ of the ‘radical gay agenda’ only distorts and misrepresents the issue. Indeed, same-sex couples have no desire to change marriage one iota.

Where did I "portray marriage as some sort of helpless 'victim' of the 'radical gay agenda'"?

So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.

Same-sex couples only take as an affront their civil liberties being capriciously denied. And no one is requesting a ‘particular type’ of marriage be accommodated, as all marriage is the same, one unchanged law, available to all citizens.

The traditional definition of marriage predates the Constitution much of your argument relies on. I'd hardly call that capricious.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To date, no one has been able to explain a compelling government interest for treating two like situated groups differently based on gender as it pertains to the government. Those groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in same-sex couple.

Well, I would point out that the question itself is a bit erroneous. Marriage is an individual right to have a husband or wife. While in some states you can have either/or, in most states you can have one if you're the other. You don't have a collective right to call your relationship a marriage because it's similar to how that state has chosen to define marriage. I may have a loving relationship with a woman, but if that woman is already married, the fact that we are "similar" to any other married couple wouldn't matter because if I married her I'd be committing bigamy. That's just an example, but the point is, it's not unconstitutional to not treat all groups the same. Individuals? Yes. Groups? No.

(And understand by "groups" I mean those defined by some type of habit, lifestyle, or just what they call themselves; I'm not alluding to protected groups like race or religion)

I don't have a lot of time right now and I apologize for that, but with all due respect the question isn't erroneous.

The basis of your counter suggestion is that marriage (specifically Civil Marriage to differentiate it from Religious Marriage) is an individual right to have a husband or a wife.

First of all that is incorrect, it's not about the right to have a husband or a wife, the right in question is equal treatment under the law as it pertains to Civil Marriage with no compelling government interest in treating like groups differently.

Secondly your "individual" argument has already been presented to the SCOTUS and found lacking. It is the treatment of the couple that mattered, not access to Civil Marriage by the individual. The Commonwealth of Virginia made an argument in 1967 using the exact same structure suggesting that there was equal treatment under the law because both whites and coloreds each had access to Civil Marriage, just not with each other. The court firmly rejected the idea that in the evaluation of the laws in question that since each "could" marry they were not being subjected to unconstitutional discrimination. The court affirmed that the measurement was the treatment of the couple.



>>>>

 

[Qball]

To date, no one has been able to explain a compelling government interest for treating two like situated groups differently based on gender as it pertains to the government. Those groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in same-sex couple.

Well, I would point out that the question itself is a bit erroneous. Marriage is an individual right to have a husband or wife. While in some states you can have either/or, in most states you can have one if you're the other. You don't have a collective right to call your relationship a marriage because it's similar to how that state has chosen to define marriage. I may have a loving relationship with a woman, but if that woman is already married, the fact that we are "similar" to any other married couple wouldn't matter because if I married her I'd be committing bigamy. That's just an example, but the point is, it's not unconstitutional to not treat all groups the same. Individuals? Yes. Groups? No.

(And understand by "groups" I mean those defined by some type of habit, lifestyle, or just what they call themselves; I'm not alluding to protected groups like race or religion)

I don't have a lot of time right now and I apologize for that, but with all due respect the question isn't erroneous.

The basis of your counter suggestion is that marriage (specifically Civil Marriage to differentiate it from Religious Marriage) is an individual right to have a husband or a wife.

First of all that is incorrect, it's not about the right to have a husband or a wife, the right in question is equal treatment under the law as it pertains to Civil Marriage with no compelling government interest in treating like groups differently.

This is why I said the question was a bit erroneous. It's not that "equal treatment" is totally irrelevant to the law or the constitution, but pointing out how something is unequal isn't always enough, especially in this discussion.

The point is, men and women are being treated equally. They have the right to have a spouse of the opposite sex (again, in most places). I understand the argument is that it's unequal since some people are gay, but the law doesn't expressly forbade marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. And like I said, the government's marriage framework is based on the realities of opposite-sex marriage, not just the basic concept of marriage. People fall in love and want to commit to one another -- I get that part -- but there's more to the government's interest in marriage than bestowing its blessing and validation on those unions.

Secondly your "individual" argument has already been presented to the SCOTUS and found lacking. It is the treatment of the couple that mattered, not access to Civil Marriage by the individual. The Commonwealth of Virginia made an argument in 1967 using the exact same structure suggesting that there was equal treatment under the law because both whites and coloreds each had access to Civil Marriage, just not with each other. The court firmly rejected the idea that in the evaluation of the laws in question that since each "could" marry they were not being subjected to unconstitutional discrimination. The court affirmed that the measurement was the treatment of the couple.



>>>>

Well, one, that wasn't the primary argument they put forward. I've noticed same-sex marriage proponents do that whenever they're confronted with an argument against it, they say something like "that argument failed in Loving v. Virginia, so it doesn't work now", as if we're cribbing from their failed playbook.

The primary argument used in Loving v. Virginia was that the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 wasn't unconstitutional because it pertained to whites and blacks equally, so it wasn't racial discrimination. The reason this argument failed was two-fold: 1) it wasn't technically correct, because the law precluded marriage between whites and nonwhites, but yet said nothing of marriage in which neither spouse is white; and 2) the court found race isn't a legitimate basis on which to preclude marriage because race doesn't distort the fundamental purposes of marriage (procreation, record-keeping, etc). It's also important to remember that this was considered a felony in Virginia, not just a matter of legal recognition.

 

[JohnMario56565]

What makes people change their mind? Purposefully or not, children pick up on their parents’ beliefs and tend to follow them for the beginning of their life. Occasionally, around the teenage age, some kids transition into a revolt stage and completely change their views on the world. I believe this is mostly due to frustration in something which their parents believe; they have always taken it for granted but now that they have become more educated, they begin to question their beliefs and if unable to come up with an answer that they can rest upon, they choose to find their own way. My civic issue this semester will be gay marriage. I believe that by the time a child reaches his mid-teenage years, he will have picked up on his parent’s reaction to gay marriage. My curiosity about what makes a person change his mind sparked from an article I read from the Los Angeles Times titled,“Obama’s family influenced his gay-marriage shift.” The article explains that even when Obama’s position was in an early state of evolution, Michelle Obama “went out of her way to invite gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual couples to the events she sponsored for military families.”

Obama writes,“There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents, and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective,” I thought it interesting that when Barack Obama, our president, was thinking about his position on gay marriage (one of the most controversial topics currently in our nation), he thought of his young daughter. In a way, their thoughts are the most valuable—bear with me, but they are not “corrupted” by society. They are clear and pure; they see their friends and their parent’s just as normal families. To them, a man a woman, two men, or two women in love with one another are perfectly capable of raising a loving and healthy family. Sometimes I think it amazing how much we can learn from kids.

To begin my blogging over the semester I chose to look into some of the arguments that others use in order to opposite same-sex marriage. Most of quite similar and repetitive; the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was formed to “resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” They argue that marriage is naturally a covenant between a man and a woman and that it violates natural law. While biologically it is true that a man and a woman are needed to produce children, if children can not understand why gay parents would be treated differently, it is really that “natural?” It definitely is not built into us—rather, picked up from society. Also, for the matter of nature, Bruce Bagemihl, a distinguished Canadian biologist and linguist, shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. The TFP also write that “it is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother.” As for that matter, I urge all to watch Zach Wahls address this issue (Speech). The people writing this article never had experience being raised by gay parents. They have no basis behind their thoughts, they are simply unsupported beliefs.

Thanks for reading this! Looking forward to what you have to say.

 

[Michelle420]

If anyone here even knows me, they know I've spent a lot of time debating SSM. I figured, given the fact that there are four states voting on the issue this election, it would be nice to make a thread outlining three secular, somewhat legal arguments against same-sex marriage. I do not expect anyone to be persuaded in one direction or another -- I'm aware that whenever people complain about religious based arguments to SSM, they're doing so to paint their opponents as crazy, but they're not actually interested in entertaining non-religious arguments -- but at least many of you wont be able to say you've never seen someone argue without using religion.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Supporters compare their fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement. I've always emphatically disagreed with them, given the nature and severity of the civil rights movement when compared to the push for "marriage equality". Marriage serves many functions, but to my knowledge it was only recently that it had anything to do with "equality" between two types of people.

I don't think it's really anything like the civil rights movement outside of the rhetoric; I think it's more similar to a lot of radical feminist thought I've read. In the 1960s-70s there was a particular school of thought among radical feminists that marriage is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress and subjugate women. Because of this, many women refused to marry or made sure to keep their maiden name. There are a lot of feminists in their golden years who have long-term live-in spouses because they rejected what marriage meant, symbolically.

I'm not saying gays are trying to destroy marriage, but I am saying I think the push for SSM as a whole is due to a misguided notion that the only way we can have true LGBT tolerance is to knock down any institution that seems to uphold hetero-normativity, and given how "open-minded" we are these days about gender roles and whatnot, marriage exists as a heterosexual union. Of course, as I've somewhat explained, it's more than that, but for many people who support gay marriage, all they see is gay and straight.

3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.

If you accept the #1, it stands to reason that most of the benefits and privileges tied to marriage exist because of the relationship between men and women, and before you go thinking this is the part where I wax on about the beauty of procreation, indulge me here for one moment. Whenever someone mentions that two people of the same sex don't produce children, many supporters quickly point out that procreation isn't a requirement for marriage and that barren straight couples aren't denied their right to marry. Well, both are true, but they're also missing the point.

It isn't just that heterosexual couples have children and same-sex couples don't within their relationship; it's that many of these benefits exist given the social and biological differences between men and women. Though it's getting better now, women still tend to earn less and work less than men. It used to be that many women and their children relied mostly on the husband's salary and benefits from his employment. But what happened if the husband left, died, or got fired? That's why "marital status" is considered in many entitlement programs. Not because of the beauty and sacrament of marriage, but because of the inequality between men and women.

Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant and taking a few months off work to have a child. Most of them don't come out of the workplace indefinitely to raise children. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen, it just tends not to. The government doesn't have the same impetus to provide a social safety net for fundamentally barren couples.

So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.

1. Traditional marriage is just that a category for one type of marriage

2. Marriage is used by religions to promote social tolerance otherwise the judgments of fornication from God, marriage is the tool to make it legit in that groups world.

For non-religious folks marriage has legal benefits and should be afforded to gays and hets.

3. Hets and Gays both have children: This can happen when a het and gay procreate and divorce once one comes out of the closet, adoption is also another form where both hets & gays have children.

Marriage is not mandatory for anyone, if libertarians do not want to get married and have a legal contract they don't have to. If others who are Hets or gay want to marry they also should be able to do so.

HowStuffWorks "Benefits of Marriage"

 

[George Costanza]

I think that argument sort of encapsulates why a lot of people, even now, still don't support it. Not because they're so Bible-whipped they can't accept gay people wanting to marry, but because they reject the idea that the "old way" is unacceptable.

How does being in favor of SSM make the old way unacceptable? Why can't the two exist side by side?

 

[emilynghiem]

For a "secular" argument against same-sex marriage,
I thought you would bring up that marriage as a spiritual/religious sacrament
should be independent of state authority.

So there should be a distinction made between
civil unions/marriage which means the contract
regarding shared property or custody, etc.
vs. the personal aspect of marriage that is not the state's business.

So that part should be left to the people to go through
the church or institution of their choice. The state's authority
is over contracts affecting property or legal responsibility for custody, estates, etc.

 

[Qball]

I think that argument sort of encapsulates why a lot of people, even now, still don't support it. Not because they're so Bible-whipped they can't accept gay people wanting to marry, but because they reject the idea that the "old way" is unacceptable.

How does being in favor of SSM make the old way unacceptable? Why can't the two exist side by side?

Being in favor of SSM in and of itself doesn't make the old way unacceptable; arguing there's a constitutional right to it does. For many people, myself included, marriage is the unique union of a man and woman. Saying two people of the same sex are just as married as a husband and wife seems like a distortion of plain English. Having said that, I do believe same-sex should probably have some kind of legal recognition simply given the fact that they are de facto couples. But like I argue in #3, I think the social safety net aspect to legal marriage exempts same-sex couples by design.

 

[Qball]

For a "secular" argument against same-sex marriage,
I thought you would bring up that marriage as a spiritual/religious sacrament
should be independent of state authority.

So there should be a distinction made between
civil unions/marriage which means the contract
regarding shared property or custody, etc.
vs. the personal aspect of marriage that is not the state's business.

So that part should be left to the people to go through
the church or institution of their choice. The state's authority
is over contracts affecting property or legal responsibility for custody, estates, etc.

I've heard that argument many times before, but I've always found it to be more or less beside the point. Whatever your religious tradition says about marriage and who can marry, the state doesn't have much say in that. The state doesn't require churches to recognize marriage, so that part of the discussion is separate from the political and legal argument over same-sex marriage, as it should be.

 

[Qball]

Bump.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If anyone here even knows me, they know I've spent a lot of time debating SSM. I figured, given the fact that there are four states voting on the issue this election, it would be nice to make a thread outlining three secular, somewhat legal arguments against same-sex marriage. I do not expect anyone to be persuaded in one direction or another -- I'm aware that whenever people complain about religious based arguments to SSM, they're doing so to paint their opponents as crazy, but they're not actually interested in entertaining non-religious arguments -- but at least many of you wont be able to say you've never seen someone argue without using religion.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Supporters compare their fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement. I've always emphatically disagreed with them, given the nature and severity of the civil rights movement when compared to the push for "marriage equality". Marriage serves many functions, but to my knowledge it was only recently that it had anything to do with "equality" between two types of people.

I don't think it's really anything like the civil rights movement outside of the rhetoric; I think it's more similar to a lot of radical feminist thought I've read. In the 1960s-70s there was a particular school of thought among radical feminists that marriage is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress and subjugate women. Because of this, many women refused to marry or made sure to keep their maiden name. There are a lot of feminists in their golden years who have long-term live-in spouses because they rejected what marriage meant, symbolically.

I'm not saying gays are trying to destroy marriage, but I am saying I think the push for SSM as a whole is due to a misguided notion that the only way we can have true LGBT tolerance is to knock down any institution that seems to uphold hetero-normativity, and given how "open-minded" we are these days about gender roles and whatnot, marriage exists as a heterosexual union. Of course, as I've somewhat explained, it's more than that, but for many people who support gay marriage, all they see is gay and straight.

3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.

If you accept the #1, it stands to reason that most of the benefits and privileges tied to marriage exist because of the relationship between men and women, and before you go thinking this is the part where I wax on about the beauty of procreation, indulge me here for one moment. Whenever someone mentions that two people of the same sex don't produce children, many supporters quickly point out that procreation isn't a requirement for marriage and that barren straight couples aren't denied their right to marry. Well, both are true, but they're also missing the point.

It isn't just that heterosexual couples have children and same-sex couples don't within their relationship; it's that many of these benefits exist given the social and biological differences between men and women. Though it's getting better now, women still tend to earn less and work less than men. It used to be that many women and their children relied mostly on the husband's salary and benefits from his employment. But what happened if the husband left, died, or got fired? That's why "marital status" is considered in many entitlement programs. Not because of the beauty and sacrament of marriage, but because of the inequality between men and women.

Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant and taking a few months off work to have a child. Most of them don't come out of the workplace indefinitely to raise children. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen, it just tends not to. The government doesn't have the same impetus to provide a social safety net for fundamentally barren couples.

So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.

None of those are arguements against homosexual marriage. Although I have no doubt they seemed like it in your fevered mind.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Yes, and? Has nothing to do with substatiating a credible claim against allowing homosexual marriage. NEXT!

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

No it shouldn't. It should be used to create lving families with nurturing enviroments. Again, not an arguement against homosexual marriage.

3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.

Relationship between men and women isn't unique. Two men and two women coming readily to mind doing everything short of making babies, and that's changing even now. The legal institution of marriage is due to our being a nation of laws and equal treatment for ALL under them. Because married people are family the law needed to write in to itself allowances and priviledges for marrieds to visit one another in hospital and not be denied like someone walking in off the street. And with over 1400 legal, tax, economic, and other adjustments, denying these because 'I dun like homos' isn't lawful.

 

[Qball]

If anyone here even knows me, they know I've spent a lot of time debating SSM. I figured, given the fact that there are four states voting on the issue this election, it would be nice to make a thread outlining three secular, somewhat legal arguments against same-sex marriage. I do not expect anyone to be persuaded in one direction or another -- I'm aware that whenever people complain about religious based arguments to SSM, they're doing so to paint their opponents as crazy, but they're not actually interested in entertaining non-religious arguments -- but at least many of you wont be able to say you've never seen someone argue without using religion.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Supporters compare their fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement. I've always emphatically disagreed with them, given the nature and severity of the civil rights movement when compared to the push for "marriage equality". Marriage serves many functions, but to my knowledge it was only recently that it had anything to do with "equality" between two types of people.

I don't think it's really anything like the civil rights movement outside of the rhetoric; I think it's more similar to a lot of radical feminist thought I've read. In the 1960s-70s there was a particular school of thought among radical feminists that marriage is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress and subjugate women. Because of this, many women refused to marry or made sure to keep their maiden name. There are a lot of feminists in their golden years who have long-term live-in spouses because they rejected what marriage meant, symbolically.

I'm not saying gays are trying to destroy marriage, but I am saying I think the push for SSM as a whole is due to a misguided notion that the only way we can have true LGBT tolerance is to knock down any institution that seems to uphold hetero-normativity, and given how "open-minded" we are these days about gender roles and whatnot, marriage exists as a heterosexual union. Of course, as I've somewhat explained, it's more than that, but for many people who support gay marriage, all they see is gay and straight.

3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.

If you accept the #1, it stands to reason that most of the benefits and privileges tied to marriage exist because of the relationship between men and women, and before you go thinking this is the part where I wax on about the beauty of procreation, indulge me here for one moment. Whenever someone mentions that two people of the same sex don't produce children, many supporters quickly point out that procreation isn't a requirement for marriage and that barren straight couples aren't denied their right to marry. Well, both are true, but they're also missing the point.

It isn't just that heterosexual couples have children and same-sex couples don't within their relationship; it's that many of these benefits exist given the social and biological differences between men and women. Though it's getting better now, women still tend to earn less and work less than men. It used to be that many women and their children relied mostly on the husband's salary and benefits from his employment. But what happened if the husband left, died, or got fired? That's why "marital status" is considered in many entitlement programs. Not because of the beauty and sacrament of marriage, but because of the inequality between men and women.

Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant and taking a few months off work to have a child. Most of them don't come out of the workplace indefinitely to raise children. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen, it just tends not to. The government doesn't have the same impetus to provide a social safety net for fundamentally barren couples.

So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.

None of those are arguements against homosexual marriage. Although I have no doubt they seemed like it in your fevered mind.

I guess you were expecting some type of argument that goes "gay marriage is wrong because ..." Sorry to disappoint you. I'd rather foster debate than disabuse people of their notions about SSM. You can't reason people out of a position they weren't reasoned into. That's why I'd rather make my argument by addressing the arguments people make in favor of it.

1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.

Yes, and? Has nothing to do with substatiating a credible claim against allowing homosexual marriage. NEXT!

Sure it does. When you make the argument that the denial of gay marriage is the result of a bigoted mindset, or that same-sex couples suffer due to not being able to call themselves married, it's important to point out that homophobia is completely extraneous to the issue.

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

No it shouldn't. It should be used to create lving families with nurturing enviroments. Again, not an arguement against homosexual marriage.

It's an argument against the idea that gay marriage has much to do with the purpose and benefits of marriage. I think gay marriage is more about state-sanctioned tolerance for sexual minorities. Tolerance is fine, but distorting the meaning and purpose of marriage to attain it is wrong, IMHO.

3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.

Relationship between men and women isn't unique. Two men and two women coming readily to mind doing everything short of making babies, and that's changing even now. The legal institution of marriage is due to our being a nation of laws and equal treatment for ALL under them. Because married people are family the law needed to write in to itself allowances and priviledges for marrieds to visit one another in hospital and not be denied like someone walking in off the street. And with over 1400 legal, tax, economic, and other adjustments, denying these because 'I dun like homos' isn't lawful.

The union of a man and woman is unique in that it isn't like the union of two men or two women. Like I said, the point of legal marriage -- including all those legal instances of marriage -- isn't really about making sure couples enjoy the blessing of the state. It addresses the social and economic disparities between men and women and creates a social safety net for couples likely to have children. You and many others seem to think the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships are arbitrary and meaningless because you don't care about the whys and hows of these benefits. Like I said in my OP, many people only see a basic matter of "gays and straights are being treated differently" without honestly considering if it's fair or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Why shouldn't marriage be used?
Even assuming someone agrees with your statement, is that all that same sex marriage is, a tool to promote social tolerance? That seems to ignore the idea that it is a matter of equal rights or access to benefits.

Yes and no.
I agree with the post that "civil contracts" should be equal opportunity and inclusion for all people, regardless of orientation, gender, etc.

But no, the GOVT should not be using a SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS Sacrament of Marriage
to promote or establish any kind of belief about homosexuality or same sex couples.

The RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage should be KEPT OUT of public law
and keep that private.

That is where this process failed.
Had the advocates remained NEUTRAL and were Consistent about pushing for "separation of church and state/keeping religion out of govt and govt out of religion" then that would be constitutionally sound.

But going too far, and instead of just defending religious freedom of choice, they PUSHED a bias into govt and public policy,
that is where they shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own arguments.

it is ONE thing to DEFEND beliefs against discrimination, which I agree with in terms of striking down bans on gay
marriage which should remain the religious freedom of practitioners to decide,
and another to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH your beliefs as law through govt which unfortunately has occurred.

Any good intentions and lawful defense going on here for equal rights
were derailed by committing the same bullying, coercion and exclusion
tactics to dominate over other people's beliefs instead of including them equally in shaping policies and reforms.

You cannot fight for equal rights while violating the same of others,
a hard lesson for both sides to learn who keep fighting this way at the exclusion of other beliefs.

 

[Montrovant]

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Why shouldn't marriage be used?
Even assuming someone agrees with your statement, is that all that same sex marriage is, a tool to promote social tolerance? That seems to ignore the idea that it is a matter of equal rights or access to benefits.

Yes and no.
I agree with the post that "civil contracts" should be equal opportunity and inclusion for all people, regardless of orientation, gender, etc.

But no, the GOVT should not be using a SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS Sacrament of Marriage
to promote or establish any kind of belief about homosexuality or same sex couples.

The RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage should be KEPT OUT of public law
and keep that private.

That is where this process failed.
Had the advocates remained NEUTRAL and were Consistent about pushing for "separation of church and state/keeping religion out of govt and govt out of religion" then that would be constitutionally sound.

But going too far, and instead of just defending religious freedom of choice, they PUSHED a bias into govt and public policy,
that is where they shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own arguments.

it is ONE thing to DEFEND beliefs against discrimination, which I agree with in terms of striking down bans on gay
marriage which should remain the religious freedom of practitioners to decide,
and another to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH your beliefs as law through govt which unfortunately has occurred.

Any good intentions and lawful defense going on here for equal rights
were derailed by committing the same bullying, coercion and exclusion
tactics to dominate over other people's beliefs instead of including them equally in shaping policies and reforms.

You cannot fight for equal rights while violating the same of others,
a hard lesson for both sides to learn who keep fighting this way at the exclusion of other beliefs.

The religious aspect IS kept out of the law, so far as I know. A person can be married in a religious context without being married legally, and vice versa.

While I would happily agree to all current marriages being changed to civil unions under the law and let the term marriage refer to religious unions, I know that is completely unrealistic. So, in my mind, the best realistic solution is to allow same sex marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

Allow any marriage and the problem goes away. Marry your pillow if you want. You could buy boiler plate contracts, or maybe download them off the net, sign between as many parties as willing and get it notarized. You're married.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.

Why shouldn't marriage be used?
Even assuming someone agrees with your statement, is that all that same sex marriage is, a tool to promote social tolerance? That seems to ignore the idea that it is a matter of equal rights or access to benefits.

Yes and no.
I agree with the post that "civil contracts" should be equal opportunity and inclusion for all people, regardless of orientation, gender, etc.

But no, the GOVT should not be using a SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS Sacrament of Marriage
to promote or establish any kind of belief about homosexuality or same sex couples.

The RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage should be KEPT OUT of public law
and keep that private.

That is where this process failed.
Had the advocates remained NEUTRAL and were Consistent about pushing for "separation of church and state/keeping religion out of govt and govt out of religion" then that would be constitutionally sound.

But going too far, and instead of just defending religious freedom of choice, they PUSHED a bias into govt and public policy,
that is where they shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own arguments.

it is ONE thing to DEFEND beliefs against discrimination, which I agree with in terms of striking down bans on gay
marriage which should remain the religious freedom of practitioners to decide,
and another to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH your beliefs as law through govt which unfortunately has occurred.

Any good intentions and lawful defense going on here for equal rights
were derailed by committing the same bullying, coercion and exclusion
tactics to dominate over other people's beliefs instead of including them equally in shaping policies and reforms.

You cannot fight for equal rights while violating the same of others,
a hard lesson for both sides to learn who keep fighting this way at the exclusion of other beliefs.

The religious aspect IS kept out of the law, so far as I know. A person can be married in a religious context without being married legally, and vice versa.

While I would happily agree to all current marriages being changed to civil unions under the law and let the term marriage refer to religious unions, I know that is completely unrealistic. So, in my mind, the best realistic solution is to allow same sex marriage.

Depends on the state. Some allow 'covenant' or religious ceremony-onyl marriage, some don't. Missouri doesn't I don't think, or at least requires a legal marriage license before allowing churches and synagogue to perform a marriage ceremony.