Three secular arguments against same-sex marriage

[bodecea]

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.

Thank you for a clear and concise post, but like others have said here, what you have posted are not valid arguments against legalized gay marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

In Missouri the non-license same-sex religious wedding is just called a Commitment Ceremony so that the officiant doesn't get ticketed for a misdemeanor


>>>>

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

In Missouri the non-license same-sex religious wedding is just called a Commitment Ceremony so that the officiant doesn't get ticketed for a misdemeanor


>>>>

Sounds right. Recall something in the statutes about same-sex marriages are illegal and some fine for those doing them. Yet the local Reform Jewish synagogue will perform them.

 

[Iceweasel]

Thank you for a clear and concise post, but like others have said here, what you have posted are not valid arguments against legalized gay marriage.

There's no concise reason for it. It's an imitation of male/female unions in every way with no benefit to society other than government participating in the lie that it makes no difference. Gays won't add taxpayers and workers to a society but most heterosexuals do. It's the birds and bees thing most of us learn as children while you were busy pounding the square peg in the round hole.

 

[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.

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.

I thought it was interesting that one state allowed gay marriages where it wasn't illegal.
But would not endorse it through the state.

I think that is pretty close to what it needs to be.
Allow the marriages through churches to be separate and free to exercise their beliefs.

And just keep the Civil contracts through the state
with completely *neutral* language. If gender or orientation is mentioned at all,
it becomes a legal fight to whether it pushes to include or exclude etc.
so either these terms and wording must be AGREED upon by all sides
(similar to how the 2nd Amendment is worded, where BOTH sides can
interpret it totally differently to mean either militia as police or military or people or citizens, etc.)
or it should be left out if the wording cannot be agreed upon,
(or it ends up punishing one side more for discriminating against the other without
equally protecting that side from discrimination, as with lawsuits that punished businesses
when the customers were also discriminating but the law didn't recognize that part
(such as cases where the complainants did not allow the business staff the "free choice" whether to
attend a gay wedding or not in choosing which jobs to accept or decline)

The ordinance in Houston should serve as an example how NOT to write a bill.
And why we need laws to be written and passed by consensus if they
contain any such language that triggers differences in beliefs that are religiously held.

If we already know that people disagree religiously and cannot change their beliefs,
why keep setting ourselves up to fail and walking into this political trap?

At some point it should become legal negligence or malpractice
to keep passing bills or bans that people KNOW are against some of the public's beliefs
and therefore unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayer resources to fight to correct it after the fact.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you for a clear and concise post, but like others have said here, what you have posted are not valid arguments against legalized gay marriage.

There's no concise reason for it. It's an imitation of male/female unions in every way with no benefit to society other than government participating in the lie that it makes no difference. Gays won't add taxpayers and workers to a society but most heterosexuals do. It's the birds and bees thing most of us learn as children while you were busy pounding the square peg in the round hole.

Yes to the idea that all people should be able to form their own social and business contracts as partnerships.

No to the idea that marriage per se has to be endorsed and pushed through the state in order to legitimize contracts.

Separate the religious marriage part that is a sacrament and ceremony for the churches or people
from the civil contracts for custody, estates, etc. and keep the language secular and neutral if it is going to be public policy.

Quit trying to punish or threaten to punish people for their personal beliefs,
and maybe people will quit doing the same. But don't abuse state laws to force this one way and only
threaten one side with penalties for discrimination when both beliefs have equal standing by neutral govt
and should be protected from discrimination.

If people cannot be neutral and all inclusive, they should not be in charge of writing or judging laws
if that means imposing whichever bias they have. or else people will keep fighting for political control
of writing the laws to reflect THEIR bias, and this fight will continue back and forth, violating the rights of the losing side.

 

[Henrik]

General, I think that same-sex-marriage should be eligible becouse it's modern and anything other would belong to the past. Same-sex-marriage shoulden't be stopped by old norms or disciplines. Still, what is relevant is to behold America's fundamental values as human equality under Christianity, peaceful to the creation and human reason.

Their are too many values and opinions in day modern society and to forbid such should just be unreasonable and not in line with mine outlook of American conservatism.

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

To accept marriage is a progress and should be accepted by people to accept the fact.

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

Marriage is natural and I think that is a wonderful way to create acceptance between people.

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

Yeah, sure if you go to the Bibel or something but I think that we should compare the relationships with the modern and unknown society we live in today.

 

[DGS49]

A few salient points (in my opinion):

The notion that marriage is nothing more than a "contract" is nonsense. No sane person would sign a contract in which the majority of the terms are determined by outsiders (state legislatures and courts).

Historically, state marriage laws were intended to protect the WIFE and ISSUE of the marriage in case the HUSBAND did not fulfill the "social contract" that the state envisioned. The HUSBAND would have to pay alimony, child support under defined circumstances, and he could not disinherit the WIFE, even if he wanted to. And these norms were based on certain life paradigms (HUSBAND supports wife and kids, WIFE doesn't work outside the home, etc) that, fortunately or not, no longer prevail. So regardless of the advent of SSM, marriage laws have been evolving significantly in recent years to deal with changing lifestyles.

Like it or not, "marriage" as envisioned by the State and "marriage" as envisioned by most religious denominations ARE NOT THE SAME INSTITUTION. For example, my church does not recognize marriages performed by a JP, nor does it recognize divorces granted by the State. So it is very possible for someone to be married in the eyes of the State, but single in the eyes of the Church, or vice versa.

And since a Church need not even recognize a marriage sanctioned by the State, what business is it of any Church what relationships the State decides to recognize? How does it harm the Church if the State recognizes marriages between two women, or between brother and sister, or among more than two people? In short, it doesn't.

And if the state legislature sees a benefit to the state in recognizing such relationships and treating them the same as relationships that the Church considers "marriages," why should the state legislatures be prevented from doing so? Because it offends a Church or "believers"?

Fuck 'em.

OTOH, if some JUDGE decides, without any justification other than his own personal FEELINGS, that the laws of a State, or the Constitution of a State, are WRONG, he should NOT BE PERMITTED to modify the same in accordance with his own predilections.

And this goes on almost daily in contemporary America. It is bullshit.

There is only one provision in the U.S. Constitution that is relevant to this whole discussion and it is the "full faith & credit" clause that requires all states to recognize the legal and valid acts of other states. So a State may NOT refuse to acknowledge a marriage that was legal in a state where it was originaly performed.

A pox on the USSC for refusing to do the right thing and address this issue.