A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

[Elijah_Baley]

My goal to show that there is definitionally no parity between marriage unqualified, here condensed as MU, and same-sex marriage, here condensed as SSM:

MU, from what it is, can enhance male-female coupling. SSM, from what it is, cannot. Given that male-female coupling is uniquely necessary for the survival of the species, and that we should enhance such things, QED.

To wit, our floor may or may not be below your ceiling, but our ceiling is necessarily higher.

(Only because someone else is going to cite The Exceptions, I’ll note as a given assumption also that institutions should be writ large and must speak in patterns rather than accommodate every outlier. We hereby remove the distractions related to infertility, which is always a tragedy.)

Enhance here means “improve the results of,” not necessarily “increase frequency of pregnancy.” This feels right more than anything, and is probably the weak point in the argument.

Cards on the table:

1. 
   *]I take it as axiomatic that, whenever possible, kids should know their biological parents. Definitionally,
   *]It is the singular ideal, and therefore
   *]Anything else is less than the ideal.
   
   MU allows for the ideal and therefore necessarily has a higher ceiling than SSM.
   
   I anticipate the response will center around, “we can’t always get the ideal,” but I point towards the assumption earlier in the argument: Institutions must be writ large, speaking briefly in patters more than outliers.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

aaaand the oddball Anglican chimes in

Respectfully, and as I see it, hazmat, you have not made the case that having a same-gender relationship recognized as legally the same thing as a opposite-gender relationship. is a ‘right’ You have simply asserted this is so without providing any reasons why it should be so. Unless you can, I as an interested non-participant observer in this discussion will have to dismiss anything further you say, because you are not offering an argument for your position, merely asserting a position without reasons for your position.

For instance, what makes ‘same sex marriage’ compatible with the US Constitution? Would you be satisfied that ‘same sex marriage’ is not compatible with the Consitution if an Amendment to the Constitution was adopted (putting aside the (un)likelihood of its surviving the political process) which codified marriage as only between a man and a woman?

To be fair though, at least you (hazmat) are being consistent in your assertions regarding marriage i.e. who can marry whom or what (as an aside I remember an illustration of this principle of ‘extending’ the definition of marriage (similar to the notion of marrying an inanimate object -like an avocado-in a Japanese graphic novel/manga by the group CLAMP, Chobits, where a man ‘married’ his persecom (walking computer/robot/android assistant). The man didn’t care about public perception of his actions, he did it anyway because he ‘loved’ his persecom and wanted to consider ‘her’ as his ‘wife’)

 

[hazmat]

i believe only allowing men to marry women is incompatible with equal protections, so, defining marriage in the constitution would not redress that discrepancy; i think you would have to get rid of equal protections altogether. i dont conflate the equal application of laws with the equal protection of the laws.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Dear hazmat,

You keep asserting that it is a matter of “discrimination” that a person of one gender cannot “marry” a person of the same gender, but it appears that you have not convinced anyone of this. So, I will ask you:

what reasons do you have for asserting that “marriage” is not to be restricted to the socially/legally/religiously sanctioned union of a man and woman (of the legal age of consent, putting aside for the moment the question of the number of spouses, or the degree of blood-relation between the parties) and that a same-gender domestic partnership is a marriage deserving of the name? You cannot say it is a “civil right” because you have not yet demonstrated that marriage is anything other than the sanctioned union of a mane and a woman.

Again, respectfully, I have gone back through your posts, and all I can find is assertion after assertion coupled with unfounded opinion (having no supporting reasons) that it is a “issue of civil rights” that our laws are “discriminatory” towards persons of the same gender.

 

[hazmat]

if you dont allow same sex marriage, then you must discriminate between man and woman to determine whether someone can marry a man or a woman. rights given by the state to its citizens are civil rights. in my view, saying you must be a man to marry a woman does not comply with constitutional equal protection. your objections to my views are like those posted by others in this thread, so be sure to read their posts as well if you havent already.

 

[oldbrit2009]

As it boils down most who argue against same sex marriage argue on religious ground. But with a church state separation paradigm in mind what non religious argument can you make against this issue?

Homosexual “marriage” is contrary to the common good because it’s a dead end - there is no future in homosexual “marriage”.

The proper role of marriage in society is to provide safe and stable homes for children to grow up in, where they are physically, emotionally, and spiritually nourished, and where they learn how to be good citizens through the care and teaching of two role models - their mother and father. The family is the essential building block of society. Society itself is actually comprised of groups of families (communities) working together to provide for each others’ needs through work, education, and through religious and social activities.

A small minority of families not conforming to this model isn’t harmful, but when the whole of society itself decides that marriage isn’t really about providing for children - that, rather, it has some other purpose, that is sex for its own purpose, then the future of society is literally being sabotaged, because without safe, happy, well-educated children, society literally has no future - and when marriage is redefined to include a relationship, that is by its very nature sterile, then the inevitable result is going to be confused, rootless, unhappy, poorly educated children - the adults of tomorrow; the society of tomorrow - children are quite literally our future.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Dear Hazmat, my brother in Messiah

Respectfully, you are still not answering the question I put to you.

what reasons do you have for asserting that “marriage” is not to be restricted to the socially/legally/religiously sanctioned union of a man and woman (of the legal age of consent, putting aside for the moment the question of the number of spouses, or the degree of blood-relation between the parties) and that a same-gender domestic partnership is a marriage deserving of the name?

And until you do, we really have nothing to constructively argue about, (see infra)

Now, you answered my post thusly:

if you dont allow same sex marriage, then you must discriminate between man and woman to determine whether someone can marry a man or a woman. rights given by the state to its citizens are civil rights. in my view, saying you must be a man to marry a woman does not comply with constitutional equal protection.

But, as I continue to point out, you have not backed up your view with reasons why it is so that your view is a genuine violation of “equal rights” and “protection of the laws”.

your objections to my views are like those posted by others in this thread, so be sure to read their posts as well if you havent already.

No…my “objection” is that you have not made a case for marriage being a civil right. My “objection” is to your unfounded-assertion. Marriage is not a right, nor even if it is recognized as a right, is it an unrestricted right:. Age and mental faculty or competence enter into the ability to enter into contracts (as a marriage is a contract for the exchange of property within a family relationship) are discriminating factors, as is in most states, prior biological relationship. As has been said before…the State discriminates all the time on the basis of age, mental competence. And I don’t see why it is “discrimination” to not allow a legally recognized relationship between two people of the same gender to be called something that it is not. Why should I accept your assertion that marriage is a legally/religiously recognized union between two persons regardless of gender?

Marriage is fundamentally about ensuring the stability and continuation of the family through legally recognized procreation. There is an absolute biological criteria for determining what is and what is able to be called “marriage”, as has been noted in this thread time and time again. The burden of proof is on you to show why this is not so.

If the State as the State (whether by elected representatives or by public referendum) wants to confer upon a same gendered-relationship the same legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities as marriage that is one thing, but said relationship is not marriage -the the very fact that it has to be qualified as a hyphenated word “gay-marriage” or “same-sex marriage” is 'proof enough.

Thank you for the advice on reading through the postings: I have read the complete set of postings, and I come to the same conclusion. you have not made a case that marriage is a “right” to be extended to any two (or more) persons regardless of gender, but have consistently asserted a position without backing it up. So, we’re not really arguing over anything since you have no defensible position, unless you can answer my earlier questions.

I draw your attention again to my final comment

You cannot say it is a “civil right” because you have not yet demonstrated that marriage is anything other than the sanctioned union of a mane and a woman.

This criticism of your position stands because you have still not yet demonstrated in clear language -in fact, you have made no attempt to provide reasons why I should accept your view of “same-sex marriage” as the same entity or relationship as marriage and thus subject to the Equal Protection clause So again, respectfully, you have no opinion, only ungrounded assertions. It doesn’t do to say it is denying LGBT their “civil rights” when you have not proved that what is meant by the term “marriage” is any other relationship other than that between a man and a woman. I would agree with you regarding if and only if, you provide reasoning If you can’t -or won’t- meet my objections to your assertions, then I cannot treat your posts as a serious or as an attempt to discuss in good faith. My apologies if this sounds rude, and for repeating myself no less than 3 times, but if we are to continue this discussion, you need to give reasons for your view. Otherwise, we shall have to agree to disagree, and we have nothing to say to one another. But, thanks for participating up til now, all the same.

 

[hazmat]

ive already said why i think its a violation of equal protections–others who disagree with me have seen this already. perhaps you missed it, or just dont get what i mean. thats ok.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

ive already said why i think its a violation of equal protections–others who disagree with me have seen this already. perhaps you missed it, or just dont get what i mean. thats ok.

I agree with AnglicanForMary. Mere declaration does not do it. You have not articulated why opposition to same sex ‘marriage’ is a violation of equal protection. Perhaps you can’t.

Advocates of SS"M" like you claim that opponents are being discriminatory or prejudiced and do not comply with equal rights protection in the constitution. It is simply wrong because discrimination means that because of prejudice we do not allow a person of a particular race, religion or sexual orientation to participate in our existing institutions or enjoy the same activities others do. No one denies any avowed homosexual man to get married, like all other men, to a woman. Nor is the law prejudiced against any proclaimed lesbian wishing, like other women, to marry a man. Who they are does not get into the picture. Regardless of orientation, homosexuals have the same right as everyone else to marriage as defined, across the board, by our laws and history: the union of one man of whatever sexual orientation to one woman whatever her orientation. Marriage as an existing institution is open to all.

As with any contract, marriage has elements that define it that is clear to the parties making the transaction. In this case, the elements are one man, one woman. The problem lies with those who wish to change this element, this inherent configuration, not because of who they are, but because of what they want to do that does not exist for anybody. Basketball and baseball are both sports, for example, but the rules of basketball do not extend to the rules of baseball.

When blacks were not allowed to vote, it was clearly discriminatory – others had the right. This was a discrimination and exclusion of blacks based on prejudice, based on who and not on what. But if a black man demands to vote while underage, he cannot say he is being discriminated, for instance.

When it is asserted that denying homosexuals the right to marry deprives them of equal protection, the argument does not hold. People of differing religion, race, gender or sexual orientation participate and share in categories defined equally for all; hence, there is no discrimination.

Homosexuals are not being prejudiced by those who wish to preserve the integrity of marriage. Opponents to gay ‘marriage’ do not advocate for homosexuals to be discriminated in rights to employment, housing, voting, etc., which are the historic parameters of discrimination.

What if two straight men or two women wish to marry for the purpose of getting benefits, bypassing business legalities or having to pay a lawyer to create community property by combining their businesses? What if SS"M" in every state serves as a cover for an undersirable potential immigrant (read: terrorist) who wants to ‘marry’ his American born homosexual lover? This would be another vulnerable point of entry, another avenue of abuse, which would place our national security at risk.

As it is, with SS”M” not legal in a majority of states, the law would still deny them a license to marry, since the union of two men does not fall within the definition of marriage, even where homosexuality is not involved. So it is not homosexuality per se but the union of the same-sexed that is oxymoronic with marriage.

On that note, it is moronic to afford a person’s or a group’s desire for private (sexual) expression public sanctification, with citizens bearing social and financial costs. Our language is reconfigured: husbands are just partners, wives simply spouses; mothers and fathers would be no more, but parent1 and parent2. Sex education is already being forced on kids about alternative and ‘valid’ homosexual marriage, with wishes of parents and interests of students becoming secondary to the will of the state.

Of concern, we are beginning to hear claims of hate speech against religious and churches that cite scripture forbidding homosexuality and SS"M." This is actually going on in the UK and Canada. Homosexual rights are ever expanding, challenging our freedoms of speech and religion.

Further, SS"M" is superfluous, because whatever practical protection same sex couples would want is accessible through wills and contracts, domestic partnership and civil union laws.
,

 

[hazmat]

i already discussed equal application vs equal protection.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

i already discussed equal application vs equal protection.

No, you have not discussed it. You just declared your position, that a man should be free to ‘marry’ a man and a woman another woman. And that you hope the SCOTUS would agree. Without articulation, without reasoning. Repetition of your declaration does not cut it.
,

 

[hazmat]

lol, whatever. youll probably fail to see the scotus’ reasoning behind upholding same sex marriage too, when they do.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

i already discussed equal application vs equal protection.

Then, could you do us the favor of linking to that particular post? Because it still does not make sense to me to distinguish between equal application (of existing laws?) and equal protection? you have not shown why SSM is marriage

How does it deny equal protection under the law to refuse to create a new legal and social category?

But, let me go back and create a timeline of your arguments

Your first post to the thread #16 said:

theres no good argument, really. gays have sex outside of wedlock.

#18

…and the court. it was in the news recently, i think. gay sex is ok outside of marriage then?

These first two posts of yours don’t make sense given the purpose of the thread. They are non sequiturs, and not properly comments on the question.

The question is not sex outside or inside of marriage, the question is rather SSM is a legal franchise that is the same as marriage as ,legally, morally,and socially understood, understood. The question is whether it is an ‘entitlement’ that the State must recognize, which the majority of people here, WITH REASONS deny. If there is no good argument against, as you imply -without saying why existing arguments are wrong, and therefore not good- that still does not mean that there is any good reason “for” the position. In the absence of compelling reasons for SSM, then status quo should remain. And YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED REASONS compelling or non-compelling FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS. End of story;

I assume that when you mean you have already discussed it, you refer to post #24 when you said:

john, i posted after only two posts following mine. it was obvious i was responding to you. no one is afraid to debate you–get over yourself. all im saying is tradition and silly arent what i would consider good arguments. plenty of silly stuff is legal, and breaking with tradition is also legal.

razredge, like gays, brother and sister should be able to marry as it falls under civil rights. no one currently has the right to marry multiple persons or animals however, so that wouldnt fall under civil rights. thats not to say it will always be the case though. if people eventually get the right to marry multiple persons, or animals, then that will be a civil right also. personally, i dont care if people marry multiple persons or animals.

So, your argument is that since at least one state has made it legal to ‘marry’ someone of the same gender, then SSM has become *de jure *a matter of civil rights? Is this a fair assumption?

Then, #26

it is civil rights issue; there are gay citizens who cannot marry the same people other citizens can marry. building the discrimination into the laws themselves doesnt get around that, despite what people might think. if it goes to the scotus, you will probably be surprised and disappointed by their decision.

But you have not explained why. Your very statement “gay citizens who cannot marry the same people other citizens can marry” implies a definition of “marriage” that 1) is at odds with the membership of this group, and 2) which is what is being debated.

Do you mean that Steve cannot marry Adam, whom Eve can to marry? If so, then again the issue is one of definition, which you have not provided

to be continued:

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Continuing:

In post #28 you say

in light of the us constitution, this is unfair discrimination. you can keep them from marrying in church–thats fine–but churches dont have an obligation treat all citizens the same; the government does. you disagree, but i think youre looking at it from a religious perspective. religion aside, there is no us law requiring married couples to have children. if there were, then it would be easier to appreciate the rationale presented against gay marriage.

The Constitution though, says nothing one way or the other about marriage. If it does, kindly point me to the Article that deals with it, cause the only articles I know concern the make up of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch and their enumerated powers. Moreover, you are here still operating on an assumption and a definition of marriage not shared by the rest of the membership. You are not arguing for your definition, you are assuming the definition, which you can’t do.

Next, in post 31, responding to razredge, you said:

its not arbitrary; its equal rights/civil rights under the constitution of the usa. if a male citizen has the right to marry a woman, then a female citizen must have that same right (to marry a woman).

But, none of your previous posts allow you to make this assertion. #28 is your first mention of the constitution, and you have not given your reasons for saying why it is in the constitution,

I think though, the rub of our problem is here in your post #34

the definitions dont really matter. it didnt matter when marriage was defined as between a man and woman of the same race–that was “equal” too. you can define stuff any way you want to; but the fact that youve defined it so its inherently discriminatory probably wont impress a supreme court.

So for you “definitions don’t really matter” So, is it safe to say that you are ignoring everyone who posts questioning your definition of marriage? (I ask this because everytime someone replies to you and brings up the question of defining marriage, you brush them off and do not say why marriage should be redefined, but instead act as if this has already happened). The problem with this is that definitions DO matter, especially in law. And your disregard of definitions tells me that you are not interested in arguing for your position. Which is ok. I accept that you are not interested in the definition of a thing, but that means accepting that you have nothing to add to the conversation,

This is made clear to me because of post #38, when you say regarding definitions:

they dont matter in the context of us law. if you define a marriage as one between men and women of the same race, it wont make a difference that youve defined it that way to the supreme court. if you define it as one between a man and woman of the same religion, it wont matter to them either. to them, all is relative to the constitution; if they find it conflicts with the constitution, they wont allow it.

no one can marry avocados right now. youre talking about rights no one has. right now, men can marry women–thats a reality right now, so women need to have that same right for things to be equal. if a citizen was given the right to marry an avocado, then you could make a case for it being a civil right to marry an avocado, but not before then.

did the relevant laws define marriage as “one between men and women of the same race”, or just forbid marriages from occurring between races? (If you say they did define marriage as such, please provide the relevant citation) Yes, the distinction I just raised does matter.

And besides, the US Constitution, (or the Federal or State governments, for that matter) does not create rights, it only protects such rights as exist. If you claim that the constitution does create rights (whether arbitrarily or not) please provide the relevant citation.)

I pass over #42 and #45, because they have no bearing on the development of this argument, for or against it.

In #49 you said:

razredge, its not so much about definitions or whether something is superficial. denying rights based on superficial criteria isnt a problem if its compatible with the us constitution.

But, do you understand, that our whole problem with your statements and line of reasoning, is that you have not demonstrated that SSM is a “right” and are only assuming it is, (which the rest of us do not)?

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Continuing again:

In #51 you wrote

youre free to believe that, but im confident that the scotus will disagree with you.

which can only be taken as another meaningless assertion. What grounds do you have for believing that SCOTUS will support your position?

#53

theres no problem from my perspective. i dont know of any laws against men giving birth. if men could give birth, the state probably would not stop them. its not so much about what people can do, but what the government cannot.

That’s because men giving birth is a biological impossibility (putting aside science-fiction tales of genetic or medical enhancement to allow such. Such was the case in an early episode of the series Sliders as I recall, when Remy gave birth (of course the baby was transplanted into him after conception for various reasons, but that’s neither here nor there)

And, your last statement is true, but one of the things government cannot do is create a right where no right exists, government defends and protects those rights that do exist. And SSM being a right is our fundamental disagreement with you, which you apparently are refusing to confront.

#55, #60 again has no positive or negative bearing on my argument so is passed over.

#63

jeremiah, if the state prevents all citizens under 21 from purchasing alcohol, then that is equal, and so, not a violation of equal protection. the overall discussion of marriage rights would be very different if all citizens that did not produce offspring were denied a civil marriage.

exnihilo, “same gender” is unqualified. once you qualify that with a specific sex, the statement becomes false. citizens marry women, and citizens marry men. your same approach could be used for bans on interracial marriage too, but it wont hold up in court.

but male citizens and female citizens are different. Maleness is not Femaleness. See below on complementarity.

#65

not in my opinion. as is written in the constitution, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” i look at equal protections as they pertain to individuals, not pairs or groups. you can support any kind of marriage you want (self, avocado, etc.), but theyre not civil rights–i try to keep my arguments in a civil rights context. when i mention court, i mean the scotus. sorry for being unclear.

edit: actually, marrying yourself could be a civil right, as i alluded to before. but i dont know how you would distinguish someone who is married to themselves from someone who is not.

Regarding equal application of law and equality under the law: gays and lesbians are equal under the law. They can marry. Marriage is defined and understood as between a man and a woman. They are not discriminated against. The burden of proof is on you to show why marriage must be understood to include two persons of the same gender. Marriage is about complimentarity. Two persons of the same gender do not give such complimentarity.

Finally, #81

i believe only allowing men to marry women is incompatible with equal protections, so, defining marriage in the constitution would not redress that discrepancy; i think you would have to get rid of equal protections altogether. i dont conflate the equal application of laws with the equal protection of the laws.

Interestingly enough, all the sources I have looked up in researching equal application of laws and equal protection of the laws do just that: conflate the two. In other words…equal protection of the laws requires euqal application. the EP cluse provides for equal application of the laws not for equality among persons.

But, again, thank you for your participation. It has at least allowed me to sharpen my understanding of the issues, and the fundamental importance of definition as regards to marriage.

 

[razredge]

It really seems that Hazmat’s argument is is all bluster with no actual content.

 

[hazmat]

anglicanformary, e.g., you can marry someone who is of the opposite sex and your same race. that can be equally applied by the state, but it would be viewed as racist. in the case of gay marriage, it is sex instead of race. to me, it has nothing to do with how you write the law/define the union, what your tradition/religion is, or what biological function you mean to promote–if the government is involved, it should not treat citizens differently.

“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

[John21652]

anglicanformary, e.g., you can marry someone who is of the opposite sex and your same race. that can be equally applied by the state, but it would be viewed as racist. in the case of gay marriage, it is sex instead of race. to me, it has nothing to do with how you write the law/define the union, what your tradition/religion is, or what biological function you mean to promote–if the government is involved, it should not treat citizens differently.

“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Your argument keeps failing because it is the role of government to treat citizens differently. There are examples of how citizens are placed into different categories by governments woven right through every society on earth and every society that has ever existed. It is impossible for governments to do otherwise. If you wish governments to not discriminate on the grounds of race, or sex, saying biological function is not a ground for discrimination, then it is equally valid to ask them not to discriminate on the grounds of species. Your reasoning results in ludicrous consequences.

 

[Lilsheep88]

interesting thread… just posted about this too… im gona do some reading

 

[hazmat]

Your argument keeps failing because it is the role of government to treat citizens differently. There are examples of how citizens are placed into different categories by governments woven right through every society on earth and every society that has ever existed. It is impossible for governments to do otherwise. If you wish governments to not discriminate on the grounds of race, or sex, saying biological function is not a ground for discrimination, then it is equally valid to ask them not to discriminate on the grounds of species. Your reasoning results in ludicrous consequences.

equality under the law is per the constitution. thats why you guys have a hard time against gay marriage even if you get the votes. and when gay marriage is legal everywhere, you guys will probably still be left scratching your heads, indignant. citizens are persons born or naturalized in the usa; youd have to qualify members of other species as persons to make that case.