Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why gay-marriage should be illegal

[holy_wood]

Cutting straight to the chase because I have to go to work.

Marriage promotes a stable society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones

Marriage promotes a stable society by providing the best environment for successful families (families are the fundamental unit of society)

Marriage provides an efficient and tested social structure in which to bring up children. Research demonstrates that same-sex parenting works as well as heterosexual parenting.

Marriage reduces state spending on benefits
Broken relationships are the cause of much state benefit spending and the partner in a same-sex marriage will provide an unpaid carer in the event of sickness or injury

Marriage promotes happiness
Happier people contribute more to society, and cost less

Marriage promotes health; married people are healthier than unmarried people; marriage reduces promiscuity and cuts the risk of AIDS transmission between gay men; better health reduces the costs of providing healthcare. (If this is false please provide your resource)

Marriage binds the partners into a single unit for third party dealings

The legalisation of same-sex marriage will be a powerful force for removing the remaining stigma faced by homosexuals
This may enable homosexuals to be more productive; it may reduce the cost to society of dealing with discrimination and hate crimes directed at homosexuals. (If this is false please provide your resource)

s/samesexmarriage/for_1.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/ethic

 

[Wirraway]

if I were going to advance non-religious arguments for gay marriage, I’d point out:

civil marriage is a default arrangement of property rights, inheritance formulas and personal rights between couples and between couples and society. with a few exceptions, gays can achieve the same thing by using contract, property and probate law, for example, instead of community property, a gay couple can set up a joint tenancy (this is just a quick example, don’t anyone get lawyered up about this). therefore, denying gays the full measure of civil marriage is a petty indignity, yet, like any other form of discrimination, it is invidious.

 

[rpp]

Because we should not enthrone into law a twisting of the clear purpose of human sexuality (reproduction). In addition, the law is about helping people and protecting people. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and we should treat those who suffer from it, not encourage them.

 

[Wirraway]

Because we should not enthrone into law a twisting of the clear purpose of human sexuality (reproduction). In addition, the law is about helping people and protecting people. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and we should treat those who suffer from it, not encourage them.

so you’re saying the law should not allow gays to hold title as joint tenants? or that sexual preference should be a bar to inheriting property?

you’d wreck society trying to save it.

 

[RobbyS]

if I were going to advance non-religious arguments for gay marriage, I’d point out:

civil marriage is a default arrangement of property rights, inheritance formulas and personal rights between couples and between couples and society. with a few exceptions, gays can achieve the same thing by using contract, property and probate law, for example, instead of community property, a gay couple can set up a joint tenancy (this is just a quick example, don’t anyone get lawyered up about this). therefore, denying gays the full measure of civil marriage is a petty indignity, yet, like any other form of discrimination, it is invidious.

Discrimination is one purpose of law. One should always dicriminated between men and women, for instance, because the natural differences are profound. Certainly the Olympics discriminated between men and women; they even test women athletes to determined if they are actually women. The reason is that in most sports, men have superior abilities by reason of the design of their physiques. If runners were selected sumply by their abilities, few women could make the cut.

Now as for gay marriage, it goes against the whole development of marriage law over a millenium. That law centered on the fact of reproduction, and even where there was no issue, on account of age or sterility, the rights of each partner remain intact. Custom may allow adultery, but in law, each partner is assumed to be faithful to the other, subject to penalty for transgressions. Thus adultery is a ground for divorce, largely because it violates the exclusive right --the mutual right–of the partners to
limit inheritance to the children of both. Gay sex shares only certain aspects with normal sex, since its primary purpose is sexual pleasure–if we define that broadly.

 

[RobbyS]

so you’re saying the law should not allow gays to hold title as joint tenants? or that sexual preference should be a bar to inheriting property?

you’d wreck society trying to save it.

I agree that homsexuality is a mental disorder but it is not insanity. So it is not an impediment to joint ownership of property.

 

[Wirraway]

Discrimination is one purpose of law. One should always dicriminated between men and women, for instance, because the natural differences are profound. Certainly the Olympics discriminated between men and women; they even test women athletes to determined if they are actually women. The reason is that in most sports, men have superior abilities by reason of the design of their physiques. If runners were selected sumply by their abilities, few women could make the cut.

Now as for gay marriage, it goes against the whole development of marriage law over a millenium. That law centered on the fact of reproduction, and even where there was no issue, on account of age or sterility, the rights of each partner remain intact. Custom may allow adultery, but in law, each partner is assumed to be faithful to the other, subject to penalty for transgressions. Thus adultery is a ground for divorce, largely because it violates the exclusive right --the mutual right–of the partners to
limit inheritance to the children of both. Gay sex shares only certain aspects with normal sex, since its primary purpose is sexual pleasure–if we define that broadly.

sexual preference is more or less a protected class though. you wouldn’t want gays to be fired or denied house for no other reason that they’re gay, right?

regarding the family aspect of marriage, of course you are right, my point was that marriage is (and I might argue, for most of history has been) an economic arrangement between individuals and between the couple and the state. so to that extent, because gays can already achieve most things that married couples do by law, the laws that prevent full economic equality can appear pointless and petty.

 

[blessedtoo]

If you seriously want a “rational, non-religious argument” then do a bit of research. All your questions can be answered here:
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812

And David is a lib!

 

[LilyM]

For one thing, in those European countries where gay ‘marriages’ have been legal for quite a few years, statistics are that gay ‘marriages’ break down at a much much higher rate (50% greater likelihood of breakdown at last count) that heterosexual ones, so to say that it promotes stability is a furphy at least, it renders marriage as a whole a LESS stable institution.

 

[fix]

Marriage promotes a stable society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones

Marriage promotes a stable society by providing the best environment for successful families (families are the fundamental unit of society)

I would say marriage is a natural institution. It is not some thing concoted by some government. It is between one man and one woman. It is consistent with the natural law and common sense.

Marriage provides an efficient and tested social structure in which to bring up children. Research demonstrates that same-sex parenting works as well as heterosexual parenting.

Research demonstrates same sex parents are detrimental. Common sense demonstrates it is detrimental. The moral law demonstrates it is deterimental.

Marriage reduces state spending on benefits
Broken relationships are the cause of much state benefit spending and the partner in a same-sex marriage will provide an unpaid carer in the event of sickness or injury

Marriage is not necessary for the reasons stated here. There are other remedies.

Marriage promotes happiness
Happier people contribute more to society, and cost less

True marriage promotes happiness. Faux marriage does not promote happiness. People can be decieved. People can cope. But that is not real hapiness.

Marriage promotes health; married people are healthier than unmarried people; marriage reduces promiscuity and cuts the risk of AIDS transmission between gay men; better health reduces the costs of providing healthcare. (If this is false please provide your resource)

Good health is not the result of marriage. The purpose of marriage is not to promote physical wellness. Marriage is not a insurance statistic used to fabricate social policy.

Marriage binds the partners into a single unit for third party dealings

Marriage is not about legal constructs as an end unto themselves.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage will be a powerful force for removing the remaining stigma faced by homosexuals

You mean desensitizing the population to homosexual acts.

This may enable homosexuals to be more productive; it may reduce the cost to society of dealing with discrimination and hate crimes directed at homosexuals. (If this is false please provide your resource)

A prouctive citizen is one who contributes to society. If people are real victims that can be addressed through the law. If they are not real victims then that may be addressed through discussing these issues in the public arena, not be using law as a cudgel to force the acceptance of vice.

 

[Pantheist]

For one thing, in those European countries where gay ‘marriages’ have been legal for quite a few years, statistics are that gay ‘marriages’ break down at a much much higher rate (50% greater likelihood of breakdown at last count) that heterosexual ones, so to say that it promotes stability is a furphy at least, it renders marriage as a whole a LESS stable institution.

This I think is the strongest argument (as a non-Christian who sees nothing obviously and intrinsically wrong with gay unions) that I have found against the idea of gay unions. Legalization however need not always favor the best course of action, but may allow for many courses of action, when human freedom is a greater good than the best thing (as the case where, if Catholicism were true, few would still advocate forcing everyone to be Catholic).

So why would this argument lead one to accept that gay unions (marriage, if you wish) should be illegal, from a secular (even non-theistic) standpoint?

Also, from a secular standpoint, is divorce always a bad thing?

 

[wynnejj]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

According to this article about the UK experience, despite gay civil unions, unsafe sex “more and more” is the norm, not the exception. Before and after legalized gay marriages: Business as usual.

 

[Scottgun]

Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why marrying your pet should be illegal. Stop being anti-animal speciesists.

 

[Jack_245814]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman; that’s the way it always has been throughout history and in every human society for which we have reliable information on the matter. The government shouldn’t be involved with marriage whatsoever if you ask me, but if they must, shouldn’t they preserve the institution as it is?

Civil unions are one thing, but marriage is a religious matter, not a civil one. If gays want the financial benefits of civil marriage, fine, they can knock themselves out, just don’t call it marriage!

“If it’s not necessary to change it’s necessary not to change.”
–Viscount Falkland

 

[fix]

Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why marrying your pet should be illegal.

Studies show marrying your pet lowers blood pressure. Studies show people who marry their pets are happier. On and on…

 

[Pantheist]

Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why marrying your pet should be illegal. Stop being anti-animal speciesists.

For any rational argument, we must begin with a definition, or definitions, go to axioms, and then conclusions.

An example argument for marriage of pets to humans being legal:

Marriage - Natural or Sacramental contract between a man and a woman, necessarily under the authority of God and rightly under the Catholic Church, intended to last until death, for the purpose of the union of the two and for procreation.

Argument: If marriage is necessarily under God, then God should make the laws, and not necessarily men, and so there need be no laws, by this argument, from the government either supporting or prohibiting marriage of people to pets or any other sort of animal or thing. If God made the law, then let God support it.

---

But this argument falls apart if we understand that the purpose of law is for the protection and well-being of others, especially as regards to their freedom. As pets cannot consent to marriage, if it is decided that they should have some protection to their freedom and well-being, they should not be able to be married off. If consent could be established, that would be a different matter.

 

[Scottgun]

For any rational argument, we must begin with a definition, or definitions, go to axioms, and then conclusions.

But this argument falls apart if we understand that the purpose of law is for the protection and well-being of others, especially as regards to their freedom. As pets cannot consent to marriage, if it is decided that they should have some protection to their freedom and well-being, they should not be able to be married off. If consent could be established, that would be a different matter.

Not if the idea of consent is an arbitrary societal construct.

 

[fix]

As pets cannot consent to marriage, if it is decided that they should have some protection to their freedom and well-being, they should not be able to be married off. If consent could be established, that would be a different matter.

Can pets consent to be pets?

 

[Pantheist]

Not if the idea of consent is an arbitrary societal construct.

If we presume that it is, then in a place where that social construct is not established, it would logically be legal for humans to marry their pets. But that is of course the case. Where there are no laws, everything is legal.

We exist in a place that upholds the value of human freedom, to a lesser extent the value of freedom for other animals, and so upholds the importance of consent.

But we are primarily talking about what I think (and others think) should be, and not necessarily what is, or what is possible.

The state should not have the power to decide upon marriage, as it is intrinsically a religious term, and as such if people want to declare that they are married to their dogs, let God deal with it.

The state should have power to preside over social contracts, and contracts should be between two properly consenting people. So social contracts between any two or more properly consenting people should be acceptable, so long as the contract itself respects existing law.

The state should also have the power to protect those whose freedom is violated, who cannot rightly consent but are made to participate in activities that require or should require proper consent. So sex between adults and children and maybe between adults and dogs should be illegal (as dogs are a possible food source, and killing them cannot be better than having sex with them, I am not certain having sex with a dog should be necessarily illegal).

 

[Newbie2]

For one thing, in those European countries where gay ‘marriages’ have been legal for quite a few years, statistics are that gay ‘marriages’ break down at a much much higher rate (50% greater likelihood of breakdown at last count) that heterosexual ones, so to say that it promotes stability is a furphy at least, it renders marriage as a whole a LESS stable institution.

Heterosexual marriage rate failures are at about 50%, no? 50% greater would be 100%? or 50% of of 50%=25%, so “gay marriages” fail about 75% of the time?

Give me rational, non-religious arguments for why marrying your pet should be illegal. Stop being anti-animal speciesists.

Studies show marrying your pet lowers blood pressure. Studies show people who marry their pets are happier. On and on…

But it’s the human who’s always the unfaithful one in the relationship…