Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[JimG]

Well, there is something to be said for Peter Plato’s argument. There is currently no discrimination in marriage laws. Persons who self-identify as gay have the exact same right as everyone else to marry, under the exact same conditions. It is just that they prefer to discriminate against the opposite sex when selecting a partner, and it is this discrimination which they would like written into law.

 

[Lokadottir]

Well, there is something to be said for Peter Plato’s argument. There is currently no discrimination in marriage laws. Persons who self-identify as gay have the exact same right as everyone else to marry, under the exact same conditions. It is just that they prefer to discriminate against the opposite sex when selecting a partner, and it is this discrimination which they would like written into law.

You DO realize they aren’t trying to ban heterosexual marriages right?

 

[JimG]

You DO realize they aren’t trying to ban heterosexual marriages right?

Of course not; they merely wish the ability to discriminate against one sex in the choice of a partner. That has the effect of incorporating the opposite of marriage under the term “marriage.” Over the long term, intended or not, it will have the effect of making the term meaningless and marriage irrelevant.

 

[Lokadottir]

Of course not; they merely wish the ability to discriminate against one sex in the choice of a partner. That has the effect of incorporating the opposite of marriage under the term “marriage.” Over the long term, intended or not, it will have the effect of making the term meaningless and marriage irrelevant.

Just like when they made it illegal to marry off 13 year olds right? Or when love became predominant in marriage? How about when interracial marriages were legalized?
It’s the same song just a different verse.

 

[JimG]

Man and woman are sexually complementary. Marital relations often result in children. Children are necessary to the continuance of civilization. Children are dependent on parents for a number of years. Children do best when raised by their mother and father. Society benefits. Civilization benefits. The institution of marriage is a natural consequence of those basic facts of human nature.

This has all been pretty much self-evident since the dawn of civilization.

And yet people now seem to have much trouble discerning a reason for maintaining the institution of marriage as between sexually complementary persons—i.e., persons of the opposite sex. Why is this? I think it has something to do with the fact that for the last half-century, many societies have as a matter of policy, been busily de-linking children from marriage. That seems non-sensical, since the institution as a whole has historically been linked to the generation of children and the building of families.

But since the sexual revolution, we have pretty much de-linked sex from marriage and de-linked marriage from children. That has led to depopulation, abortion, fatherless families, poverty and a host of social ills. And it has made the idea of same sex marriage conceivable.

Certainly we can continue with the deconstruction of marriage and family, but civilization will be the worse for it, as will families and individuals and the economy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That would be like saying I’m discriminating against males because I’m straight or against horses because I’m not into beastiality? I think this is more “little man syndrome” than anything else. Take any minority group - they all desire something the majority has. The minority will always try to be equal or superior to the majority. It is a power play on the part of gay activist to obtain a union that is equal to a hetero marriage. The Church definition is only important to God and those who obey him. The lost don’t care what you or I or God thinks.

No, actually because gay individuals are treating an arbitrary response (personal distaste) as crucially important in determining their position relative to an important moral issue (their role in reproduction) and the objective means by which reproduction occurs. They have an emotional bias which renders them “incapable” of viewing reproduction and marriage objectively.

This emotional bias is precisely the same kind of bias (irrational emotional abhorrence) that makes a racist treat an unimportant feature (skin colour) as if it were important. The SSM advocate wants everyone to treat an unimportant feature (irrational emotional abhorrence) as if it were important. The bias is from the other side, but a bias, nonetheless.

The prejudice on the part of gay individuals is that they are treating an irrelevant and irrational emotional abhorrence as if it were an important consideration in making a decision about something as important as creating new human life. They are allowing an irrational emotional abhorrence to dictate their entire view concerning marriage and the creation of their own potential offspring.

It is no less discriminatory than the racist who uses HIS irrational emotional abhorrence to justify treating an irrelevant feature (skin colour) as if it were relevant. Here we have SSM advocates using their irrational emotional abhorrence to justify treating relevant features (fecundity, for one) as if they were irrelevant.

Not only that, but they are demanding that everyone else determine our views on marriage based solely upon their emotional abhorrence. This is patently LIKE a racist expecting every other person in the neighborhood to side with him merely because of his emotional abhorrence.

The reasonable approach to marriage is that children are fathered and mothered by a well defined process of a loving commitment between complimentary gendered individuals who love and care for each other and have the wherewithal to parent and cherish their own offspring and each other, at least, until such offspring are capable of looking after themselves. That entails a reasoned assessment of whether, as an individual, one is capable of that level of sustained commitment.

That is the normative requirement for a “marriage.”

It is quite reasonable for someone to refrain from being married because they find themselves lacking in the “requirements” department. That is the eminently rational approach.

However, for a same sex attracted individual to claim that their irrational personal abhorrence to one of the necessary qualifications (sufficient romantic love for a person of the complimentary gender) is a reason to change the entire structure of marriage is on par with a racist who insists all irrelevancies about skin colour should become important legal issues merely because he has an irrational personal abhorrence to other colours of skin.

The gay marriage advocate is precisely claiming that his personal irrational abhorrence is sufficient to create an important moral distinction in terms of who should be allowed to marry merely because of his personal distaste for engaging sexually with others of the opposite sex.

Traditional marriage advocates do NOT claim it is their “personal preference” that dictates what a marriage ought to entail, it is the objective biological facts concerning the nature of complimentary sexuality that undeniably leads to the creation of new life that do. This has nothing to do with “personal preference,” it is simply the “way it is” as biological reality.

Why should personal distastes control an entire paradigm? Personal distastes concerning skin colour do not justify institutionalizing prejudice merely because some find other skin colours personally distasteful. Why should basically the same argument dictate how everyone else should view marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

I am going to repost this argument against same sex marriage because I do think it is a strong argument against redefinition of marriage precisely because it is “gay” individuals who are the ones doing the actual discrimination and the prejudices of one group ought not receive state sanction.

No one commented on it when it was first posted, but I would like to hear any possible rebuttals.

I don’t see it as an argument against “same sex marriage” as must as it suggests it might not be a civil rights problem.

This is far more like claiming blacks against segregation were discriminating against whites! Not true! They just wanted to sit at the same d*mn counter!!!

Blacks and their supporters were trying to repeal laws that banned them from the counter; they were not trying to pass laws that declared them to be white, so they could sit at the counter.

 

[Lokadottir]

No, actually because gay individuals are treating an arbitrary response (personal distaste) as crucially important in determining their position relative to an important moral issue (their role in reproduction) and the objective means by which reproduction occurs. They have an emotional bias which renders them “incapable” of viewing reproduction and marriage objectively.

ok I know how you love philosophy so thought experiment time! Let’s pretend for a second it takes two of the same gender to procreate. Now I’m assuming you have an SO of the OS. You love them with all your soul and want to marry them so you can share everything and if you go into a serious surgery they can be there with you. But people keep saying thats WRONG. Would that really matter to you?
Here’s the thing the USA is a secular nation by its very constitution. Legal marriages are therefore secular. For most secular people a secular marriage is about LOVE not BABIES. Catholic marriages can stay with the babies, but that concept is not in universal agreement.

 

[Stephen168]

No, actually because gay individuals are treating an arbitrary response (personal distaste) as crucially important in determining their position relative to an important moral issue (their role in reproduction) and the objective means by which reproduction occurs. They have an emotional bias which renders them “incapable” of viewing reproduction and marriage objectively.
This emotional bias is precisely the same kind of bias (irrational emotional abhorrence) that makes a racist treat an unimportant feature (skin colour) as if it were important. The SSM advocate wants everyone to treat an unimportant feature (irrational emotional abhorrence) as if it were important. The bias is from the other side, but a bias, nonetheless.
The prejudice on the part of gay individuals is that they are treating an irrelevant and irrational emotional abhorrence as if it were an important consideration in making a decision about something as important as creating new human life. They are allowing an irrational emotional abhorrence to dictate their entire view concerning marriage and the creation of their own potential offspring.
It is no less discriminatory than the racist who uses HIS irrational emotional abhorrence to justify treating an irrelevant feature (skin colour) as if it were relevant. Here we have SSM advocates using their irrational emotional abhorrence to justify treating relevant features (fecundity, for one) as if they were irrelevant.
Not only that, but they are demanding that everyone else determine our views on marriage based solely upon their emotional abhorrence. This is patently LIKE a racist expecting every other person in the neighborhood to side with him merely because of his emotional abhorrence.

I’m not sure about the “skin color” analogy, but I think it fits in another way. When the supporters of “same sex marriage” claim

marriage is about LOVE not BABIES

Then we ask if that includes, siblings, children or maybe polygamy. The response is usually based on an irrational personal abhorrence.

 

[Lokadottir]

I’m not sure about the “skin color” analogy, but I think it fits in another way. When the supporters of “same sex marriage” claim Then we ask if that includes, siblings, children or maybe polygamy. The response is usually based on an irrational personal abhorrence.

Children cannot give legal consent so no. Siblings eh not likely. And polygamy why not I have two boyfriends myself (yes they know about eachother)

 

[Stephen168]

Children cannot give legal consent so no. Siblings eh not likely. And polygamy why not I have two boyfriends myself (yes they know about eachother)

As I predicted

 

[Lokadottir]

As I predicted

what did you predict?

 

[Rau]

For most secular people a secular marriage is about LOVE not BABIES.

By our design, the latter is a fruit of the former, and is important to society, and for this reason, all heterosexual unions (fertile or not) are special. Society has indeed lost track of why it recognises heterosexual unions through the special institution of marriage. “Love” itself is not particularly significant to the State, except when it’s of the kind that builds families. Same sex unions as a whole are not significant to the State.

You are right that society is forgetting why it has historically chosen to recognises marriages, and once 50% have forgotten/been deluded/change their mind, gay marriage will be widely legalised.

 

[Lokadottir]

By our design, the latter is a fruit of the former, and is important to society, and for this reason, all heterosexual unions (fertile or not) are special. Society has indeed lost track of why it recognises heterosexual unions through the special institution of marriage. “Love” itself is not particularly significant to the State, except when it’s of the kind that builds families. Same sex unions as a whole are not significant to the State.

You are right that society is forgetting why it has historically chosen to recognises marriages, and once 50% have forgotten/been deluded/change their mind, gay marriage will be widely legalised.

I’m bailing from this thread before I become sick.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It seems to me that the State’s primary interest in marriage has to be that as an institution, it will help to ensure the next generation of citizens. The propagation and education of the next generation is something that the state must take an interest in.

This is an assertion that has been largely taken for granted, but it has not been sufficiently or convincingly argued. Considering the history of marriage, it’s pretty clear that children have not (until very recently, that is), been seen as an end of marriage but were instead viewed as a means of securing some other benefit or good. Marriage was not so much done for procreative purposes as for real-estate/property purposes or political/diplomatic purposes. Children were a means for helping to secure some of those purposes (particularly where dynastic concerns were at play), but not ends in themselves.

Moreover, marriage need not exist in order to ensure that there be a next generation of citizens–people can procreate very well without it. Producing a legitimate heir in marriage, though, is helpful to managing your property/legacy. Also, citizenship is not a direct function of marriage–i.e., the state need not require that a child’s biological parents be married, or that they raise the child themselves in order to produce competent citizens. There have been cultures in which the state raised children after a certain age (see the agoge system in Sparta), and many cultures in which a system of fosterage was practiced. Even among the more well-to-do today, it is still common for nannies and nurses to actually bear the brunt of raising a child until they’re old enough for boarding school.

This notion that “society” has determined since time immemorial that marriage is* for* children and their raising is not quite borne out by history. It is more the case that marriage (and children, should they be produced) are variously instrumental to a variety of social purposes which more often than not boil down to a fundamental social/communal good: strengthening ties between families. We’ve largely lost a sense of the social importance of marriage in this regard largely because of issues of geographical mobility–families are broken up over large distances these days in ways relatively unthinkable to generations 100 or 200 or so years before us. But the family-tie-making social importance of marriage still has its echoes, most specifically in the custom of calling a spouse’s parents and siblings your father or mother or brother or sister in law. Marriage (viewed as a purely social institution) continues to be a unique and special way to create socially useful bonds between families…and same-sex marriage also accomplishes this end regardless of whether or not children are involved.

The state’s interest in marriage is not about children–it’s about real estate, it’s about other forms of property, it’s about taxes, it’s about contracts, it’s about politics, alliances and influence. The notion that the state is concerned about marriage for the sake of the children is a very dewy-eyed, a-historical and relatively Western middle-class notion not only of marriage, but of the State. It’s wishful thinking.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Grace & Peace!

This is an assertion that has been largely taken for granted, but it has not been sufficiently or convincingly argued. Considering the history of marriage, it’s pretty clear that children have not (until very recently, that is), been seen as an end of marriage but were instead viewed as a means of securing some other benefit or good. Marriage was not so much done for procreative purposes as for real-estate/property purposes or political/diplomatic purposes. Children were a means for helping to secure some of those purposes (particularly where dynastic concerns were at play), but not ends in themselves.

Moreover, marriage need not exist in order to ensure that there be a next generation of citizens–people can procreate very well without it. Producing a legitimate heir in marriage, though, is helpful to managing your property/legacy. Also, citizenship is not a direct function of marriage–i.e., the state need not require that a child’s biological parents be married, or that they raise the child themselves in order to produce competent citizens. There have been cultures in which the state raised children after a certain age (see the agoge system in Sparta), and many cultures in which a system of fosterage was practiced. Even among the more well-to-do today, it is still common for nannies and nurses to actually bear the brunt of raising a child until they’re old enough for boarding school.

This notion that “society” has determined since time immemorial that marriage is* for* children and their raising is not quite borne out by history. It is more the case that marriage (and children, should they be produced) are variously instrumental to a variety of social purposes which more often than not boil down to a fundamental social/communal good: strengthening ties between families. We’ve largely lost a sense of the social importance of marriage in this regard largely because of issues of geographical mobility–families are broken up over large distances these days in ways relatively unthinkable to generations 100 or 200 or so years before us. But the family-tie-making social importance of marriage still has its echoes, most specifically in the custom of calling a spouse’s parents and siblings your father or mother or brother or sister in law. Marriage (viewed as a purely social institution) continues to be a unique and special way to create socially useful bonds between families…and same-sex marriage also accomplishes this end regardless of whether or not children are involved.

The state’s interest in marriage is not about children–it’s about real estate, it’s about other forms of property, it’s about taxes, it’s about contracts, it’s about politics, alliances and influence. The notion that the state is concerned about marriage for the sake of the children is a very dewy-eyed, a-historical and relatively Western middle-class notion not only of marriage, but of the State. It’s wishful thinking.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

This is a rather cynical and skewed view that is only borne out if a great deal of the historical evidence is simply ignored and not taken into account.

It is merely a claim that you think X is true concerning marriage because Evidence Y exists to demonstrate it. The problem is that you ignore Evidence A, B, C, D, E and F which presents a more compelling view to yours.

Even if it were true that your cynical view concerning marriage accurately depicts how political states view marriage, that does not mean the vast majority of human beings who undertake to marry do so for the very same reasons as the state does to legally control it.

 

[Rau]

Grace & Peace!

This is an assertion that has been largely taken for granted, but it has not been sufficiently or convincingly argued. Considering the history of marriage, it’s pretty clear that children have not (until very recently, that is), been seen as an end of marriage but were instead viewed as a means of securing some other benefit or good. Marriage was not so much done for procreative purposes as for real-estate/property purposes or political/diplomatic purposes. Children were a means for helping to secure some of those purposes (particularly where dynastic concerns were at play), but not ends in themselves.

Moreover, marriage need not exist in order to ensure that there be a next generation of citizens–people can procreate very well without it. Producing a legitimate heir in marriage, though, is helpful to managing your property/legacy. Also, citizenship is not a direct function of marriage–i.e., the state need not require that a child’s biological parents be married, or that they raise the child themselves in order to produce competent citizens. There have been cultures in which the state raised children after a certain age (see the agoge system in Sparta), and many cultures in which a system of fosterage was practiced. Even among the more well-to-do today, it is still common for nannies and nurses to actually bear the brunt of raising a child until they’re old enough for boarding school.

This notion that “society” has determined since time immemorial that marriage is* for* children and their raising is not quite borne out by history. It is more the case that marriage (and children, should they be produced) are variously instrumental to a variety of social purposes which more often than not boil down to a fundamental social/communal good: strengthening ties between families. We’ve largely lost a sense of the social importance of marriage in this regard largely because of issues of geographical mobility–families are broken up over large distances these days in ways relatively unthinkable to generations 100 or 200 or so years before us. But the family-tie-making social importance of marriage still has its echoes, most specifically in the custom of calling a spouse’s parents and siblings your father or mother or brother or sister in law. Marriage (viewed as a purely social institution) continues to be a unique and special way to create socially useful bonds between families…and same-sex marriage also accomplishes this end regardless of whether or not children are involved.

The state’s interest in marriage is not about children–it’s about real estate, it’s about other forms of property, it’s about taxes, it’s about contracts, it’s about politics, alliances and influence. The notion that the state is concerned about marriage for the sake of the children is a very dewy-eyed, a-historical and relatively Western middle-class notion not only of marriage, but of the State. It’s wishful thinking.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

At least you’ve confirmed that the State’s interest is not in the even more “dewy-eyed” notion of Love!

 

[JimG]

The state’s interest in marriage is not about children–it’s about real estate, it’s about other forms of property, it’s about taxes, it’s about contracts, it’s about politics, alliances and influence. The notion that the state is concerned about marriage for the sake of the children is a very dewy-eyed, a-historical and relatively Western middle-class notion not only of marriage, but of the State. It’s wishful thinking.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Well, real estate will always be there, whether there are people or not. Taxes, politics, and alliances require a next generation and the continuance of civilization. I find it hard to believe that the state has no interest in whether or not children are born, or whether they are raised well by families or become burdens of the state.

Even now, some European nations are having to incentivize the procreation of children due to the low fertility rate brought on by a widespread contraceptive mentality.

If children are of no benefit to the state, fine, we won’t worry about whether civilization continues or not. But if children are important, then families must be important as well.

Carl Zimmerman did a comprehensive study of family and civilization and offered a historical overview in a book of the same name (“Family and Civilization.”) What he found was that when families reach an advanced state of disintegration, so does the civilization of which they form the basis.

A more recent study of the effects of modes of sexual instability on family structure can be found in Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill” recounting the widespread adverse social disintegration resulting from the sexual revolution.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see it as an argument against “same sex marriage” as must as it suggests it might not be a civil rights problem.

Blacks and their supporters were trying to repeal laws that banned them from the counter; they were not trying to pass laws that declared them to be white, so they could sit at the counter.

I am not claiming that it is an argument against same sex behaviour because it isn’t. that would be a matter of personal preference.

My argument is that a personal emotional abhorrence ought not dictate how objective reality is to be viewed.

There is an objective means by which children are brought into the world and cared for in a long term and responsible way. That institution is what is referred to as marriage. That some individuals have a personal distaste for the requirements is not a sufficient reason for amending them.

That some individuals have a personal distaste for other races is not a sufficient reason for changing laws protecting the rights of individuals of those races. Likewise, that some individuals have a personal distaste for persons of the opposite gender should not suffice to alter laws concerning marriage.

 

[DrTaffy]

I thought I already answered that one for you.

Nope - responding to a question is not the same as answering it.

You have responded by answering other questions, such as when you responded to a question about how you decided which beliefs of yours should apply to others by saying that it was none of my business what beliefs you held which did not apply to others. Not what I had asked.

Or, as here, you respond with what appears to be a popular stonewall response that the democratic process either will be or has been followed and so you have no need to justify or explain your position. Yet this maxim seems not to hold when others’ opinions are applied to you via the democratic process, as seen in the case of the Colorado baker or the Catholic schools being required to inform students about contraception.

Either the majority (or even a vocal minority) always has the right to impose its will on others, willy nilly, in which case this applies even to liberals, or they have a duty to consider whether or not their beliefs should be imposed on others, even if they have the ability to do so, in which case this applies even to you.

You have one view on marriage, Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews and others (including me) have another. The obvious and normal approach in such situations is for the State to remain neutral, allowing Catholics to implement their restrictive definition of marriage and others to implement a more liberal one, while the State recognises both. As is done with divorcees who want to remarry, or with religions recognising female priests.

So, to rephrase the question yet again:
If an impartial Judge were ruling on this, what argument could you possibly offer him to justify him imposing your beliefs on others, rather than the impartial solution offered above?
Justifying why you believe what you do is clearly not sufficient, unless you can, for example, show objective proof that your position is not just valid, but true. Or show that the only reasonable accomodation between your beliefs and those of the liberals was for them to be forced to follow your definition of marriage.

If you reality think that gay people should be given the benefit of marriage just because some of them end up taking care of children, then why not give equivalent benefits to single caregivers of children? And why not limit gay marriage to only those couples who actually do take care of children? You see, the problem you posed cuts both ways.

Your conclusion that only couples who actually are raising children should be considered ‘married’ is indeed the obvious end result of your claim that marriage is all about producing the next generation. That is one reason why I reject it. But nothing in this poses a problem for my point of view.