Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[timotheos]

The issue is that society allows a huge degree of dysfunction in families before intervening. Two loving homosexual parents in a stable relationship may or may not be ideal but is a step up for some adopted kids.

While it sounds obvious that homosexuality is unnatural it turns out to be really hard to prove (I’ve been on a thread that tried to do it, which has now gone over 1350 posts!).

Apart from medical and scientific evidence indicating that it may be natural after all, most systems of ethics, including some versions of natural law, don’t conclude that it is wrong in principle. I’ve only found one system that does - the (Aquinas) version of natural law that includes procreation in its catalog of goods. It turns out to be almost impossible to argue without scripture, and even then the scripture can be interpreted in different ways.

It’s a really frustrating piece of philosophy.

A number of countries have legalized homosexual marriage, including my own and Canada. They did so after a lot of heart searching and legal argument, so I’d say it would be all but impossible to make a case for negligence by the state.

Well, that was my one contribution to a possible non-religious argument. Sounds like there may not be one that stands up to scrutiny. What is confusing to me though is I can’t be sure what is the driving issue behind the gay marriage agenda.

For example, It doesn’t bother me if two gay people are attracted to each other, are friends with each other, decide to share a house together, or be lifelong buddies. If sexual expression was the ultimate point, you don’t need marriage for that; countless young couples these days have sex, and children, and seem to have no need for marriage. If it were just for legal housekeeping (eg. visitation rights in hospital), the emotions wouldn’t run so high, and civils unions may grant equivalent legal rights.

Is it acceptance? I can accept just about everything about gay relationships but the sexual part, acknowledging of course that everyone struggles with sin. Jack and Jill shacking up down the street don’t care about my “acceptance” of their relationship, so why should gay couples? Why is the gay marriage agenda so important to them? Is it that deep down they believe that the world will finally accept them as human beings worthy of dignity if they are allowed to marry?

To the best of my pondering, this last point seems most likely. And if this is what they are ultimately after, it is very, very sad indeed, because they are already worthy of dignity, under God, regardless of what society thinks. And as we Catholics already know, looking for acceptance from the world is a losing proposition.

And anyway, via infidelity, selfishness, divorce, prenups, contraception, abortion and porn, our worldly society has already put marriage in the toilet. We have been complacent in defense of marriage against these evils, and so the cry to defend marriage now against gay marriage rings a bit hollow. Just like in the days of Jeremiah, I think God is in the process of handing us over to our enemies. Slowly, surely, gay marriage is coming, but mostly because we allowed it to be destroyed first.

Thanks inocente, good discussion.

 

[ThomasToo]

If it were just for legal housekeeping (eg. visitation rights in hospital), the emotions wouldn’t run so high, and civils unions may grant equivalent legal rights.

Is it acceptance? I can accept just about everything about gay relationships but the sexual part, acknowledging of course that everyone struggles with sin. Jack and Jill shacking up down the street don’t care about my “acceptance” of their relationship, so why should gay couples? Why is the gay marriage agenda so important to them?

Three reasons:

1. Civil unions are a parallel system designed to make relationships that gay people have be of less value than those of straight people and is unprecedented in the discussion on marriage equality to date. No one proposed civil unions–nor expected them to be accepted–by a so-called mix-race couple. This claim was stipulated by supporters of Proposition 8 during the trial of Perry v. Swartzenager so it’s not as though this is a leftist lie.
2. Civil unions are not portable under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) so a couple that gets a civil union in Washington State–for example–and is in Alabama and one of them is critically hospitalized there is nothing legally preventing the hospital staff from kicking the healthy one out of his or her partner’s room. If, however, they are married there are clear legal boundaries that must be respected above basic compassion which should be operative in both cases.
3. As illustrated in (2), marriage confers numerous benefits on not only the state and local level but also on the federal level. Gay couple who had been joined under a civil union, for example, are not eligible for their partner’s Social Security as married couples are. A partner in a civil union is not required to be covered on their partner’s health insurance (even as an opt-in second part). Civilly unionized couples cannot file taxes jointly. The Family and Medical Leave Act would not apply to a person’s partner if they had a civil union and not a wedding. The list goes on (and on and on) but needless to say, civil unions aren’t even separate yet equal (as if that weren’t a rubric that should have fallen out of use fifty-six years ago.

 

[HappyRevert]

I think that it is a non-religious argument to say that the basis of all known societies has been marriage. Sometimes they have been polygamous or with polyandry, but it has been the public joining of a man and woman and their families together based on the expectation that children would result and would then be protected by the families involved. The key issue there has been always that children were expected and also that all involved had a responsibility to lend a hand in protecting the children. This has been the definition of marriage and such a bedrock of cultures that distinct language was not put into federal and state constitutions defining it as a man and a woman because to do otherwise would be unthinkable. That would be like needing to state the law of gravity in a constitution - it is not mentioned because everyone reading it already knows that gravity keeps objects attracted to earth.

I don’t think that premise can be disputed because I’ve never read of any culture where marriage is between same sex partners (before the present day). Hopefully that premise is evident unless there is concrete evidence that in many previous cultures marriage was between two men or two women.

Therefore, as a word, marriage has always meant a public acknowledgment and contract between males and females to ensure the basic stability of our species and society. This structure has been used for all of recorded history and been spectacularly successful in ensuring the survival of our species (evidence: 6 billion of us

The word “marriage” therefore by definition means the contract between men and women. We know that is the definition, and we know that it works spectacularly well. Why then, are we throwing it out the window without some compelling reason to do so? Fairness is a poor argument. We are toying with something that has stood the test of time and served us well. Why do we believe that by changing this basic building block of all of our societies will not have huge effects on us? I have yet to see a compelling reason why we should completely overhaul something that has served us well. If “civil unions” are desired then go ahead and make them, but that is not a marriage. You may not like the definition of “marriage” but that doesn’t give someone the right to arbitrarily change the definition of the word and then try to pretend we all misunderstood it before.

Therefore my argument is as follows;

1. By definition throughout recorded history a marriage has been between men and women.
2. Marriage has been the bedrock of all societies and has worked spectacularly well.
3. “Gay marriage” has never been studied in a large population to prove that it has any benefit to society or our species at all.
4. What rational society would change something that works extremely well and is the bedrock of all of our societies when it has no idea what the implications will be for ourselves and our descendants?

 

[kenofken]

Well, marriage has been between men and multiple women, men and junior high aged girls as well, but as long as it’s all hetero, close enough.

Marriage has worked spectacularly well if your definition of spectacular includes a 50 percent success rate.

I don’t recall racially mixed marriages requiring careful “test runs” before justice was extended to those folks. I guess gay people are a highly dangerous lot and must be beta tested separately.

As to number 4, by that standard we really had no business allowing liberal social engineers to force us to give up slavery. It did work extremely well and was the bedrock of society, and none of the abolitionists had any idea of what emancipation would bring to themselves or descendants. We should have left well enough alone and not been so presumptuous as to mess with God’s order of things…"

 

[inocente]

One of the reasons for the twelve-mile long length of that thread is because it was constantly assailed by trolls. Some of us (yours truly included) fell for their traps but we soon got wise, thank God! (And one of the questions that such trolling throws up is: are they really trying to find or rediscover their Faith?)
Btw, if you have the time and energy to follow the soundness of the True believers arguments in said thread, you will logically see how this current thread is ultimately a mere sideshow.

Did I see someone report you the other day for trolling another thread?

Anyway, please give up this “true believer” habit. We are discussing whether there’s a non-religious argument against gay marriage. Well, one is that some people find it icky, although the Church doesn’t use that argument in the document found by timotheos. All the non-religious arguments (in section III) can be countered without too much difficulty.

If the thread we’re both referring to contains any show-stopper non-religious arguments that the Church has missed, you could forward them to the Vatican before any US Supreme Court case. But remember they must convince non-“true believers” as well as your good self.

 

[HappyRevert]

Well, marriage has been between men and multiple women, men and junior high aged girls as well, but as long as it’s all hetero, close enough.

Marriage has worked spectacularly well if your definition of spectacular includes a 50 percent success rate.

I don’t recall racially mixed marriages requiring careful “test runs” before justice was extended to those folks. I guess gay people are a highly dangerous lot and must be beta tested separately.

As to number 4, by that standard we really had no business allowing liberal social engineers to force us to give up slavery. It did work extremely well and was the bedrock of society, and none of the abolitionists had any idea of what emancipation would bring to themselves or descendants. We should have left well enough alone and not been so presumptuous as to mess with God’s order of things…"

The 50% success rate that you specify is an extremely recent phenomenon and I’m talking about across all recorded history and my definition of success is the stability of societies (becoming more complex so the downfall of one such as the Roman Empire doesn’t indicate a failure across the board) and the propagation of our species which seems to be working extremely well.

Racially mixed marriages have been the norm throughout history so didn’t require “test runs”. An easy one to point out is great Britain millennia ago. As the invaders hit the shores they eventually intermarried with the people currently living there. You are limiting yourself to United States History in the past hundred years or so and I am attempting to use trends across all of recorded history.

I’m glad you brought up slavery because I figured you would. Here are the distinctions.

1. At no point in time did anyone try to change the definition of slavery (master-slave) to be something different like master-master or slave to slave. Everyone understood what the word “slavery” meant and didn’t try to change the definition.
2. I have never seen a rational argument that marriage as an institution is immoral or a detriment to society. If you have one then I would like to see it (not being sarcastic there, but would like to see if there is one).
3. Many societies over the years were not built on slavery so it was well proven that societies can function extremely well without slavery.
4. Slavery is inherently immoral because subjugates one person to another’s will.
5. Therefore it was perfectly reasonable to get rid of slavery because (a) it was immoral and (b) over history it was proven unnecessary. Neither of those criteria has been met for marriage.

 

[inocente]

HappyRevert - not sure I get your argument.

Marriage doesn’t need to be thrown out, and no change need be made to the sacrament in any religious ceremony. What’s being asked for is merely an expansion to the criteria for a civil union. Those criteria have differed greatly across societies. Some have allowed marriage at a very young age, some allow or even require arranged marriages, and so on.

If you’re saying it’s unknown territory, was the American Constitution and Bill of Rights not an experiment? How about handing power from the King to Parliament in Great Britain? Don’t societies experiment constantly?

 

[timotheos]

Three reasons:

1. Civil unions are a parallel system designed to make relationships that gay people have be of less value than those of straight people and is unprecedented in the discussion on marriage equality to date. No one proposed civil unions–nor expected them to be accepted–by a so-called mix-race couple. This claim was stipulated by supporters of Proposition 8 during the trial of Perry v. Swartzenager so it’s not as though this is a leftist lie.
2. Civil unions are not portable under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) so a couple that gets a civil union in Washington State–for example–and is in Alabama and one of them is critically hospitalized there is nothing legally preventing the hospital staff from kicking the healthy one out of his or her partner’s room. If, however, they are married there are clear legal boundaries that must be respected above basic compassion which should be operative in both cases.
3. As illustrated in (2), marriage confers numerous benefits on not only the state and local level but also on the federal level. Gay couple who had been joined under a civil union, for example, are not eligible for their partner’s Social Security as married couples are. A partner in a civil union is not required to be covered on their partner’s health insurance (even as an opt-in second part). Civilly unionized couples cannot file taxes jointly. The Family and Medical Leave Act would not apply to a person’s partner if they had a civil union and not a wedding. The list goes on (and on and on) but needless to say, civil unions aren’t even separate yet equal (as if that weren’t a rubric that should have fallen out of use fifty-six years ago.

So it’s not really about acceptance of gay relationships by society, but about money and state-regulated benefits. How could I be so blind? I spend a bit of time trying to think through and distill out some erudite truth in God’s allowance of same-sex attraction, when the whole time the gay marriage agenda has been about good old fashioned self-centeredness, and the mad scramble for “rights”.

Gay “marriage” is coming, I have little doubt. And with it, my trust and alliance will be that much closer to the Church, and that much further from the state. The Church and the courts will not see eye to eye on this one, and the Church will not back down. Pagan Rome couldn’t crush the Church. Neither will the US.

 

[ThomasToo]

So it’s not really about acceptance of gay relationships by society, but about money and state-regulated benefits. How could I be so blind? I spend a bit of time trying to think through and distill out some erudite truth in God’s allowance of same-sex attraction, when the whole time the gay marriage agenda has been about good old fashioned self-centeredness, and the mad scramble for “rights”.

Wanting legal protection for your relationship is ‘self-centeredness’? If so why don’t Catholics get married in the Church but not seek a civil marriage certificate?

Gay “marriage” is coming, I have little doubt. And with it, my trust and alliance will be that much closer to the Church, and that much further from the state. The Church and the courts will not see eye to eye on this one, and the Church will not back down. Pagan Rome couldn’t crush the Church. Neither will the US.

What does this have to do with crushing the Church? No church is required to marry an arbitrary couple (the Church, for example, can and does turn people away for a multitude of reasons and the fact that they happen to be of the same sex would just be one more on the list). This is about people over there being able to marry the people they love and have that love protects just like the love the rest of us feel; it isn’t about forcing you or your Church to do anything and it certainly isn’t about trying to crush you.

 

[timotheos]

Wanting legal protection for your relationship is ‘self-centeredness’? If so why don’t Catholics get married in the Church but not seek a civil marriage certificate?

What does this have to do with crushing the Church? No church is required to marry an arbitrary couple (the Church, for example, can and does turn people away for a multitude of reasons and the fact that they happen to be of the same sex would just be one more on the list). This is about people over there being able to marry the people they love and have that love protects just like the love the rest of us feel; it isn’t about forcing you or your Church to do anything and it certainly isn’t about trying to crush you.

Marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. As long as the state’s definition is based upon the same essentials, marriage remains a valid and fruitful institution. Now we know there has been erosion of these essentials already, for instance with the “whole of life” part, and the “procreation and education of offspring” part. Does that then mean that marriage is further open to redefinition?

Those who have accepted some humble and even miniscule understanding of the roles of marriage in family, of the meaning of family in life, of the reality of singular and objective truth, and the overarching reality of God, say “no”; it is an affont to all that is ordered. It’s not that I can’t see your viewpoint, Thomas, I can see it all too well; but when people decide that they alone have the wisdom to redefine what is good, bad things often happen.

And for the legal protections and benefits, they artificially tacked that on to marriage, and can take it all away for all I care (Social Security death benefits and joint filing and everything). Or, the state can just get out of the marriage business entirely. Either way, it actually may help clarify things. But marriage, as it was truly meant to be, is marriage.

 

[HappyRevert]

HappyRevert - not sure I get your argument.

Marriage doesn’t need to be thrown out, and no change need be made to the sacrament in any religious ceremony. What’s being asked for is merely an expansion to the criteria for a civil union. Those criteria have differed greatly across societies. Some have allowed marriage at a very young age, some allow or even require arranged marriages, and so on.

If you’re saying it’s unknown territory, was the American Constitution and Bill of Rights not an experiment? How about handing power from the King to Parliament in Great Britain? Don’t societies experiment constantly?

My argument is that an attempt is being made to fundamentally change what marriage is and that no one seems to acknowledge that it will have unforeseen consequences. I personally don’t quibble about civil unions, just don’t call it a marriage. I am stunned by those who seem to pretend that marriage has not always been about a union between men and women (plural at times for polygamy and polyandry). It happens to be that marriage is the basis of all societies. I would not be allowed to tear out the base building blocks of a high rise tower and replace them with a new building block without carefully examining what it is and what effect it would have on the structure. We’re talking about completely changing a building block of all known societies in the name of fairness and trying to cover up the fact that it is a vast social experiment.

Using your examples of the constitution etc., they were to correct things that were fundamentally harming their societies. Tyranny had to be controlled, taxation without representation etc. etc. I have yet to see how marriage is harming our societies and therefore need to be changed. You don’t pull out a foundation unless there’s a compelling reason to do so. I have yet to hear an argument of how marriage harms society and therefore needs to have its fundamental definition changed. That is why the argument with slavery doesn’t hold water. There was evidence that it was harmful to society and there was already evidence that you didn’t need it. I don’t see either of those in this case.

I forgot to add earlier that when a massive change is desired, the onus is on the person/entity requesting the change to show how it will benefit society. I haven’t seen anything like that supporting why society needs to change the definition of marriage. It is disingenuous to pretend this isn’t a huge modification. It is a huge change and it needs extremely grave reasons to alter it.

 

[ThomasToo]

Marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. As long as the state’s definition is based upon the same essentials, marriage remains a valid and fruitful institution. Now we know there has been erosion of these essentials already, for instance with the “whole of life” part, and the “procreation and education of offspring” part. Does that then mean that marriage is further open to redefinition?

I don’t think marriage has meant what you want to argue it has for at least fifty years and there is no way to get civil marriage back in line with your views. It is a different creature, one that is–or at least will be–open to everyone.

When people decide that they alone have the wisdom to redefine what is good, bad things often happen.

I think much of the last 2,000 years has been redefining what is good for the betterment of all. Owning slaves is no longer considered good. Beating one’s wife or children is no longer considered so much as understandable let alone good or permissible. Killing apostates is no longer considered good in any part of the civilized world. The list goes on but I would agree that the current turmoil over marriage–and many other things–goes back to changing understandings of ‘person’ (in the legal sense) and ‘citizen.’ If only we hadn’t given African Americans or women the vote, this could have all been stopped… and we could live in the 1870s.

And for the legal protections and benefits, they artificially tacked that on to marriage, and can take it all away for all I care (Social Security death benefits and joint filing and everything). Or, the state can just get out of the marriage business entirely. Either way, it actually may help clarify things. But marriage, as it was truly meant to be, is marriage.

‘As it was truly meant to be’? Multiple wives? Only between people of the same color? Wives as property without a separate societal identity from their husbands?

Where in our history do we look to that we may find what marriage as it was meant to be?

So if all states did was civil unions you’d be ok with that? As long as everyone gets the same legal protections under the same banner I’m happy so I think we agree insofar as that goes. Right now, however, I don’t see the dissolution of civil marriage as a realistic option which is why I fight for marriage equality.

 

[inocente]

I personally don’t quibble about civil unions, just don’t call it a marriage.

Yes. One of the issues is that the word marriage has itself become devalued. We freely speak of a civil union as a marriage without separating it in any way from a marriage before God. The meaning seems to have got lost somewhere along the line. Is it mainly about procreation, or about a couple becoming one, or a convenient way to navigate through bureaucracy? There is a lower rate of marriage amongst atheists than theists, even those theists who never go to church except for weddings and funerals. Divorce rates are up everywhere. In some cases divorce is the only option, but in many marriages the vows seem to have lost all meaning.

It would be really useful to have a wider debate in society about the whole institution, but knowing politicians and the media we shouldn’t hold our breath.

I forgot to add earlier that when a massive change is desired, the onus is on the person/entity requesting the change to show how it will benefit society.

The case in countries that have made the change is that the status quo harmed people by not treating all adults equally, and in turn that harmed society.

The US and others could always wait to see what happens over time in those countries. It would probably be too difficult to separate out the factors though. For example, this unicef report (pdf) ranks the UK and US at the bottom of the 21 richest countries for looking after their children. Whether or not that is fair, a quick look shows how hard it is to try to isolate and measure this kind of thing.

 

[timotheos]

I don’t think marriage has meant what you want to argue it has for at least fifty years and there is no way to get civil marriage back in line with your views. It is a different creature, one that is–or at least will be–open to everyone.

I think much of the last 2,000 years has been redefining what is good for the betterment of all. Owning slaves is no longer considered good. Beating one’s wife or children is no longer considered so much as understandable let alone good or permissible. Killing apostates is no longer considered good in any part of the civilized world. The list goes on but I would agree that the current turmoil over marriage–and many other things–goes back to changing understandings of ‘person’ (in the legal sense) and ‘citizen.’ If only we hadn’t given African Americans or women the vote, this could have all been stopped… and we could live in the 1870s.

‘As it was truly meant to be’? Multiple wives? Only between people of the same color? Wives as property without a separate societal identity from their husbands?

Where in our history do we look to that we may find what marriage as it was meant to be?

So if all states did was civil unions you’d be ok with that? As long as everyone gets the same legal protections under the same banner I’m happy so I think we agree insofar as that goes. Right now, however, I don’t see the dissolution of civil marriage as a realistic option which is why I fight for marriage equality.

I am no Church historian, but I would be surprised if the Church had actually been opposed to those items you list as betterments. But that’s for another thread.

Bottom line is we are kinda speaking different languages, and those languages pretty much reflect our decision of who ultimately holds the authority in our lives. If you recognize the civil authority as ultimate, then your language and all of its intricacies and subtleties suits your purpose, and definitions are subject to modification at will. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, and thus wisdom and purpose and man’s identity all fall into place, and the language is straightforward. Hence one of my earlier comments — there may not be an effective non-religious argument against gay marriage —because our languages are too different, as they reflect the significant conflict in our respective understandings of reality.

Best to you, Tim

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

What’s being asked for is merely an expansion to the criteria for a civil union.

Merely? You mean that’s all? And when we expand the criteria to 2 adult homosexuals, will there be a guarantee that the expansion will end there? Will the criteria also include where we will never go?

 

[inocente]

Merely? You mean that’s all? And when we expand the criteria to 2 adult homosexuals, will there be a guarantee that the expansion will end there? Will the criteria also include where we will never go?

It was very specific in countries that have made the change. If there are people protesting about something else and a majority who agree with them on moral grounds then there might be a case, but I can’t imagine what it might be. Oh no I just did. Eugh!

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

but I can’t imagine what it might be. Oh no I just did. Eugh!

Exactly. And there are non-religious arguments in favor of it. And they are essentially the same arguments for Gay marriage. Can anyone give a non-religious argument why we draw the arbitrary line where we arbitrarily draw it?

 

[kenofken]

Exactly. And there are non-religious arguments in favor of it. And they are essentially the same arguments for Gay marriage. Can anyone give a non-religious argument why we draw the arbitrary line where we arbitrarily draw it?

No one has in four pages of comment, or in any of the hundreds of others I’ve seen on related threads. Maybe it’s like cold fusion, and will work on the millionth attempt…

 

[secular_freedom]

Easy. You are the result of a physical union between a man and a woman. If there was a man-man or woman woman relationship you would not exist to ask your question.

Let’s look at your underlying premise:

• If there was a man-man or woman woman relationship you would not exist to ask your question.
  
  This is simply false. There are many same-sex relationships out there, and none of them have prevented you or me from existing.

 

[secular_freedom]

I don’t think there can be a non-religious argument agaist it.

But there must be in order to maintain that prop 8 doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause. Prop 8 clearly discriminates against homosexuals by preventing them, but not heterosexuals, from marrying their partners. The question now is: is the discrimination justified? Does gay marriage harm society in any tangible way such that the cost of allowing it would unduly burden society? The answer is clearly ‘no.’