Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[RyanL]

KarenNC,

I believe you’ve completely misread the linked article. The author explicitly thinks that erotic (as opposed to filial, etc.) love can occur between people of the same sex which is greater than mere lust – I do, too, for that matter. Your suggestion to the contrary shows me that you don’t really “get” what he’s saying.

What he’s saying is that if marriage is only about a “loving relationship”, what happens when this couple “falls out of love” 20, 30, 40 years in the future? Answer: divorce. No love = no marriage, since marriage is only about love. That ideology doesn’t make for lasting marriages, and that’s the ideology which is being explicitly asserted. That ideology is harmful to marriage as an institution, and it’s harmful to us as a society. Compelling state interest? I think not.

Moreover, at least in this reply, you haven’t produced a single argument which would justify incentivizing same sex relationships which couldn’t equally well be applied to a chaste brother and sister. Do they love each other? Yes. Can they be married? _?__. Should the brother get the sister’s Social Security benefits? ?. Why (not)? Should the sister’s company be legally obligated to provide for his insurance? ?. Why (not)?

Ultimately, the state doesn’t care one lick about “relationships”. Does the state care if I like my sister? No. Does the state care if I get along with my cousin? No. The state only cares about ensuring that baby making activity (which would happen regardless) happens in a responsible way since this is the best way to produce the next generation of responsible tax payers. Same sex relationships don’t make babies, and if that’s not going to happen then the state has no interest in the relationship any more than in that of a chaste brother and sister. Again, for the sake of bright line rules, privacy rights, regulatory problems and the occasional “surprise - we’re pregnant!”, the state permits old people and infertile couples to marry – they still engage in baby making activity, whether or not babies are a result. Same sex couples do not.

Exit state’s interest, stage right.

As for the six (out of fifty) states which require that cousins not be able procreate in order to permit them to marry…perhaps it’s time that law changed as well. Whatever the case, the small minority of state’s permittion for cousins to wed in certain circumstances doesn’t affect the reason why marriage is protected in the first place – which perhaps explains why that’s not the case in the other forty-four.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Shiphrae]

I am not sure what my quote from Thomas Jefferson has to do with telling the future or why it is arrogant. I see it as simply factual. What another person believes does not harm me. The way in which they choose to act on that belief may or may not do so.

We could certainly decide that same sex marriage was a really bad idea based on the possibility of divorce, extramarital affairs, people marrying with less than a realistic understanding of what a marriage requires in terms of commitment and flexibility, knowing they would not be able to have children of their own, being done for purposes of convenience only or even illegal reasons such as letting someone stay in the country under false pretenses, domestic violence, sexual practices that are considered “non-standard”, etc, etc, etc. But then we should ban heterosexual marriage as well because we already know right now that these issues occur regularly in heterosexual marriages and have been for centuries if not millenia.

No, we cannot know with 100% certainty how anything will affect us years from now, including continuing on with our current actions. This does not mean that we have to be catatonic in attempting to not do anything that might possibly be less than 100% fabulous 75 years from now. The best we can have are reasonable expectations of the positive effects of our efforts based on currently available evidence.

Do you have a reasonable expectation that one of your future grandchildren will be specifically harmed by the existence of gay marriage? Gay marriage in general or a specific gay marriage? In what way and on what basis?

What if one of your future grandchildren is gay and desires to be married or is harmed because of the lack availability of legal protections for his or her rights in a relationship? Will that affect you less?

I don’t think that it is possible to never let one’s beliefs affect his or her actions. If I would believe that it is okay to steal, then I no doubt would at some time (if I was reasonably sure that I could get away with it) take someone’s posessions. If someone believes that there is no God, he or she will have less reasons to act on values that are considered right. He or she may care about hurting others or the environment but they will have less reasons to have a strong set of moral values.

I believe that gay marriages will add to the problem of insecurity in children. There are enough divorces in heterosexual marriages. We don’t need to add more. The chances of a gay marriage lasting a lifetime is probably very low.

It will certainly affect me if one of my grandchildren is gay and cannot get married. However if she or he lives a chaste and reasonably productive life, I would be proud and happy. We can’t all get everything exactly as we think that we want. Things have a way of working out in the long run.

My point is that we don’t know the effects that will develop in the future of allowing gay marriages.

Peace be with you.

 

[Bennie_P]

Non-religous arguments for gay marriage.

If I was a rich industrialist and/or entrepreneur that wanted a large group of workers for my factories, service industry and Retail Empire, promotion of Gay marriage and the Gay lifestyle in general would be the best economical thing to do. It would create a large pool of workers that are not tied down to children, or families. I could require them to work 70 - 80 hours a week and since they most likely would not be involved in Church, Family or school activities, I could have a worker bee type work force. I could jerk them around from city to city and state to state, using the carrot of promotion to the most exciting cities such as New York, San Francisco or LA for those that produced well. The ones that didn’t produce well would be good for working at fast food joints and such. Of course I would be a promoter of some forms of socialism in the area health care and retirement, which can be paid by my the workers themselves so when my workers became ill because of their destructive lifestyle, I could pawn them off to the government to take care during their time of illness. End of life issues of such of euthanasia would be a great idea so the government would not come back and tax me to pay the extra cost of their end of life care, for the larger gay and single population would not have the natural family unit to come to aid them in their old age. To promote the idea that Gay and
promiscuities(sp?) lifestyle is good I would reward those that forsake families, I wouldn’t want to be considered bias against heterosexuals, but the kids would just have to go. For the children that do come along by irresponsible women, we could set up boarding schools, paid by taxes of the profits of Planned Parenthood. These schools of course will be easily staffed by those we now consider outcast, but really need love too, that are those unfortunate that are sexually attracted to younger “lovers”. No need to label anyone an outcast in the future. This way our schools will be producing more worker bees and more wealth for the likes of free thinking and inclusive thinkers. Any labor short comings can come by importing workers from the third world and we can slowly indoctrinate them away from the foolish ideas of having families as we teach them about and wean them away from the silly and archaic ideas which missionaries taught them during the age of conquest. In fact, in the long run only the very rich should be the only ones allowed to marry and have families in order to pass on the very best of genes to continue to take care of this world in which they have proven to be the only true leaders that have the ability to do. We can produce more worker bees in labortories, making sure to use the genes of those that are more ampt to be attracting to the same sex, so the idea of family would die off for the workers. Yes Gay marriage and normalization of their behavior is a great idea for “us” the chosen few.

Oh, this is suppose to be about nonreligious reasons against gay marriage - Never mind.

 

[KarenNC]

I don’t think that it is possible to never let one’s beliefs affect his or her actions. If I would believe that it is okay to steal, then I no doubt would at some time (if I was reasonably sure that I could get away with it) take someone’s posessions. If someone believes that there is no God, he or she will have less reasons to act on values that are considered right. He or she may care about hurting others or the environment but they will have less reasons to have a strong set of moral values.

I did not say that one’s beliefs did not affect his or her actions. I said that, as the quote states, it is those actions, not the beliefs, which may or may not harm me, and which are a reasonable target for civil law.

In this case, I can see no way in which same sex marriage would harm me or my child or my future grandchildren.

I believe that gay marriages will add to the problem of insecurity in children. There are enough divorces in heterosexual marriages. We don’t need to add more. The chances of a gay marriage lasting a lifetime is probably very low.

OK, you believe this. Upon what do you base this belief? If the likelihood of divorce in heterosexual marriage is not a reason to refuse to allow heterosexual marriage, why should it be a compelling reason not to allow same sex marriages?

We can’t all get everything exactly as we think that we want. Things have a way of working out in the long run.

And why should that not apply to same sex marriage?

My point is that we don’t know the effects that will develop in the future of allowing gay marriages.

No we don’t have a crystal ball to be 100% certain of what will happen with any change (or with no change). I have seen no compelling arguments that would convince me that same sex marriage is an inherently bad idea.

 

[KarenNC]

Non-religous arguments for gay marriage…

Considered a career as a fantasy writer, Bennie? If not, all the jumps you are making would qualify for the hurdles in the Olympics.

 

[Shiphrae]

OK, you believe this. Upon what do you base this belief? If the likelihood of divorce in heterosexual marriage is not a reason to refuse to allow heterosexual marriage, why should it be a compelling reason not to allow same sex marriages?

I base my belief from my life’s experience. Even though there are many divorces, I know many more people who have spent and are spending their life with one partner. I don’t know any such people in homosexual relationships.

 

[Pete_1]

www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

And this:

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

I have read the first one, it makes quite a good case.

 

[agangbern]

In my country, same sex marriage is illegal and void because the civil law, not necessarily religion, says so.

 

[KarenNC]

KarenNC,

I believe you’ve completely misread the linked article. The author explicitly thinks that erotic (as opposed to filial, etc.) love can occur between people of the same sex which is greater than mere lust – I do, too, for that matter. Your suggestion to the contrary shows me that you don’t really “get” what he’s saying.

I get that he does not believe that same sex people are capable of forming relationships in the same way and for the myriad reasons that heterosexuals do. He seems convinced that “marriage is only about love” is the only type of relationship of which same sex couples are capable. I disagree.

What he’s saying is that if marriage is only about a “loving relationship”, what happens when this couple “falls out of love” 20, 30, 40 years in the future? Answer: divorce. No love = no marriage, since marriage is only about love. That ideology doesn’t make for lasting marriages, and that’s the ideology which is being explicitly asserted. That ideology is harmful to marriage as an institution, and it’s harmful to us as a society.

Yes, I fully agree. That attitude, which is rampant in the heterosexual community as well and has been for many years, is not conducive to lasting marriages. Unfortunately, denying same sex marriage is not a cure for that. Societal expectations of fidelity and treating sexual relationships as something other than casual will go a lot farther toward reducing that attitude in both the heterosexual and homosexual community.

cont.

 

[KarenNC]

cont. from above

The state only cares about ensuring that baby making activity (which would happen regardless) happens in a responsible way since this is the best way to produce the next generation of responsible tax payers. Same sex relationships don’t make babies, and if that’s not going to happen then the state has no interest in the relationship any more than in that of a chaste brother and sister. Again, for the sake of bright line rules, privacy rights, regulatory problems and the occasional “surprise - we’re pregnant!”, the state permits old people and infertile couples to marry – they still engage in baby making activity, whether or not babies are a result. Same sex couples do not.

Exit state’s interest, stage right.

Marriage is presumed, as you state, to be about sexual relationships. Brother/sister marriages would be assumed to contravene existing incest laws, regardless of whether they claim they are celibate or not. Same sex marriages do not do so. The sodomy laws that were held as a reason to deny same sex marriage were declared unconstitutional in 2003. Also sexual practices that fall under the heading of “sodomy” are not a barrier to legal heterosexual marriage, so I don’t see a reason it should be a barrier to same sex marriage. Now, the incest laws would prohibit same sex marriage between brothers or between sisters.

It would seem that if the state’s compelling interest is the formation of a stable family unit in which to raise a child, then it would have a much more compelling reason to support marriages in the case of the same sex couple who has a child (via whatever means) than it does simply those who are capable of “baby making practicies” when it is totally unreasonable to assume that a baby would result (ie in couples where the woman is post menopausal). The same sex couples with children have proven that the relationship is going to produce children and therefore warrant the state’s interest and support according to your reasoning.

boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2006/03/26/same_sex_couples_face_unique_adoption_hurdles/

"Still, an atmosphere of retrenchment distracts from a wider truth – more same-sex couples are raising children than ever before. What was once unheard of is now a fact of life. Forty percent of same-sex couples aged 22 to 55 are raising children, about 5 percent of whom are adopted, according to the Williams Project, a UCLA Law School think tank. If you include children born in once-heterosexual marriages, raised by single parents and parents of all ages, up to 10 million children are estimated to have a lesbian or gay parent."

pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

"Civil marriage is a legal status that promotes healthy families by conferring a powerful set of rights, benefits, and protections that cannot be obtained by other means. Civil marriage can help foster financial and legal security, psychosocial stability, and an augmented sense of societal acceptance and support. Legal recognition of a spouse can increase the ability of adult couples to provide and care for one another and fosters a nurturing and secure environment for their children. Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents.

Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families"

 

[KarenNC]

I base my belief from my life’s experience. Even though there are many divorces, I know many more people who have spent and are spending their life with one partner. I don’t know any such people in homosexual relationships.

And I do.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

"

Karen…

They get civil union rights in NJ too (YUCK)

 

[KarenNC]

Karen…

They get civil union rights in NJ too (YUCK)

The article I quoted was written in 2006. NJ allowed civil unions in Feb. 2007.

Civil unions will be allowed in New Hampshire beginning Jan. 1 2008.

Domestic partnerships (not limited to same sex couples) are available in Hawaii (same and opposite sex couples), Maine (same and opposite sex couples), New Jersey (only if they are both over age 62), Washington (includes opposite sex couples if one is over age 62), Oregon (takes effect Jan. 1, 2008), District of Columbia, California (includes opposite sex couples if one is over age 62)…

Massachussetts remains the only state to allow civil marriage. Iowa’s civil marriage law is under court review.

Note that none of these, contrary to popular opinion, actually create a “separate but equal” situation for same sex couples in regards to the over 1100 automatic benefits available to heterosexual married couples, nor does it guarantee that those in domestic partnerships or civil unions will even receive equal state benefits under state law compared to those given automatically to heterosexual married couples.

Frankly, I am much more in favor of actual civil marriage than I am a civil union or domestic partnership, especially if those are extended to heterosexual couples. I think that offering an alternative to marriage for heterosexual couples who can easily be married, is definitely contrary to the best interest of upholding the institution of marriage as a particular form of union with all its attendant rights and responsibilities.

 

[snowfly]

I have recently gotten into a few debates with friends over whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal. I of course oppose same sex marriage, but most of my friends are for it, and theyre challenging me to come up with a reason against it leaving out my Catholic values. To say the least ive been stumped, and need some help coming up with a few points on why gay marriage should be illegal.

Can’t…because without believing in the after-life Heaven and hell, there would be no reason, just like it says in the Bible**…“eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” **
If I were to leave out my Catholic values, I’d live like henry VIII.

But Catholics and other Christians and other non-christians know different, we don’t believe we die, we believe we go on too, life Eternal.

 

[Shiphrae]

And I do.

Really!!! And how many couples is that? How many do you know who have been together 40 or 50 years?

 

[KarenNC]

Really!!! And how many couples is that? How many do you know who have been together 40 or 50 years?

Several fairly well. As to 40 to 50 years, none, but then I don’t really know very many heterosexual couples who have been together that long either. Given that only 5% of marriages at all make it to their 50th anniversary and that homosexuals make up a small percentage of the population (as well as the fact that my area of the country is not exactly known for being incredibly open and welcoming to same sex couples), it is not surprising. My primary circle of close interaction at this point is also that of other couples raising young children, not that of folks in their 70s or of folks who have never had children or whose children are grown (a simple fact of logistics).

You also have to factor in that a couple who had been together for 50 years as of now would have to have lived together since 1957. Given the horrific effects of AIDS/HIV on the homosexual community in the US between now and then, it is hardly surprising that there are not that many same sex couples out there who have been together that long. Early mortality is not the same as lack of commitment.

Now couples that have been together 10, 15, 20 years? Yes.

How does that compare with heterosexual couples?

For married ones:
census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
81% made it to the 5th anniversary
65% to the 10th anniversary
52% to the 15th
33% to the 25th
20% to the 35th
5% to the 50th

I haven’t been able to find stats on the duration of relationships among cohabiting heterosexual couples in the US (anyone know?) as that would be a more apples to apples comparison. There are, as has been discussed, a number of societal supports in place designed to encourage married couples to stay together (and even with all that societal support only about half make it to 15 years).

It would also be informative to compare the rates between heterosexual couples with no children and same sex couples with no children, as there is pressure to stay together for the sake of the children. As I said, it would also be useful for this discussion if there were numbers on divorces/ending of relationships vs. marriages/relationships that ended due to death of one of the partners, as those two things are quite different.

 

[RyanL]

I get that he does not believe that same sex people are capable of forming relationships in the same way and for the myriad reasons that heterosexuals do. He seems convinced that “marriage is only about love” is the only type of relationship of which same sex couples are capable. I disagree.

The existence of romantic love between the couple is the basis for the “gays should be allowed to marry” claim. Do you disagree? If so, what’s your claimed basis and which advocates agree with you?

Yes, I fully agree. That attitude, which is rampant in the heterosexual community as well and has been for many years, is not conducive to lasting marriages.

Agreed. Basically (I would assert) since modern birth control came on the scene. But that’s another argument.

Unfortunately, denying same sex marriage is not a cure for that.

True enough, but allowing it moves us further down that wrong path (i.e., marriage is only about romantic love).

Now for the fun part:

Marriage is presumed, as you state, to be about sexual relationships.

That’s our current presumption, true, but there’s nothing (apparently) keeping it that way. A presumption is as easy to eliminate as a judicial opinion is to write.

Brother/sister marriages would be assumed to contravene existing incest laws, regardless of whether they claim they are celibate or not. Same sex marriages do not do so. The sodomy laws that were held as a reason to deny same sex marriage were declared unconstitutional in 2003.

Yes, and if the incest laws as applied to adult, consenting siblings is declared unconstitutional in 2008, what then? Your argument is basically that brother/sister marriages aren’t legal, so they shouldn’t be legal. Guess what that means for gay marriage?

Bad reasoning.

Also sexual practices that fall under the heading of “sodomy” are not a barrier to legal heterosexual marriage, so I don’t see a reason it should be a barrier to same sex marriage.

That’s not the barrier. The barrier is the ability for their sexual acts to beget children.

Now, the incest laws would prohibit same sex marriage between brothers or between sisters.

Again – a consensual relationship between adult siblings is currently not legal, and therefore it shouldn’t be legal. Gay marriage is currently not legal…so now what? Bad argument.

It would seem that if the state’s compelling interest is the formation of a stable family unit in which to raise a child, then it would have a much more compelling reason to support marriages in the case of the same sex couple who has a child

Ahh, but that’s not my argument. You’re changing it. Very clever, you – gotta’ keep my eye out for sly moves like that. My argument is about making sure baby making activity happens in a responsible way, not the formation of a stable family unit to tend to already existing children. (BTW, those kids came into being because of a man and a woman – I’ll guarantee it.)

If I were to use your definition, however, I could very easily justify the marriage of a chaste brother and sister raising a child together. Tax benefits? Sure! Social Security benefits? Sure! It promotes stability…right? If making stable families is what this is about, surely a brother and sister parenting team would be superior to a same sex couple – they share blood relation and common upbringing as well as love.

The same sex couples with children have proven that the relationship is going to produce children and therefore warrant the state’s interest and support according to your reasoning.

Same sex couples cannot produce children. Surely you took biology 101?

Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage.

Why should they? Rather, why should they and why shouldn’t a brother and sister parenting team? Don’t their children deserve to be raised in a household with the rights, benefits, and protections of a civil marriage? You really ought to answer this…

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

Hmm. Rights. Funny word, that. Where do rights come from? Do they come from the Natural Law or from the State? If the state, they don’t have a right (since it’s currently not afforded). If the Natural Law…well…perhaps we should save that discussion.

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment.

1. Where’s the peer-reviewed study?
2. By whose measure are there no sexual orientation issues for the children? By a libertine, sexual experimentation for all standard or by a traditional morality standard?

I think we should be fairly clear on this data before moving forward. We ought not subject our nation’s children to experimental “alternative family models” without some rather good data from those which are already existing. If you have the studies, I’d be more than willing to read them.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[agangbern]

What is marriage?

Philippine Civil Law defines marriage thus: “Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by law.”

It is clear from that definition that marriage has no truth between two individuals having same sex. If two individuals having same sex should desire to establish a conjugal and family life, then their union should be called by another name but not “marriage” because marriage, by definition, is only applicable to individuals of opposite sex.

 

[Bennie_P]

For married ones:
census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
81% made it to the 5th anniversary
65% to the 10th anniversary
52% to the 15th
33% to the 25th
20% to the 35th
5% to the 50th.

These are some intersting stats and I notice the greater increase in divorces with the coming of “sexual liberation” of the 60s. It might be noted that the big drops after the 25th might have death as a factor, it was unclear in the report how they factor that in. one thig from the summary I noticed,

However,the SIPP data document that the
majority of adults have married only once, and more than 70 percent of them are still married to their first spouse.

Prior to the the aids epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white gay males claimed to have more then 100-time male sex partners; 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999 and 28 percent claimed more then 1000. though after the beginning of the aids epidemic promiscuity decline, (though that trend is being reported to reverse it self) these types of numbers don’t indicate that homosexuals would not only have similar failures in marriage, but no responsible person could even dream that they could have similar successes. The very nature of homosexuality is a lifestyle of me first sexual pleasure and is not conducive to the idea of self sacrifice it takes for successful marriage. We shouldn’t be foolish to think because heterosexuals struggle at marriage, it is an justification to open up a Pandora’s box of this ill conceived idea in our PC culture called Same Sex Marriage.

As to hetersexual co-habitation I have seen no studies, but since it is societal norm, or a least use to be that, people tend to look toward marriage as an end goal and many hetersexuals that “live” together thier realationships usually result in marriage, but this trend is considered to be one of the causes of many marriages ending up in divorce, sorry I haven’t a source of a study veryifing this last statement, maybe one of my Catholic brethren can help me out with a source.

Statistics are great for recognizing trends, but becuase something is happening doesn’t justify bad ideas, they should be used to try to find ways to reverse problems instead of justifying new ones.