Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[RyanL]

There’s an interesting webpage here which cites several studies about monogamy in the same sex community. Some studies say monogamy is rare, others indicate that it’s more the norm. I think most of the studies you see are bad - either because of statistically small sample sizes or methodological problems - so I’d hesitate to put too much emphasis on them. An example would be on the page I linked the failure to address serial monogamy - does it really count as monogamy if you’re “monogamous” with 10 different partners in a year? Again, there are a number of problems with most of the research I’ve seen.

Is there a promiscuity problem in the same sex community? Yes. Is there one in the heterosexual community? Yes. Does it seem like the same sex community has a larger problem with it? Yes, but again the data is often bad. If the data is correct, what are some reasons why this might be so? Well…it could possibly be due to the rejection of “sexual norms” (including monogamy as traditionally conceptualized), or it could be a pathological problem focusing on the need for acceptance, or it might not be as disproportionate as it appears. Personally, I think there is a difference (i.e., that same sex couples are not as monogamous as their heterosexual counterparts) and that the first explanation is more to blame than the other two, but that’s my opinion based on rampant speculation.

Other interesting studies involve the life expectancy statistics for those in the same sex community, the abuse statistics, the disease statistics and the suicide statistics. Interestingly, from what I’ve read, these statistics don’t seem to vary much from locations where same sex issues are just coming to the forefront and where same sex couples have been widely accepted for some time (I’m thinking California and specifically San Francisco here). Overall, it appears that it’s an endemic problem – which is precisely what Natural Law thinkers would expect to be the case.

But again, it’s hard to find good information so quite a bit is drawn from mediocre information and speculation. I wonder why same sex advocates don’t insist on more and better research…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Bennie_P]

But again, it’s hard to find good information so quite a bit is drawn from mediocre information and speculation. I wonder why same sex advocates don’t insist on more and better research…

God Bless,
RyanL

Wouldn’t be it’s better for them, and easier, to find flaws in the studies already done then to risk at finding that the agenda they push does really have serious flaws they would rather ignore?

 

[KarenNC]

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?

That is one of the bases, just as it is one of the reasons that heterosexual couples marry. It was the basis for the argument that interracial couples should be allowed to marry when that was illegal. But as you have said, romantic love is not the reason that the state has an interest in supporting marriage through legal channels. Protecting the individuals within the context of these relationships, which will happen anyway , as well as protection for any children in such families is the state’s interest.

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

More reliable and more acceptable methods of birth control have certainly had an effect on marriage as well as on many other things in our society. Things like maternal and infant mortality rates, socioeconomic status, availability of women to enter the workforce, etc. Not all good, not all bad. It is, however, here to stay.

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

Only if one persists in saying and expecting that same sex marriages are indeed only about romantic love. I don’t believe that that is the case any more frequently than it is the case for heterosexual couples. The issue is totally separate and has more to do with our modern social concepts of fidelity and commitment, which are, I’m afraid, sadly deteriorated.

[quoe]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.

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?]/quote]

No, my argument is that sexual relations between brother and sister are illegal and marriage is presumed to be able to include a sexual relationship (though not requiring one), therefore a marriage between brother and sister is not legal. Sexual relations between unrelated consenting same sex adults is not illegal. Now, as I have said, the incest laws would make same sex marriage just as illegal between sisters or brothers as it does for brother/sister marriages.

If there is a push to change the incest laws to allow marriages between brother and sister, then we can address that issue at that time. That is not what is being discussed here.

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

And who is changing whose argument?

The issue is not that “it isn’t legal so it shouldn’t be legal”. That is a ridiculous argument. There is ample precedent for something that was not legal being made legal when the basis for the laws against it were seen to be unconstitutional.

Legal civil marriage in this country is not in any way dependent upon the ability of sexual acts to beget children or on any specific sexual acts at all. There is no barrier to legal civil marriage for the person who is impotent, or the couple who are only interested in sexual acts that do not and cannot lead to procreation.

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.)

The state has only compelling interest in the “baby making activity” but not the formation of stable family units for existing children? You might tell that to the federal government
nccic.org/poptopics/marriage.html

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…

Feel free to advocate for brother/sister marriage if that is your desire. That is not the issue being discussed.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

I gave you the citation from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Take a look at the research they cite. It’s all there.

 

[KarenNC]

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,

I am sure death is a factor, as I stated, and since no one is claiming that homosexuals don’t die, I don’t see why it would not also be a factor in whether the fact that I don’t know any same sex couples who have been together for 40 to 50 years.

Why confused? It said that most married couples married only once and most were still married to their initial spouse.

Be wary of assigning a single cause to any societal change. Remember that correlation is not causation.

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.

Unfortunately we have become a “me first culture” that is “not conducive to the idea of self-sacrifice” in many areas. I don’t really see the logic in saying that refusing to allow same sex couples who are actively seeking the responsibilities of marriage will help change that, especially those couples with a track record of a decade or decades of stable relationship. It is not marriage that is the problem, it is easy divorce and the actual encouragemnt of sex as a casual encounter that is the problem.

The issue of promiscuity is not one that is particular to either group. Heterosexual promiscuity is rampant----look at numbers for heterosexual prostitution, sexual activity before and outside of marriage, the popularity of porn and cybersex sites, the estimates of spouses who cheat, etc. We do not, as a society, say, “Heterosexuals are promiscuous therefore it is a bad idea to allow them to marry.” Unless the parties involved desire it, there is no automatic dissolution of a marriage because of promiscuity. There are no laws prohibiting consensual sex between unmarried unrelated adults. We continue to allow celebrities such as rock stars, professional athletes, those in the entertainment industry, etc to marry despite the reports of high numbers of sexual partners in these subgroups.

Yes, question statistics. Question whether those rates of sexual partners are objective or if they could be (as marital infidelity statistics can be) influenced by cultural expectations, either to inflate or downplay actual behavior.

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.

Non-Catholics can google, too

marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm
"Couples who lived together before marriage tend to divorce early in their marriage. If their marriage last seven years, then their risk for divorce is the same as couples who didn’t cohabit before marriage.

In France and Germany cohabiting couples have a slightly lower risk of divorce.

If cohabitation is limited to a person’s future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce.

In the U.S., cohabiting couples taking premarital education courses or counseling are not at a higher risk for divorce."

It does not appear that it is the single fact of cohabiting that is an increased risk for divorce. There is a significant difference between cohabiting heterosexual couples who can choose at any point to marry legally and cohabiting same sex couples who do not have that option. There are an entire host of factors surrounding marriage that are not available even to same sex couples who are allowed to marry (such as in Massachusetts) and one cannot ignore the potential effects of that constellation of benefits and societal recognition in supporting long term marriage vs. cohabiting or a domestic partnership.

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.

That presupposes that same sex civil marriage is indeed a “problem” and a “bad idea”. I have yet to see a compelling non-religious argument (since that is what we are discussing) that shows that it is any more of a problem or bad idea than heterosexual marriage.

Interpretation and use of data is also an important factor to consider. I found the following interesting:
iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf

 

[KarenNC]

There’s an interesting webpage here which cites several studies about monogamy in the same sex community. Some studies say monogamy is rare, others indicate that it’s more the norm. I think most of the studies you see are bad - either because of statistically small sample sizes or methodological problems - so I’d hesitate to put too much emphasis on them. An example would be on the page I linked the failure to address serial monogamy - does it really count as monogamy if you’re “monogamous” with 10 different partners in a year? Again, there are a number of problems with most of the research I’ve seen…

It appears that research into sexual behavior is difficult, whether heterosexual or homosexual, because it is perforce dependent on self-report which can be affected by numerous variables. I come across the same problems in trying to find data on marital infidelity, teen sex, etc.

Having a common understanding of terms is indeed critical.

 

[RyanL]

Wouldn’t be it’s better for them…

Here are some other statistics I was able to find.

From Love and Pride.com:

1. Gay Marriage Statistics
   In a survey of marriage in Sweden between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships registered compared to 280,000 heterosexual couples. Five out of every 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex, and 62% of those are gay male unions.

There is a high rate of divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within eight years and lesbian couples 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. In the Netherlands, between April 2001, when gay marriage was legalized, and December 2003 there were 5,751 gay marriages and 63 divorces.

In statistics taken from couples filing cases for gay marriage in America, the couples fighting for the right to marry have been together for an average 10 years.

Again, the sample size is probably too small to be excellent data – but it certainly gives one pause considering the argument that this will strengthen the institution of marriage and make for stable families…

From the article at Pediatrics.org linked by KarenNC above:

Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biological parents, their subsequent psychological development has to be understood in that context. Whether they are subsequently raised by 1 or 2 separated parents and whether a stepparent has joined either of the biological parents are important factors for children that have rarely been addressed in research assessing psychological outcomes for these children. Similarly missing is an analysis of the role of the divorced “noncustodial” parent in the child’s life.

And that’s how the section evaluating their children’s psychological well-being starts. Everything after that needs to be read with that in mind.

So, basically, any information regarding their psychological well-being needs to be evaluated against other kids of divorce. Guess what? Kids who are victims of divorced parents don’t do very well compared to their counterparts, even when (absent abuse) their parents’ marriages aren’t very good. So guess what that means for kids in same sex households? Additionally, since there’s typically divorce in the history of the children, the corrolary would be the children must have typically had some experience living in a household with both a natural mother and father – or so one would assume by this statement. So it’s not really an accurate indicator of children raised exclusively in a same sex parenting household (say, perhaps, by a lesbian couple who gets artificial insemination). It seems the problems abound…

Yet another article said the following:

In a separate study published in The Journal of
Men’s Studies, (March 22, 2003), researchers
noted that a survey of gay domestic violence in
2000 revealed that of 52 respondents, 79% had
experienced pushing, shoving, or grabbing; 77%
had experienced restraining or the blocking of an
exit by a partner; 64% had experienced punching,
hitting, or striking with hands or fists; 54% had
been slapped.

A 1998 study revealed that of those surveyed, 62%
had been threatened with a weapon and 85% had
experienced significant property or financial loss
from an angry partner. In addition, 39% had been
forced to have sex against their will by a homosex-
ual partner.

Here are the from various (over 100) studies – again, this isn’t convincing me that this particular demographic would make for a very “stable household”.

Methodological problems or not, there does seem to be some cause for concern which would warrant further inquiry before state recognitions of same sex couples ought to be deemed a “good idea”. Even if not a strong argument categorically against such recognition (which it may be), it’s certainly a strong argument for “definitely not yet”.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

…Feel free to advocate for brother/sister marriage if that is your desire. That is not the issue being discussed.

KarenNC,

Here’s what you’ve got to do to convince me about state recognition of same-sex couples: make a logical, reasoned, principled argument for State recognition of same sex couples which wouldn’t also justify the State recognition of a brother and sister couple raising a child.

Don’t their children deserve to be in households afforded legal protection? Doesn’t this promote stability? Aren’t they consenting adults, free to do with their bodies whatever they please?

What logical, principled, reasonable distinction can you make?

Frankly, relying on incest laws which were (1) meant to protect children or (2) based on Biblical injunction as applied to consenting adults of the post-Christian West is rather weak, and it’s growing increasingly likely that the Courts and legislators will soon agree with that – particularly with the existence (and increasing use/acceptance) of eugenic abortion.

If you truly think that same sex couples don’t threaten the traditional institution of marriage, now’s your chance to prove it.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[East_and_West]

Oh my. The fact that an intelligent person can support same sex marriage is amazing to me… I was part of the homosexual community for a few years (yes i was actively homosexual) and let me tell you… it is not a pretty picture. I would never support homosexual marriage.

 

[KarenNC]

KarenNC,

Here’s what you’ve got to do to convince me about state recognition of same-sex couples: make a logical, reasoned, principled argument for State recognition of same sex couples which wouldn’t also justify the State recognition of a brother and sister couple raising a child.

Don’t their children deserve to be in households afforded legal protection? Doesn’t this promote stability? Aren’t they consenting adults, free to do with their bodies whatever they please?

What logical, principled, reasonable distinction can you make?

Frankly, relying on incest laws which were (1) meant to protect children or (2) based on Biblical injunction as applied to consenting adults of the post-Christian West is rather weak, and it’s growing increasingly likely that the Courts and legislators will soon agree with that – particularly with the existence (and increasing use/acceptance) of eugenic abortion.

If you truly think that same sex couples don’t threaten the traditional institution of marriage, now’s your chance to prove it.

By your own argument:
“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.”

Your earlier hypothetical brother and sister were stipulated to be in a nonsexual relationship (unless you mean something else by the word “chaste”). If that is the case, your own argument stands against them receiving any benefits, as it would be “forming a stable family unit to tend to already existing children”. If they are not in a sexual relationship, there is no “baby making activity” going on and presumably, therefore, the child already exists, is not their joint biological child and deserves no consideration from the state at all in your view.

However, then the state should also not be in the business of providing benefits to those heterosexual couples who are also not “involved in babymaking activity” (ie those where the man is permanently impotent, where the woman has had a hysterectomy or those where the woman is postmenopausal as these folks are not going to make babies regardless of their activities—see biology 101 ).

If you have now changed your argument to discuss a sexual relationship between the brother and sister, that is easily addressed by the fact that such sexual activity is currently illegal. If it is made legal at some point, I will be happy to revisit the discussion with you.

Incest taboos have never been exclusively Christian or even Jewish. In fact, there are societies which have wider ranging taboos than Christian ones do. Incest laws are not exclusively applicable to children, though certainly children do benefit.

Alternatively, Ryan, what you can do is to show me in detail exactly how making any specific same sex marriage legal rather than merely religiously valid, much less the existence of same sex marriage in general, is a threat in any way to my heterosexual monogamous marriage. I know of no way that it would be such.

Religiously valid same sex marriage has been widely available to many groups for years. To know that two women or two men married would not have dissuaded me from marrying my husband. To see a couple who are indeed in a longterm, monogamous, supportive and sacrificial marriage that has weathered rough spots would have been (and is) just as inspiring to me whether they were the same or opposite sexes and regardless of what particular actions they take in the bedroom (which is none of my business regardless of their sexual orientation).

I see much more of an argument for potential threat from never married, cohabiting or divorced heterosexuals, heterosexuals who are married but not monogamous and media blasting sex as a casual encounter with no consequences (by that I mean sex of any kind with anyone). Frankly, I only see possible improvement of the view of the institution of marriage in such a situation.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

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.

It should be legal, there is no threat to the social order. Two people of the same gender love each other and have the same ups and downs as different-gender preference people.

 

[Shiphrae]

*It should be legal, there is no threat to the social order. Two people of the same gender love each other and have the same ups and downs as different-gender preference people.

---

JustFaith I Graduate
Nightly iPod listener to St. Philomena Foundation Rosary

John 13:34 that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.*

You profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ. What about his words when He gave us the Church - “You are Peter, and on this rock…”? We cannot pick and choose only some of his teachings. We must accept all of it. We are playing God if we decide that we know better than God and His Church, about right and wrong.

**John 13:34 that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
**

Jesus also said ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might’. If we love God, we follow His way. We follow his leadership. We don’t decide that we know better than He does.

 

[KarenNC]

You profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ. What about his words when He gave us the Church - “You are Peter, and on this rock…”? We cannot pick and choose only some of his teachings. We must accept all of it. We are playing God if we decide that we know better than God and His Church, about right and wrong.

Re-read the topic of the thread, Shiphrae. The discussion is about non-religious arguments, therefore the above is not applicable to this particular discussion.

 

[Shiphrae]

Re-read the topic of the thread, Shiphrae. The discussion is about non-religious arguments, therefore the above is not applicable to this particular discussion.

I suggest that you do the same. The ‘Catholic Answers Forums’ is exactly what the title suggests - about religion - catholicism. Also it is hardly possible to discuss without including one’s beliefs. Since my beliefs are all coloured by my faith as a catholic, I cannot discuss well without referring to them.

Why don’t you discuss without referring to your beliefs!

 

[agangbern]

Re-read the topic of the thread, Shiphrae. The discussion is about non-religious arguments, therefore the above is not applicable to this particular discussion.

Right KarenNC. But even the quote which is the subject of Shiphrae’s answer did not fit to the topic too. For it was not an argument against gay marriage but in support of gay marriage.

 

[Shiphrae]

But even the quote which is the subject of Shiphrae’s answer did not fit to the topic too. For it was not an argument against gay marriage but in support of gay marriage.** agangbern**

Hardly!!! How did you come up with THAT statement?

 

[agangbern]

But even the quote which is the subject of Shiphrae’s answer did not fit to the topic too. For it was not an argument against gay marriage but in support of gay marriage.** agangbern**

Hardly!!! How did you come up with THAT statement?

Shiphrae, here is the quote which is the subject of your answer:

It should be legal, there is no threat to the social order. Two people of the same gender love each other and have the same ups and downs as different-gender preference people.

No name as to who made that statement. But it is an argument in support of gay marriage, not against it. That is not in line with the topic. As claimed by one poster, your answer to it used biblical passages, so he concluded that your answer is not in line with the topic. I was only reminding him that even the quote to which you replied is also not in line with the topic. My comment was not directed against you, shiphrae.

 

[Shiphrae]

I was only reminding him that even the quote to which you replied is also not in line with the topic. My comment was not directed against you, shiphrae. agangbern

SORRY! I misunderstood your post.

Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[KarenNC]

I suggest that you do the same. The ‘Catholic Answers Forums’ is exactly what the title suggests - about religion - catholicism. Also it is hardly possible to discuss without including one’s beliefs. Since my beliefs are all coloured by my faith as a catholic, I cannot discuss well without referring to them.

Why don’t you discuss without referring to your beliefs!

I am suggesting that you go back to the original post in the thread

“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.”

The OP knows his religious arguments against same sex marriage, but is discussing this with folks who come from another religious perspective. It appears that they have been challenging him as to why legal civil same sex marriage should not be allowed given that we already allow many legal forms of marriage that are not in line with Catholic teachings. As US law is not based on Catholic doctrine (or that of any particular religion), it is a perfectly legitimate and very pertinent question and something that folks from any religious background need to consider.

You have to remember that legal civil marriage and sacramental marriage are two entirely different things. A sacramental marriage is legally binding if and only if the person performing the marriage is also acting as an agent of the state according to the criteria set by that state (US marriage laws are determined on a state by state rather than federal basis).

Any religous institution in the US is perfectly free to perform or not perform, acknowledge or not acknowledge any sort of marriage sacramentally that they choose, whether or not it is legally recognized. That is why the Catholic Church is not required to sacramentally marry people who are divorced unless they meet the Church’s criteria, for instance, or a couple who are incapable of performing sexual intercourse, even though such marriages can be obtained civilly or from another religious institution. It is why the Baptist minister was able to say “no, I won’t marry you” to a number of my relatives over the past few years, because they were not behaving in line with Baptist doctrine (living together, pregnant, etc–they were all heterosexuals). It is also why many other churches and groups are able to perform Holy Union ceremonies for same sex couples even though they do not entitle the couple to any federal or state benefits or protections.

The issue of whether the Catholic Church should allow same sex sacramental marriage for homosexual Catholics is basically a given—the answer is no, in line with its teachings on the matter of homosexuality. The issue of whether same sex couples should be able to obtain a legal civil marriage in the US, especially those who are not Catholic or even Christian, is another one entirely and what is at issue in this particular discussion, regardless of whether it is a Catholic forum or not.

The OP is looking for an argument which is not based on a particular religious doctrine about homosexuality that will hold up against same sex marriage. I am of the position that I do see any that are convincing to me and I am pointing out why. If you are of a mind that you cannot come up with an argument that isn’t based on your religious views, that’s fine, but you need to be ready for the fact that folks who do not share your religious views will not necessarily be convinced or in agreement and are likely to challenge it.

 

[KarenNC]

Right KarenNC. But even the quote which is the subject of Shiphrae’s answer did not fit to the topic too. For it was not an argument against gay marriage but in support of gay marriage.

I took it as saying that the poster was saying that s/he did not see a valid non-religious argument against same sex marriage. That is still answering the OP’s question, simply doing so in the negative.