Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[blessedtoo]

In all,or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, conceived both as a personal relationship AND an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are - and are understood by the society to be - emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.

For every child, a mother and father.

Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse between a husband and wife and encourages and supports the very likely possibility of offspring from that union.

Defining marriage as a set of “rights” obscures the fact that the married spouses are not simply right-bearing individuals in an interpersonal relationship, but also agents of society in a vital SOCIAL INSTITUTION. A social institution is not a “bundle of rights”, but a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs. Rights free one up. Institutions obligate one. Rights are about individual permission. Institutions are about social expectation. By far, the biggest cultural faux pas is the widespread refusal to respect, recognize, or even acknowledge the institutionality of marriage.

Social institutions like marriage exist to meet basic human needs. An institution that exists everywhere on the planet is obviously meeting at least one primary, cross-cultural human need. If human beings were not sexually embodied creatures who reproduce and give birth to helpless, socially needy offspring who remain immature for long periods of time and depend on the love and support of both parents who brought them into existence, the world would have no need for the institution of marriage.

Across cultures, marrige is above all a procreative institution. Marriage’s main purpose is to make sure that any child born has two responsible parents, a mother and a father, who are committed to eachother and the child. To achieve this goal, it has never been necessary, and it would never be possible, for society to REQUIRE that each and every married couple bear a child. There is an obvious reason for this - THERE IS NO NEED! When men and women bond and have sex together, babies are an unexceptional and even quite predictable result. Society does not need to impose mandatory child bearing upon couples - they just do it on their own.

 

[Elric]

Well, lesbians who marry will want to have children together.

Some will, certainly not every lesbian couple. Besides that, there are lesbian couples who want to have children without being married.

The whole concept of marriage and family going together encourages this.

Marriage isnt required to have children and you can certainly form a family that stays together and supports each other without a marriage.

The concept of marriage is essentially the parents of the bride paying the groom to take their daughter.

And if “gay marriage” were the law of the land, lesbians “making babies” this way would of course be protected as their married right.

They can already do that without marriage (infact many do).

But obviously in order to overcome the lack of biological diversity within their relationship, they will need to go outside of their woman-to-woman relationship in order to obtain a sperm donor of some sort.

What is wrong with that?

Hetrosexual couples do that all the time.

Similar deal with homosexual men.

With similar answers. But they didnt really answer the question.

 

[urban-hermit]

Well, lesbians who marry will want to have children together. …
Elric;2985270:

Some will, certainly not every lesbian couple. Besides that, there are lesbian couples who want to have children without being married.

True, it will happen anyway, even as it is already, but perhaps you would grant me that, if we radically re-defined the word marriage in law to include “gay-marriage”, that it is reasonable to presume that this would have an encouraging effect on the practice of conceiving children who will likely never know or be raised by their biological parents (a right none of us should be deliberately denied), and result in more children having to deal with living out this handicapping situation in life, without their consent of course, but more importantly by the deliberate design of their parents and enabled by the law of the State.

 

[urban-hermit]

But obviously in order to overcome the lack of biological diversity within their relationship, they will need to go outside of their woman-to-woman relationship in order to obtain a sperm donor of some sort
Elric;2985270:

What is wrong with that?

Hetrosexual couples do that all the time.

Well, I would say “What is wrong with that” is that THAT is the deliberate action which causes the resulting child[ren] to have to live out the consequences of not knowing or being raised by their biological parents.

And of course in the case of a homosexual couple, the child will either not have a Mom, or not have a Dad.

 

[urban-hermit]

Marriage isnt required to have children and you can certainly form a family that stays together and supports each other without a marriage.

The concept of marriage is essentially the parents of the bride paying the groom to take their daughter.

Well there are all kinds of arrangements that might work out. But when you phrase it as you did here, it makes it sound like you couldn’t care less whether they start out disadvantaged from the get-go or not.

 

[Shiphrae]

How does this subject ‘Non-religious arguments against gay marriage’ fit in this forum ‘Catholic Answers’?

A few years ago I was posting on a forum. The subject of the thread was religion. A few people got on and totally hijacked the thread to ruin the conversation for the people who wanted to seriously discuss religious issues. Is this what is happening here?

Peace of Christ
Shiphrae

 

[Giannawannabe]

What is wrong with that?

Hetrosexual couples do that all the time.

.

Yes. Heterosexual couples try to conceive children outside of the “normal” way (i.e. sperm donor, IVF, surrogacy). However, it is not “right” for them to have children this way either. In the case of ss couples, they HAVE to look outside of their relationship to parent children–either through adoption or artificial means of conception. Heterosexual couples, in 90% of cases, do not NEED to use artificial means to conceive. In this way, nature has shown us that ss couples are not meant to be parents. IMO, that is also why only hetero couples should adopt. By nature’s direction, hetero couples offer what children need.
A big problem I have with ss couples, is that they define their entire relationship by how they interact with each other intimately. In fact, they define who they are by what means they use to satisfy themselves. When one only looks at another in terms of how they have relations, the entire relationship becomes selfish. Hetero relationships can become that way, too, when using ABC, having abortions etc. When relations only become a means of satisfaction, instead life-giving, it is only natural that it becomes shallow.
In terms of gay “marriage”. Marriage is meant to be a Sacrament between a man and a woman before God. Marriage, by definition, is not for ss couples. A legal arrangement for long term ss couples (i.e. civil union) is not the same as a Sacramental Marriage. That is what I have against gay “marriage”. It simply can not be.I resent having ss couples push for “marriage” when it is much more than a legal arrangement. Although I don’t agree with civil unions on a moral basis, I don’t think we can prevent them. If we leave religion out of it, it does seem only fair that if 2 people live together their entire lives, that they should be able to make end of life choices and receives benefits, etc.

 

[agangbern]

Let me ride on for game’s sake…

Nature teaches us that gay marriage is against the law of nature. Look at the birds of the air, the animals on the land, did anyone ever see a male mating with another male? If lower animals such as them can follow the natural law, how come intelligent beings, who are supposed to be higher than ordinary animals, would attempt not to follow the law of nature and instead strive to violate it?

 

[KarenNC]

Let me ride on for game’s sake…

Nature teaches us that gay marriage is against the law of nature. Look at the birds of the air, the animals on the land, did anyone ever see a male mating with another male? If lower animals such as them can follow the natural law, how come intelligent beings, who are supposed to be higher than ordinary animals, would attempt not to follow the law of nature and instead strive to violate it?

We violate it all the time. Lifelong monogamy and celibacy are both contrary to the vast majority of examples of such “natural law” as is the involvement of the male of the species in raising the young . We violate it by using courts to punish criminals. Etc.

I am not aware, however, that US law is predicated on the goal of having humans act like animals, but rather the reverse.

 

[agangbern]

We violate it all the time. Lifelong monogamy and celibacy are both contrary to the vast majority of examples of such “natural law” as is the involvement of the male of the species in raising the young . We violate it by using courts to punish criminals. Etc.

So, because of rampant violations of the law, let us then join in and make more violations of the natural law.

 

[KarenNC]

How does this subject ‘Non-religious arguments against gay marriage’ fit in this forum ‘Catholic Answers’?

The moderators do not seem to have a problem with the topic.

If Catholics wish to be able to attempt to persuade those who do not share their doctrinal base that same sex civil marriage should not be made legal, then they are going to have to deal with arguments that do not begin from the point of view that same sex relationships are inherently disordered, evil, sinful, etc. Note that there is no argument at all that any religious group should be required to provide or recognize any sacramental marriage that they do not wish to—just as with all the other forms of civil marriage that are not reconized sacramentally.

US law is not made on the basis of a specific religious doctrine. If it were, we might have (to paraphrase urbanhermit’s argument):

US law says that if one is going to make offerings they may only be to Ganesha.
A Hindu is free to make offerings to Ganesha
A Christian is free to make offerings to Ganesha
What’s unequal about that?

We don’t make laws based solely on biology. In fact we make laws all the time that are specifically to be applied without regard to race, sex, disability, age, etc.

A few years ago I was posting on a forum. The subject of the thread was religion. A few people got on and totally hijacked the thread to ruin the conversation for the people who wanted to seriously discuss religious issues. Is this what is happening here?

I really don’t see how one can claim that the thread has been “hijacked” away from “religious issues” when the entire topic is “non-religious arguments”. It would rather seem to me that those who want to insert religious arguments would come closer to “hijacking” in this particular instance.

 

[RyanL]

We don’t make laws based solely on biology. In fact we make laws all the time that are specifically to be applied without regard to race, sex, disability, age, etc.

Actually, in a number of cases we do. Men are free to go shirtless, women are not. Women may use a women’s restroom, men may not (outside of NY, that is). I’m sure I could multiply the examples…

Oh, and your understanding of Natural Law seems a bit off. The Natural Law, as classically expressed, only applies to humans - NL theorists don’t really care what penguins or sheep do. Maybe you (and others) would consider listening to a nationally recognized Natural Lawyer talk about what the Natural Law is and what it’s not? It does no one any good to advocate for or fight against a position not held…

KarenNC:

I really don’t see how one can claim that the thread has been “hijacked” away from “religious issues” when the entire topic is “non-religious arguments”. It would rather seem to me that those who want to insert religious arguments would come closer to “hijacking” in this particular instance.

I’ve got to agree with Karen here.

As St. Paul says:
1 Cor 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

We have to work with what truth they have…even the atheists and polytheists. If needed, I could find a quote by St. Thomas saying the same.

More in a bit…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[KarenNC]

Well, I would say “What is wrong with that” is that THAT is the deliberate action which causes the resulting child[ren] to have to live out the consequences of not knowing or being raised by their biological parents.

And of course in the case of a homosexual couple, the child will either not have a Mom, or not have a Dad.

In order to make your second sentence consistent, it needs to be “the child will either not have their biological female parent or not have their biological male parent”. This is not a barrier to heterosexual marriage.

We have plenty of evidence that it is not the presence of either a vagina or a penis or the contribution of a specific egg or sperm that guarantee even the most marginally desirable or beneficial “Mom” or “Dad”.

If you want to argue from this basis, then you will need to show that having same sex parents is always worse than having one’s biological parents married to each other. Given the rates of abuse, neglect, etc of children by biological parents, I don’t see that that is a very strong argument.

My husband was raised not knowing his biological father, who was abusive and an alcoholic because his mother deliberately divorced his biological father when her son was very young in order to protect her son. Would he have been better off being required to grow up with such simply because the man provided the sperm?

My stepniece was sexually molested by her biological father (who was married to her biological mother). I have another stepniece and stepnephew who were severely neglected and abused by their biological parents (who were married to each other) before being adopted into my extended family. I have worked with a number of children over the years who were in some way abused or neglected by their biological parents (who were married to each other).

This is not to say that only biological parents are capable of abuse or neglect. However, the known fact that some heterosexuals are fully capable of being even marginally adequate parents to their children does not mean that no heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

 

[KarenNC]

Oh, and your understanding of Natural Law seems a bit off. The Natural Law, as classically expressed, only applies to humans - NL theorists don’t really care what penguins or sheep do. Maybe you (and others) would consider listening to a nationally recognized Natural Lawyer talk about what the Natural Law is and what it’s not? It does no one any good to advocate for or fight against a position not held…

Thanks, Ryan, but I was answering the definition of “natural law” (note the lowercase letters) that aganbern was using in the quote to which I replied. He specifically applied it to birds and animals and said that if they don’t it, we should not either.

 

[KarenNC]

Defining marriage as a set of “rights” obscures the fact that the married spouses are not simply right-bearing individuals in an interpersonal relationship, but also agents of society in a vital SOCIAL INSTITUTION. A social institution is not a “bundle of rights”, but a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs. Rights free one up. Institutions obligate one. Rights are about individual permission. Institutions are about social expectation. By far, the biggest cultural faux pas is the widespread refusal to respect, recognize, or even acknowledge the institutionality of marriage.

Absolutely agree. I see only benefit in expecting same sex couples to adhere to those obligations in exactly the same manner that we expect heterosexual couples to do so.

When men and women bond and have sex together, babies are an unexceptional and even quite predictable result. Society does not need to impose mandatory child bearing upon couples - they just do it on their own.

Quite true. And our society has found a benefit in allowing civil marriage even to those couples who do not or cannot have children together. If we do not impose mandatory childbearing as a requirement to allow marriage for heterosexuals, why would we require it for homosexuals?

Legal civil marriage for same sex couples would not prevent any heterosexual couple from having as many children as they desire.

 

[KarenNC]

I think the 2ND-BEST non-religious argument against radically re-defining the word marriage to include “gay marriage” is that it will discourage future generations from even getting married by lowering the status of marriage and watering down its meaning.

Do you have any data that support this?

 

[TMC]

Hi TMC,

Loving v. Virginia deals with racial difference, not a difference in sex, between the partners to marriage. These are, as they say, apples and oranges.

You say “clearly their [sic] is an inequality in the current law.” Please indulge my stupidity: Where is it?

You say “Religion cannot be used as justification in our country.”
Please indulge my stupidity: Where did I say anything about religion?

You say “To say the justification is children would ban many currently legal marriages.” Please explain. As I understand it, we are not talking about banning currently legal marriages. We are talking about radically re-defining the word marriage to include “gay marriage”.

Loving was about race, but the arguments in Loving are perfectly mirrored in this argument. The supporters of the anti-miscegenation laws argued that there was no racial inequality because black people were equally free to marry black people as white people were to marry white people. The law made miscegenation illegal for both and gave both the same status. Opponents of gay marriage make the same point, that gay men are equally able to marry any woman and a hetero man is. The rights are the same, each is free to marry a woman. But each is not free to marry the person of each own choosing, just like the mixed race couple in Loving.

I brought up religion for two reasons. First, despite this thread being base on looking for a non-religous justification, posters keep making religous arguments (sometimes disguised as moral or natural law arguments). Second, at the trial court level, Loving was decided on religious grounds - the common belief at the time that God had seperated races and that human action had created an unnatural mixing that went against God’s plans.

There are two common ways to distinguish Loving. The first is that marriage is supported by the State only to encourage procreation and stable homes. This justification is difficult to maintain in light of the fact that the State will readily marry even people that are obviously infertile. There is some rationale behind arguing that as a practical matter the State may presume opposite couples may be fertile and that same sex couples are not, but I find that a bit weak.

You say that we are not talking about banning currently valid marriages, but you cannot analyze equality under the law without looking at what is currently legal. It is currently legal for two octogenarians to marry, and any other obviously infertile opposite sex couple.

The second is a tradition oriented argument that says that throughout the long history of marriage it has been considered a monogamous opposite sex pairing. This argument has the advantage of being more or less factually correct, but suffers from explaining why this tradition should be honored at the expense of the rights of individuals when other traditions have been forced to give way in the face of similar rights. This is the radical re-definition argument you refer to.

Again, if there are good non-religous reasons to maintain the ban on gay marriage, I have not heard them. The tradition argument is probably the strongest one, and it is hard to see how that works in the face of Lawrence v Texas (which made clear that tradition cannot justify intrusion into personal and private decision-making) and Loving.

 

[KarenNC]

Hi Karen, since we have been warned I will return to the topic and go ahead and ignore your continued echoing back of what is said to you in a misrepresented manner. I merely mention it to ask that you cease and desist, as it violates forum policy to deliberately obscure and obstruct truthful communication. No response from you with regard to this point is requested or desired, other than desisting from said activity. Any feigned bewilderment or requests for clarification on this particular point will be ignored.

I will be glad to continue to follow the forum rules just as I have been doing all along.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is quite clear that marriage is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. As such, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are bound by the same simple facts of biology.

One homosexual man is free to marry one woman.

…just as one heterosexual man is free to marry one woman.

One heterosexual man is NOT free to marry another man.

…just as one homosexual man is NOT free to marry another man.

If two men want to set up a relationship, they are completely free to do so. They may not refer to it as marriage, for the simple reason that it is NOT marriage.

Can you help me see where there is not “equal treatment under the law” ? (please make an effort to be succinct)

Laws regulate social interaction, not biology. Marriage is a social construct, not biology. Biology does not require monogamy. Biology does not require marriage at all.

Biology requires that the male provide the sperm to a female at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner to facilitate conception (not any particular one and not only to one, in fact biology favors genetic diversity which is better served by spreading sperm around as much as possible). Biology requires that the female bear the child, provide milk and care for it until it is capable of obtaining and eating solid food on its own. That’s it.

Biology also does not require that every individual reproduce nor that every possible sexual act result in pregnancy. The biology of humans does not require that we only mate at the optimal time and in the optimal way for conception and only then.

 

[Bennie_P]

This is not to say that only biological parents are capable of abuse or neglect. However, the known fact that some heterosexuals are fully capable of being even marginally adequate parents to their children does not mean that no heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

Quite true. And our society has found a benefit in allowing civil marriage even to those couples who do not or cannot have children together. If we do not impose mandatory childbearing as a requirement to allow marriage for heterosexuals, why would we require it for homosexuals?

Legal civil marriage for same sex couples would not prevent any heterosexual couple from having as many children as they desire.

Your logic as well as most homosexual apologist is based on two flawed ideas.
One - that if hetersexuals cannot prove to do it right 100 percent of the time then we should allow homosexuals the chance to screw the world up too.

Two - That it is a “rights” issue, when it fact it is more then a “rights” issue.

The data you seem to want to prove that homosexual marriage is a bad idea is there. It has been consistantly shown that homosexuality is destructive as a lifestyle and is unhealthy in practice, yet apoligist for homosexulity and SSM continue to expect the impossible from a practice, “homosexuality” to do well. You are not looking for proof that gay marriage is OK, you are looking for an excuse to justify immorality.

 

[KarenNC]

Your logic as well as most homosexual appoligist is based on two flawed ideas.
One - that if hetersexuals cannot prove to do it right 100 percent of the time then we should all homosexyuals the chance to screw the world up too.

It’s not about 100% for either group. It’s about equal access.

Two - That it is a “rights” issue, when it fact it is more then a “rights” issue.

Really, how many times do I have to use the words “obligations” and “responsibilities” before folks will remember them?

You are not looking for proof that gay marriage is OK, you are looking for an excuse to justify immorality.

What is the non-religous basis for saying that same sex sexual relationships are immoral?