Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[GarfieldJL]

Saul would be wasting his time. The main argument presented as a secular argument against same-sex marriage has been the reproduction one, with a high degree of back-pedalling and goalpost-shifting when flaws in the argument are pointed out.

There may well be a convincing secular argument against same-sex marriage. But if there is, it hasn't been presented so far.

All that was asked for was a secular-argument...

It's about the promotion of reproduction.

As to punishing people in a heterosexual marriage for not having kids, the United States isn't a dictatorship.

 

[Queller]

Well, I think we've probably both been guilty of misunderstanding what the other was saying, but we try our best to understand correctly, I hope.

I didn't say that homosexuals shouldn't be considered as citizens; I said that marriage shouldn't be considered to be open to same sex couples. Baker v Nelson in 1971 heard exactly the same arguments as were later used to overturn the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, but decided that there was no violation of the 14th Amendment. Homosexuals are equally able to marry as heterosexuals; but what was being requested was not a marriage. They explicitly stated that marriage was about procreation, rejected the argument that childless married couples presented a counter-case to this that thereby legitimated SSM, and explicitly disavowed the relevance of Loving v Virginia.

There have been many changes in the law since 1972. At the time, homosexuality was illegal and discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal. Note the following from the Baker decision;

"Loving v. Virginia, upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination."

Racial discrimination was illegal at the time of Loving v. Virginia. Since discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in the majority of states now, it therefore logically follows that marriage bans based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional as well.

The relevant laws were exactly the same in 1971 as in the 2000s, so if there was a violation of the 14th Amendment in the 2000s there must have been one in the 1970s, yet the courts failed to see it, according to you. Or, more likely, they correctly understood what 'marriage' meant in the statutes when they were drafted, which you have already acknowledged would have been the meaning an intention when they were drafted.

Actually this is not correct. In the late 1990s/early 2000s. many states enacted bans on same-sex marriage through laws or amendments to their state constitutions. That forced the issue into a different prospective.

For the court (rather than the legislature) to redefine 'marriage' to include same sex couples is as much a misreading of the laws, and just as ridiculous, as for them to redefine 'persons' to include cats.

No, it is not. The 14th Amendments applies to any government action that affects US citizens. Bans on same-sex marriage definitely fall under that.

That's fine; that is the appropriate place for laws to be changed. The question I am dealing with in this thread is whether it is legitimate for the traditional definition of marriage to be retained without violating the constitution.

Well, the majority of US courts that have decided the issue have decided that it is not.

What are we dealing with here if not different people's opinions? I have mine, you have yours, Supreme Court Justices have theirs - though if they bring their opinions into their legal judgements instead of sticking to legal facts then they are overstepping their proper role.

That's the problem though isn't it? Most people tend to think that if judges don't rule the way the believe they should, then they are overstepping their role. In the US those judges get labeled "activist judges".

However, judges from all across the political spectrum have ruled the same way, that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional based on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. To me that says that they aren't just going by their opinions.

Yes I can. I am suggesting that marriage came about in order to provide an optimal context for child-rearing. The question of what would have happened if marriage had not originated for that reason is a counterfactual, so can be susceptible to multiple answers. I think most likely there would have been nothing like marriage, but if there had been it would have had a different form.

And yet when asked what that form would be, you said it wouldn't have existed. Not existing is not a different form of something.

In whose understanding? It has only come to be understood that way because some judges have changed the definition of marriage.

If by change you mean expand, then OK. But the definition of marriage has expanded and contracted a lot through the years.

I'm moving past some of your other points, since I think we've argued them out already and I'm not sure that a tis-tisn't-tis-tisn't battle is really getting us anywhere.

The real question is whether a legislature could have reasonable grounds for deciding to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

In legalising SSM, the state is effectively endorsing homosexual relationships at being of equivalent status and value to heterosexual ones. If the legislature feels that they are not of the same value, it would be justified in enacting a ban on SSM.

But to overcome the Constitutional concerns, that justification must be logical and (mostly) consistent in its application. Bans on SSM justifed by the idea of procreation don't meet that standard.

I note that the US tradition is that morality should be up to the individual; the state should maintain a moral neutrality as far as possible. However, the state cannot remain morally neutral on everything, and there are some things that are prohibited because they offend against a sense of morality. Prostitution and public nudity would be a couple of examples. The government's attitude towards smoking would be another good example of something that is not strictly prohibited but the government clearly shows a moral disapproval of it through its actions.

The problem with this line of thinking regarding smoking is that while the government allegedly shows a moral disapproval of smoking, smoking is still legal. Even where smoking is banned in certain locations, those bans are based on the potential harm smoking can do to other people, not the smokers themselves.

Homosexuality could be regarded as a disordered form of human sexuality (I'm not saying I have proved or am going to try to prove it, but that a person could reasonably hold the opinion that it is.) We recognise other forms of disordered sexuality, such as paedophilia, necrophila and zoophila. These have in common the fact that they cannot lead to reproduction, and therefore homosexuality could reasonably be added to the list.

Wrong. Pedophilia most definitely can lead to reproduction.

9-Year-Old Girl Gives Birth To Healthy Baby Boy In China

Now, of these other forms, they could be forbidden on the grounds of non-consent (I'm not sure what the position on necrophilia would be if the person had given consent prior to their death for their body to be so used), therefore there is no need to consider banning them on the grounds of being unnatural because there are already other, easier, grounds for banning.

However, a person could reasonably hold the view that homosexual practice should be included in this list, and therefore should be either prohibited or discouraged.

This could lead to two consistent positions: the first would be to say it is such a danger to public morality that homosexual acts should be prohibited outright;

On what secular reasoning could a person hold this view of homosexuality?

the other would be to say that the presence of consent means that the act should be permitted, but the state's need to discourage that behaviour warrants its taking action to show that the state does not approve of this behaviour, which would include not giving SSM the same status as heterosexual marriage.

The state doesn't make that distinction between other behaviors such as gambling or drinking. Why should it do so for homosexuality?

This could be done by refusing to recognise partnerships at all, or by creating an alternative form of partnership that fell short of marriage.

Most Americans dislike anything that smacks of "separate but equal". "Separate and unequal" is even worse.

But let's explore this idea a little. How would this hypothetical form of partnership differ from "traditional marriage"?

If the legislature were to hold the view that homosexuality is a disordered form of human sexuality and as such should not be endorsed by the state, an opinion that could reasonably be held on the grounds that normal sexuality should be directed towards relationships where reproduction is possible at least in principle, then they would be justified in enacting a 'Defence of Marriage' type act or constitutional amendment.

That's where your hypothetical fails because it is neither logical or consistent. The only way it to change that would be to also prohibiting those who cannot, or choose not, to have children from being married as well.

 

[Queller]

All that was asked for was a secular-argument...

It's about the promotion of reproduction.

You need to provide justification for the claim that the reason government recognizes marriages is to promote reproduction. As reproduction will happen regardless of marriage status or the governments recognition of such, that is going to be a very high bar to clear.

 

[Conscious Z]

I know I sort of just checked out of this thread, but I only did so because it is thoroughly uninteresting. I don't think any reasonable person would be persuaded by the reproduction argument, even if one were able to prove that the historical intention of marriage was to foster an environment in which to raise children.

Back and forth on bad arguments is only fun for a little while.

 

[David Brider]

All that was asked for was a secular-argument...

True. But no good one has been forthcoming.

It's about the promotion of reproduction.

Except it isn't, really. Because reproduction can happen without marriage, and marriage can happen without reproduction.

As to punishing people in a heterosexual marriage for not having kids, the United States isn't a dictatorship.

a.) nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has suggested punishing opposite-sex couples for not having children, and

b.) this isn't about the United States, it's about arguments against same-sex marriage.

 

[Roonwit]

Queller

It was also the courts, not the legislature, that overturned bans on homosexual practice. Therefore, although it didn't happen in a single case, it is the opinions of judges rather than decision of the legislature that have changed the position. Therefore, my point still stands.

This little excursus into the US Constitution has been most interesting and illuminating. I suppose each country is entitled to govern itself as it thinks best, but I am amazed that anyone would thing this was a sensible way of running a country, still less one that prides itself on its separation of powers. The courts are clearly wading into territory that belongs to the legislature, with no democratic accountability. Even for a country that frequently astonishes me with the absurdity of some of the views it can count as rational (usually the more conservative ones), this seems utterly bizarre.

Not only are the courts free to reinterpret words in any way they choose (which leads to an Alice in Wonderland sort of world), but there is also no stability. In some states SSM has been made legal, then illegal again (invalidating the marriages already conducted) and then re-legalised as different courts change their judgements back and forth. All that would be required for another change back again is getting five Supreme Court Justices who think that the 14th Amendment shouldn't be used in this way, and then it all changes again. No wonder the appointment of judges is such a political battlefield in the US - that makes much more sense now. In the UK we would never know the political persuasions of our judges, and neither would we care, since their judgements should be very much the same whoever is doing the judging.

It would be different if SSM had been legal and then later the legislatures had come along and banned it - then you would have a good case for the courts' decisions here. But by your own admission, marriage had always been understood in law to mean a man and a woman, so the DOMA acts were simply clarifications of the existing position. I see now why they were thought to be necessary, if judges can reinterpret laws so easily; what I can't see is why anyone thought a simple legislative act could be sufficient against courts that can strike down legislation they don't like - why wasn't more effort made to get a constitutional amendment, I wonder?

Most people tend to think that if judges don't rule the way the believe they should, then they are overstepping their role. In the US those judges get labeled "activist judges".

Without wanting to make too nationalistic a point, that's a very American way of thinking, as I am coming to learn (it was an American who told me this, otherwise I wouldn't feel able to say so). From a British point of view, however hotly contested an issue is, I think we care about having it settled in the right way by the right people in the right forum. We now have SSM in the UK. I think that was a mistake; but at least it was settled properly. On euthanasia, for which I have some sympathies, the courts refused to rule on that because they said, rightly, that it was a matter for parliament to decide, since the existing legislation did not cover it.

If by change you mean expand, then OK. But the definition of marriage has expanded and contracted a lot through the years.

Popular definitions may have expanded and contracted, but judges should be concentrating on legal practice; and in US common law there was no precedent for understanding marriage to be other than the union of a man with a woman.

The problem with this line of thinking regarding smoking is that while the government allegedly shows a moral disapproval of smoking, smoking is still legal. Even where smoking is banned in certain locations, those bans are based on the potential harm smoking can do to other people, not the smokers themselves.

Tobacco-specific taxes and restrictions on advertising show a moral judgement is being made to discourage smoking... you can't convince me that there is no morality underlying those approaches.

Since you ignore the points about prostitution and public nudity, should I assume you are conceding my point there?

Wrong. Pedophilia most definitely can lead to reproduction.

9-Year-Old Girl Gives Birth To Healthy Baby Boy In China

Although it is popular to define paedophilia to include any underage sex, technically it refers to sexual desire for children before they are sexually mature (ie. capable of reproducing), and therefore by definition if a girl is able to conceive then the act was not paedophilia but simple rape (even if it was committed by someone who is a paedophile). While there may be good reasons for having an age of consent higher than this, I would not regard sexual desire for a girl who is capable of bearing children to be a disordered form of sexuality.

On what secular reasoning could a person hold this view of homosexuality?

I have given nothing but secular arguments in this thread. The trouble is, you are defining 'secularism' to be 'anything that Queller agrees with'. Well, of course, if this is your definition of secularism, then no argument against homosexuality will ever be sufficient. However, I was participating on this thread with the assumption that the question raised in the OP was asked in good faith, ie. that it held open the possibility that a secular argument could actually be made.

This view of homosexuality has been held around the world in pretty much every culture in every time until the recent past in some Western countries, regardless of religion or otherwise. It is perfectly creditable as a secular belief. Whether it is correct or not is another matter, but it is certainly a secular belief, and is at least basically credible as a view.

If you want to eliminate any state judgement on morality (having written that opening clause I think that's actually impossible - there is no such thing as amorality or moral neutrality, since that is itself a moral position; but anyway, I'll skip past that for the moment), a plausible case could be made for the abolition of the state recognition of marriage, since privileging any relationship in that way discriminates against people who are unable to enter it (eg. single people), excluded from the qualifications for it (eg. plural marriage, siblings) or don't feel that the state should be involved in such matters. However, the argument that marriage should be retained and expanded to include SSM can only be intended to demonstrate a state approval of homosexual relationships as equally valid to heterosexual ones. Whether you agree with that position or not, it is a moral point of view. If you believe that the state can take a moral position in that direction, then you are being completely hypocritical to say that it could not legitimately take a moral position in another direction, if it were to be so inclined.

There is no inconsistency in setting the boundaries of traditional marriage where they are. To a first approximation, the conditions needed for having a baby are a sexually mature man and woman. That is basically where the boundaries for marriage lie. All the relationships that fall within that category that cannot have children differ from the basic form by a matter of degree, such that no clear dividing line can be drawn. However, a clear dividing line can be drawn with regard to gender, because there is no homosexual couple anywhere ever who are capable of having a child together, while in general heterosexual couples can. There is a difference of kind between those two, not simply a difference of degree.

Like it or not, that is a consistent position to hold, and it is based on entirely secular reasoning, and within the laws and traditions of the United States it could legitimately be enacted in law (though apparently only by constitutional amendment). QED.

Roonwit

 

[Paulos23]

There is a reason the founders saw the Constitution as a living document. They knew issues they haven't thought of will arise and the Constitution will need to be reinterpreted in the light of these new issues or ammended. The legislature and states are required to ammend the Constitution, but it is the job of the Suprem Court to interpret it.

So it doesn't matter when the ammendment was added and to address what issues, the language of the ammendement still applies, and has to be applied equally.

 

[WindStaff]

With liberals, I see a whole lot of "why not" argumentation.

"Why not" allow homosexual marriage, rather then an argument expounding on why a country should be obligated to ascertain abnormal, extremely uncommon and very controversial marriage.

It seems to be an emotional package then a rational one, the whole country getting bent out of shape and causing problems over hardly 1% of marriage rights.
There are much bigger problems on the subject of marriage that get hardly no attention at all. Until one takes care of that, why should anyone ascertain something that is, in reality, outlandish and unneeded?

Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.

 

[selfinflikted]

Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.

So homosexuals are the drivel of society now?

 

[WindStaff]

So homosexuals are the drivel of society now?

Nice straw man.

 

[selfinflikted]

Nice straw man.

Is that not what you just said? Or did I misread you?

 

[WindStaff]

Is that not what you just said? Or did I misread you?

A straw man is taking one part of what a person says and trying to make it seem like something else.

You took a tidbit from my post and did exactly that. Way to go.

 

[selfinflikted]

A straw man is taking one part of what a person says and trying to make it seem like something else.

You took a tidbit from my post and did exactly that. Way to go.

I am well aware of what a straw man argument is. However, did you or did you not say that you would stand against SSM, if not for a moral reason, because "[you'd] be against it for the sole sake of bring[sic] against the drivel of society today." Implying that gays are the drivel of society?

(if so, you've misused the word "drivel")

 

[WindStaff]

I am well aware of what a straw man argument is. However, did you or did you not say that you would stand against SSM, if not for a moral reason, because "[you'd] be against it for the sole sake of bring[sic] against the drivel of society today." Implying that gays are the drivel of society?

(if so, you've misused the word "drivel")

What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.

Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.

 

[Belk]

With liberals, I see a whole lot of "why not" argumentation.

"Why not" allow homosexual marriage, rather then an argument expounding on why a country should be obligated to ascertain abnormal, extremely uncommon and very controversial marriage.

It seems to be an emotional package then a rational one, the whole country getting bent out of shape and causing problems over hardly 1% of marriage rights.
There are much bigger problems on the subject of marriage that get hardly no attention at all. Until one takes care of that, why should anyone ascertain something that is, in reality, outlandish and unneeded?

Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.

Yes, the US the government requires a good secular reason for limiting the rights of others. It is how our rights have worked since our founding. If you feel that there are other issues that should be addressed in marriage you can try to drum up support.

 

[David Brider]

What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.

That seems to be a good argument against those who don't wish to legalise same-sex marriage. Why, after all, are they so worked up about something that doesn't concern them?

Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.

That may seem obvious to you, but it's also - at least as far as I'm concerned, and also those of my friends who support same-sex marriage - completely wrong. We don't want same-sex marriage to be legalised in order to attack traditional beliefs or customs. We just want same-sex marriage to be legalised so that same-sex couples can get married, the same as opposite-sex couples can.

 

[selfinflikted]

What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.

Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.

Then I did, in fact, misunderstand. You have my apologies.

So what if it even only applies to 0.000001%, though? It's still an injustice, and it affects me. So, yes, it's important to me. And you, nor your religion, are important enough to me to "attack." Just FYI.

 

[WindStaff]

Then I did, in fact, misunderstand. You have my apologies.

So what if it even only applies to 0.000001%, though? It's still an injustice, and it affects me. So, yes, it's important to me. And you, nor your religion, are important enough to me to "attack." Just FYI.

Homosexual marriage being illegal is not an injustice in relevance to things such as men not being treated fairly in divorce settlements, or the definition of 'assault' steadily becoming that of a breeze of wind, or assessing wills in marriage more carefully.

Things that have real consequences, you see, and pertain to much more then a small minority in which most therein don't even seem to want to get married being that the ratio of marriages and gays in every place it is legal is quite bad.

So n a way, it really is an extreme, extreme minority on exchange for neglecting REAL problems. There is no other reason- no logical premise to go in that direction if it isn't to specifically bash traditional customs and beliefs. Christianity is the foothold altogether in which states where homosexuality is illegal props on.

What you fail to understand about Separation of Church and State is that I don't have to forsake my moral opposition to anything just because it's tapped from my religion. That is not what it means, at all.

 

[selfinflikted]

Homosexual marriage being illegal is not an injustice in relevance to things such as men not being treated fairly in divorce settlements, or the definition of 'assault' steadily becoming that of a breeze of wind, or assessing wills in marriage more carefully.

Are there other, more pressing matters in the U.S. besides SSM? Yes, of course. Does that trivialize the fact that in some states SSM is not legal? No.

Things that have real consequences, you see, and pertain to much more then a small minority in which most therein don't even seem to want to get married being that the ratio of marriages and gays in every place it is legal is quite bad.

So? Lots of heterosexuals don't ever get married. You don't think SSM marriage is important. Fine. I get it. Some of us do, however, think it's important.

So n a way, it really is an extreme, extreme minority on exchange for neglecting REAL problems. There is no other reason- no logical premise to go in that direction if it isn't to specifically bash traditional customs and beliefs. Christianity is the foothold altogether in which states where homosexuality is illegal props on.

No one is bashing you or your beliefs. Grow up, and drop the ubiquitous Christian persecution complex.

What you fail to understand about Separation of Church and State is that I don't have to forsake my moral opposition to anything just because it's tapped from my religion. That is not what it means, at all.

No one said you should.

 

[Marius27]

What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.

Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.

The LGBT community makes up anywhere between 5-10% of the population. That doesn't include all the friends and family members of those people who wish to see them be treated equally. And then you have the people who support SSM, because they believe in equality for its own sake since it's the right thing to do. That's why over half the population supports it.

Your argument is like saying since only 9% of the population was black in the 1960s, the other 91% of the population should have never supported their equality and freedom since it had no impact on them.