Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Skaloop]

This is from a review of Not the Marrying Kind: A Feminist Critique of Same-Sex Marriage, by Nicola Barker:


"Barker argues that feminist criticisms of marriage aired in the 1970s and 80s have continuing relevance to the political interests of gay, lesbian, and other queer people, and are ignored at their peril. Indeed, in Barker’s view, gay and lesbian marriage advocates’ failure to consider feminist arguments against marriage constitutes a fatal flaw in their thinking. Historically, marriage has offered spouses (and especially husbands) a range of privileges, protections and responsibilities—tax breaks, housing benefits, ‘next of kin’ decision-making, and superannuation benefits, for example. Marriage has also worked as a kind of privacy screen, shielding the exploitation and assault of spouses (usually wives) from scrutiny. Barker argues that such privileges are unfairly attached to marriage, and operate to elevate only one kind of relationship (and sometimes only one partner to that relationship) at the expense of others. Why, for example, should elderly sisters who have lived together for 30 years and wish to bequeath their shared home to each other have to pay an inheritance tax they would avoid if they were a married couple? For Barker, broadening the scope of marriage to include same-sex couples perpetuates its social elevation in ways that are inconsistent with a broader agenda of social justice in which rules should apply to people in similar situations in similar ways, regardless of their relationship status. Barker’s vision is of a social order in which material benefits are not attached to spuriously respectable, state-sanctioned monogamy, but instead exist in a range of diverse and meaningful forms...." (emphasis mine).


Another secular argument against same-sex marriage.

It is the argument that I have been making all along.

More of an argument against marriage of any sort, really.

 

[Skaloop]

Mortal sin calling itself holy matrimony is more then enough reason to be opposed to it as a Christian. It isn't even actual marriage- not anymore then marrying a horse- the God of Abreaham does not consider anything other then man and woman being married.

God stoned to death homosexuals, how is homosexual marriage applicable? I would love to what Christians who support same-sex marriage think they are defending marriage from. God?

For starters, do you have chapter and verse for where in the Bible it says that God Himself stoned homosexuals to death?

Secondly, killing is also a mortal sin, so you should be opposed to it rather than celebrating God for doing it.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the God of Abraham considers marriage, because the government, the entity charged with dealing with marriage laws, is not the God of Abraham.

 

[WindStaff]

On one hand, people are saying that marriage is a constitutional right.

On the other hand, people are saying that it would not be unconstitutional for states to stop sanctioning marriages.

Which is it?

Rights of marriage were put by under the consensus of men and women marrying, it being a virtually certain part of everyone's lives, and divorce being an unfortunate yet rare event.

Marriage today is likely to end in divorce, is not a part of everyone's lives, and homosexual union is becoming legal- what relevance does this have to those who put rights of marriage in place and their reasoning for doing so?

The answer is none- there is no relevance to them at all to those who do not support the traditional importance and conditions of marriage. Therefore, habitual divorce and homosexuals and the growing popularity of remaining single are things foreign to the customs of this country- the way of this country is fundamentally based in a Christian attitude.

 

[WindStaff]

For starters, do you have chapter and verse for where in the Bible it says that God Himself stoned homosexuals to death?

Moses' laws were set forth from God. But that's irrelevant, ultimately, because God destroyed the entire world once.

Secondly, killing is also a mortal sin, so you should be opposed to it rather than celebrating God for doing it.

'You shall not kill' is in the context of murder. There is a difference between killing and murder.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the God of Abraham considers marriage, because the government, the entity charged with dealing with marriage laws, is not the God of Abraham.

You're right, the government has absconded with the principle of marriage from it's roots in religion.

And that does matter, especially to a country that is supposedly 78% Christian- a statistic that makes me laugh.

 

[David Brider]

Mortal sin calling itself holy matrimony is more then enough reason to be opposed to it as a Christian.

How is two people of the same sex getting married a "mortal sin"? I get that you don't like the idea of same-sex couples getting married, calling it a mortal sin seems a bit OTT.

It isn't even actual marriage- not anymore then marrying a horse...

You say that, but I'd honestly be hard pressed to think of any significant differences (except insofar as we're all individuals) between my own marriage and those of other opposite sex couples on the one hand, and those of same sex couples on the other hand. (Whereas marrying a horse, even if such a thing were legally possible, seems very obviously different to either same-sex or opposite-sex marriage.)

...the God of Abreaham does not consider anything other then man and woman being married.

If you believe that to be the case, then that's your prerogative. However, not everybody believes that, for a variety of reasons.

God stoned to death homosexuals...

No he didn't.

...how is homosexual marriage applicable?

"Applicable"? Applicable in what sense? Same-sex marriage just...is. At least, it's legal in some nations and US states. It happens.

I would love to what Christians who support same-sex marriage think they are defending marriage from. God?

I don't think marriage needs defending, particularly. People who want to get married, will do so. People who don't want to get married, won't. That has been the case, it is the case, it will continue to be the case. Legalising same-sex marriage doesn't change that (except that more people who want to get married are legally able to do so). What's to defend?

 

[Skaloop]

Rights of marriage were put by under the consensus of men and women marrying, it being a virtually certain part of everyone's lives, and divorce being an unfortunate yet rare event.

Marriage today is likely to end in divorce, is not a part of everyone's lives, and homosexual union is becoming legal- what relevance does this have to those who put rights of marriage in place and their reasoning for doing so?

The answer is none- there is no relevance to them at all to those who do not support the traditional importance and conditions of marriage. Therefore, habitual divorce and homosexuals and the growing popularity of remaining single are things foreign to the customs of this country- the way of this country is fundamentally based in a Christian attitude.

And rights of voting were put by under the consensus of white men voting. Now black people and women can vote! What ever happened to the traditional idea of voting?

 

[WindStaff]

And rights of voting were put by under the consensus of white men voting. Now black people and women can vote! What ever happened to the traditional idea of voting?

White men voting was practical for the time. There only needed to be one vote per household, and it was seen quite clearly that it should be the ones who fought for, built, and personally maintained the country be primarily active in it's continuity.

Slaves were set free under no real conditions of being a centrifugal part of any of that. Like women, they had no predisposition in the country's workings.

The after effect of abolishing of slavery was something America had to deal with because it was too late to simply take them back to their home country- they had culturally relocated, learned our language and religion, and so on.
So eventually there had to be a change in white men leading the way.

With women however, it's pretty dubious that it wasn't until the industrial revolution and all the fruits which men had made to make life generally easier for everyone that women all of a sudden wanted what they didn't have before

 

[Skaloop]

White men voting was practical for the time. There only needed to be one vote per household, and it was seen quite clearly that it should be the ones who fought for, built, and personally maintained the country be primarily active in it's continuity.

Slaves were set free under no real conditions of being a centrifugal part of any of that. Like women, they had no predisposition in the country's workings.

The after effect of abolishing of slavery was something America had to deal with because it was too late to simply take them back to their home country- they had culturally relocated, learned our language and religion, and so on.
So eventually there had to be a change in white men leading the way.

Are cultural shifts therefore acceptable reasons to expand how rights are applied?

With women however, it's pretty dubious that it wasn't until the industrial revolution and all the fruits which men had made to make life generally easier for everyone that women all of a sudden wanted what they didn't have before

Yes, so dubious that women would want their own say in how their government is run.

Anyway, my point is that traditions change, and the tradition of only white male landowners being allowed to vote has changed multiple times. Traditions change. Government and rights change. The tradition and legal nature of marriage is changing, too. Therefore, "tradition" is not a secular argument against same-sex marriage.

 

[WindStaff]

Are cultural shifts therefore acceptable reasons to expand how rights are applied?

One firsts need to give good reason why there should be an expansion. The rules were set in place by an extreme majority, now rules are being set by the minority or bare majority.

It is not enough by any means to justify a total editing of the country's virtues. This is the reason why there are so many people at arms with the country altogether- usually when this happens in a society, historically speaking, something bad is around the corner because fanaticism has taken the place of accountability and solidarity.

 

[Queller]

On one hand, people are saying that marriage is a constitutional right.

Correct.

On the other hand, people are saying that it would not be unconstitutional for states to stop sanctioning marriages.

Also correct, with the caveat that they stop sanctioning marriage for anyone.

Which is it?

Both. Not sanctioning marriage is not the same thing as banning people from getting married.

 

[Queller]

No, if there were no economic benefits to be gained from marriage there most likely never would have been any controversy over same-sex marriage in the first place.

Economic benefits have been a big part of what the debate is about--certainly not "completely irrelevant".

None of that has anything to do with the portion of your statement to which I made that response.

Nobody categorically has the right to a government-sanctioned marriage. If states stopped sanctioning marriages they would not be violating the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

Correct, as long as they stopped sanctioning all marriages.

A person's sexual orientation does not change any of this.

It does if the only reason people are being prevented from being married is because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Queller]

double post/formatting issues

 

[Queller]

LOVEthroughINTELLECT[/COLOR];66770114] This is from a review of Not the Marrying Kind: A Feminist Critique of Same-Sex Marriage, by Nicola Barker:


"Barker argues that feminist criticisms of marriage aired in the 1970s and 80s have continuing relevance to the political interests of gay, lesbian, and other queer people, and are ignored at their peril. Indeed, in Barker’s view, gay and lesbian marriage advocates’ failure to consider feminist arguments against marriage constitutes a fatal flaw in their thinking. Historically, marriage has offered spouses (and especially husbands) a range of privileges, protections and responsibilities—tax breaks, housing benefits, ‘next of kin’ decision-making, and superannuation benefits, for example. Marriage has also worked as a kind of privacy screen, shielding the exploitation and assault of spouses (usually wives) from scrutiny. Barker argues that such privileges are unfairly attached to marriage, and operate to elevate only one kind of relationship (and sometimes only one partner to that relationship) at the expense of others. Why, for example, should elderly sisters who have lived together for 30 years and wish to bequeath their shared home to each other have to pay an inheritance tax they would avoid if they were a married couple? For Barker, broadening the scope of marriage to include same-sex couples perpetuates its social elevation in ways that are inconsistent with a broader agenda of social justice in which rules should apply to people in similar situations in similar ways, regardless of their relationship status. Barker’s vision is of a social order in which material benefits are not attached to spuriously respectable, state-sanctioned monogamy, but instead exist in a range of diverse and meaningful forms...." (emphasis mine).

Another secular argument against same-sex marriage.

It is the argument that I have been making all along.

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just same-sex marriage. Yes, the author couches her language in terms of same-sex marriage but the telling phrase is this;

"broadening the scope of marriage to include same-sex couples perpetuates its social elevation in ways that are inconsistent with a broader agenda of social justice"

The word "its" there refers to the entire institution of marriage, not just same-sex marriage. If you want to use this argument against same-sex marriage, then you must logically argue against opposite-sex marriage as well.

 

[Skaloop]

One firsts need to give good reason why there should be an expansion. The rules were set in place by an extreme majority, now rules are being set by the minority or bare majority.

Just as they always have been. Wealthy white men were hardly an extreme majority of the population.

It is not enough by any means to justify a total editing of the country's virtues.

Unless those virtues are changing at a societal level, to the point where it is opposed only by an ever-diminishing minority of the population. The minority being the thing you just said should not be able to write the rules, remember.

This is the reason why there are so many people at arms with the country altogether-usually when this happens in a society, historically speaking, something bad is around the corner because fanaticism has taken the place of accountability and solidarity.

How many? At arms with what? How is having a minority of the population control whether two people of the same sex can get married to each other demonstrating accountability or solidarity. Limiting the actions of others you disagree with for no good reason is hardly solidarity.

 

[WindStaff]

Just as they always have been. Wealthy white men were hardly an extreme majority of the population.

Women collectively make up 60% of the voting body and blacks are no longer a minority.

Yet, feminists call women a minority (I guess they mistake themselves as being 'all women'), there is still an idea that blacks are a minority even though they are not, homosexuality has magically quadrupled, I suppose, because of a magical biological shift which has not been found (sarcasm)...

In other words, the minority are getting by on making themselves seem bigger then they actually are. IN OTHER WORDS, it is all a facade- the majority are getting the shaft out of as far as I can tell is coalesced nonsense!

How many? At arms with what? How is having a minority of the population control whether two people of the same sex can get married to each other demonstrating accountability or solidarity.

Because it's not really about homosexual marriage, it is about the ideology altogether which is causing such things, and also Islamic favor over Christians, favoritism of women, getting sacked economically by foreigners, and so on.

You take away that driving force, and it all disappears. Because most people supporting any and all of these things don't really care about these things, they are in just base opposition to those who don't want them. Just as liberals do to conservatives, so to do conservatives do to liberals.

 

[Skaloop]

Women collectively make up 60% of the voting body and blacks are no longer a minority.

What? How are blacks not a minority? And where are you getting that 60% number?

Yet, feminists call women a minority (I guess they mistake themselves as being 'all women'), there is still an idea that blacks are a minority even though they are not,

What definition of minority are you using that doesn't apply to blacks?

homosexuality has magically quadrupled, I suppose, because of a magical biological shift which has not been found (sarcasm)...

Straw man. It's likely the same as it's always been, but there's been a shift in acceptance by society.

In other words, the minority are getting by on making themselves seem bigger then they actually are. IN OTHER WORDS, it is all a facade- the majority are getting the shaft out of as far as I can tell is coalesced nonsense!

You just said that women and blacks aren't minorities, now you're saying they are minorities making themselves look bigger? How is the majority getting the shaft if women and blacks are both in the majority?

Because it's not really about homosexual marriage, it is about the ideology altogether which is causing such things, and also Islamic favor over Christians, favoritism of women, getting sacked economically by foreigners, and so on.

What sort of favouritism of Islam, and what sort of favouritism of women? If women are the majority as you said before, then why shouldn't they be favoured? How are people getting sacked economically by foreigners?

You take away that driving force, and it all disappears. Because most people supporting any and all of these things don't really care about these things, they are in just base opposition to those who don't want them. Just as liberals do to conservatives, so to do conservatives do to liberals.

I agree, many times people oppose things just because of where issues line up on the political spectrum. But I can assure you that many people do indeed care about those things.

 

[voltran]

*snip*

You're a bit over the top here and it makes this post less convincing.

A real bigot, as opposed to a Poe, would have provided some examples. The fact you have not provided them indicates to me you are not part of the far right evangelical community as you claim.

For example, "and also Islamic favor over Christians, favoritism of women, getting sacked economically by foreigners," should include direct and outlandish claims from people like Paul Elam of the "Men's Rights Movement" and Pamela Geller of "Ground Zero Victory Mosque" fame.

Something like "and of course now a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Ardmore, Oklahoma is now offering Halal meat! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE SHARIA!!!!" would have been more convincing.

In short I find your imitation game lazy and disappointing.

Unless of course you are being serious about any of the above in which case, to all of it from your claims about gays to claims about muslims I have one simple reply.

 

[Roonwit]

I'm surprised there has been almost no discussion in this thread of the implications for the statement we are making about child-rearing if we allow SSM. Quite separate from the argument about whether children are better of with a male and a female parent (which I think is an argument that has a lot of merit), there is a lot of evidence that children are, in general, best raised by their biological parents. Of course, we make exceptions to that generality in special circumstances - sometimes a parent dies, or is incapable of rearing a child, or divorces happen, and so we make provision for adoptions and step-parents or for the support of single parents. But we still maintain the ideal that the best situation is for a child to be raised by their two biological parents.

By legalising same-sex marriage, we necessarily break that connection, since we are now saying that at least one of the parents of the child will not be the biological parent, and by legalising SSM (rather than just same-sex partnerships) we are saying that we think this is just as good as the situation where a child is raised by their two biological parents.

That is a very significant shift, and one that needs to be carefully considered (and in the UK debate at least, I didn't see it considered at all). Do we really think that it is just as good for children to be raised by non-biological parents as by biological parents? If we really do, as a society, believe that, and the evidence supports it, then I can't object in principle to SSM in secular society. But I don't think most people do think that, and I'm pretty sure the evidence doesn't support it.

Roonwit

 

[David Brider]

I'm surprised there has been almost no discussion in this thread of the implications for the statement we are making about child-rearing if we allow SSM. Quite separate from the argument about whether children are better of with a male and a female parent (which I think is an argument that has a lot of merit), there is a lot of evidence that children are, in general, best raised by their biological parents. Of course, we make exceptions to that generality in special circumstances - sometimes a parent dies, or is incapable of rearing a child, or divorces happen, and so we make provision for adoptions and step-parents or for the support of single parents. But we still maintain the ideal that the best situation is for a child to be raised by their two biological parents.

By legalising same-sex marriage, we necessarily break that connection, since we are now saying that at least one of the parents of the child will not be the biological parent, and by legalising SSM (rather than just same-sex partnerships) we are saying that we think this is just as good as the situation where a child is raised by their two biological parents.

That is a very significant shift, and one that needs to be carefully considered (and in the UK debate at least, I didn't see it considered at all). Do we really think that it is just as good for children to be raised by non-biological parents as by biological parents? If we really do, as a society, believe that, and the evidence supports it, then I can't object in principle to SSM in secular society. But I don't think most people do think that, and I'm pretty sure the evidence doesn't support it.

Roonwit

That would - if there's any validity to it - be an argument against adoption. By any couple.

It's not an argument against same-sex marriage, though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That would - if there's any validity to it - be an argument against adoption. By any couple.

It's not an argument against same-sex marriage, though.

This^


eudaimonia,

Mark