Cearbhall said:
Not at all. The intentions of lawmakers centuries ago do not matter one iota. Evolutionary arguments matter even less. You must demonstrate that this is the case today, and specifically in the context of legal marriage in the US. This is the matter being discussed.
Are you looking for the statute where it is written that marriage is for the purpose of procreation? Of course, there isn't one, and you know that.
But hey, you asked about US law, so let's work with that. One of the many blessings the US inherited from us in the UK is the common low legal system. There is much in this system that is not codified, but has been handed down from the generations. Therefore, in order to understand the legal purpose of marriage, it is absolutely relevant to ask how it came about and how it has been regarded in the past. This only changes if there is explicit statute on it, but since there isn't, then we can infer the purpose of marriage from the way it has always been practised.
By permitting same-sex marriage in law, statute is being introduced that changes the nature of marriage. It is therefore reasonable for people to enquire into the nature of that change, and ask whether that is a change we really want to make. And many don't.
You asked for a secular argument against SSM. That is a pretty solid one. Whether it is the conclusive argument should be up to the people to decide. There certainly cannot be said to be a human right to SSM based on anything in previous US law, as far as I can see.
Are you under the impression that same-sex couples take away children who otherwise would have been raised by two competent biological parents? As I said before, the adoption process is exactly the same as it is for opposite-sex couples. This argument doesn't say anything about SSM. The closest you'll get to this is if the bio mother has a female partner and the bio dad has a wife, and the bio mother gets primary custody of the child. But the kid is still with one bio parent.
No, I'm saying that with SSM, in order to have children the couple must
necessarily depart from the normal pattern where a couple raise their own biological child. Because things go wrong, this is sometimes necessary in other marriages too, but it is not
necessarily the case for those marriages.
Let me illustrate with another, more extreme, example to emphasise the point. I don't have a guide dog. I don't have a guide dog because I'm not blind. If I were blind, getting a guide dog would probably be the next best option. But it isn't the normal option; it's a makeshift solution because something went wrong with my eyes.
So, most people don't need guide dogs, but we make provision that people can get them if they need. But no-one would see being blind and having a guide dog as an equally good option to being sighted. Nobody tells the eye doctors to give up and go home; still less does anyone choose to blind themselves. Being blind and having a guide dog is a second-choice option.
Back to the current example, being adopted is a second-choice option, for both the parents and the child. If the child can be raised by their two biological parents, they should be. By having (traditional) marriage as normative in society, we demonstrate that ideal - that the normal pattern is for a man and a woman to come together for life to raise their own biological children together. There are sometimes circumstances that can't happen, but these are second best, like having a guide dog if you are blind.
By changing the definition of marriage, you change the ideal, because you introduce a type of marriage that can never, even in principle, meet that ideal. You therefore either have two types of marriage, in which case they should have different names and different processes to make it clear that the two types are distinct, or you have to change the understanding of the normal pattern that is being promoted.
The first option - different types - is what the UK did in 2004 with civil partnerships. But now it is argued that this is discriminatory against homosexual people, and therefore the second option - changing the definition - has now been enacted. But this change of definition is not simply, as most people have been led to believe - about the gender of the person you can marry. It also necessarily changes our understanding of the normal pattern of how children are best raised. Adoption and step-parenting can no longer be regarded as a second-best option; now any two competent adults are judged to be just as good at raising a child as its two biological parents. (Or, to compare with the extreme example, being blind with a guide dog has been elevated to the same status as being sighted.)
As I said, in a secular society, if the people want to change their definitions in this way, they can. But I think the people should be made properly aware of the changes they are making before they make them, which in the UK has not happened. It is claimed that allowing SSM doesn't affect heterosexuals at all, but that's not true. This is a change that profoundly affects the way society thinks about marriage, parenthood and child-rearing, and it should be properly thought through before being enacted.
Roonwit
