Ok, well since I have provided a solid secular justification for rejecting SSM, the thread could really now be closed. And proponents of SSM should stop claiming that only religious people can have any objections to it.
To continue on other arguments against it, we really should change the thread title to "Any
more secular arguments against SSM?" Of course, as several posters here have amply demonstrated (eg. posts #2 and #125), many proponents of SSM are not actually interested in considering whether there may be arguments against their position, still less in listening to them. However, for those who are, let's continue with the discussion.
Skaloop,
Since we agree that introducing or restricting SSM is not at heart a justice issue, then the rhetoric on both sides can be toned down, and a calm measured debate can be had without trying to make out that the other side is basically evil. We are considering instead what is best for society as a whole. I would argue that maintaining marriage as it has been traditionally understood is best for all, particularly for children.
I don't recall marriage having been defined to exclude interracial marriage. It may have been socially unacceptable in some places, but it would still have been understood as marriage.
Which is the constitutional right to gay marriage?
The movement is by stealth if it isn't honest about the scale of the change that is being made, and if it seeks to tell people that they are morally wrong to oppose it rather than it being a morally neutral question of what kind of norms we want to have in our society.
I'll deal with the slippery slope question at the end of this post.
Cearbhall,
That there is nothing in statute defining marriage is irrelevant. You ignore the point that the US, as the UK, is a common law system. Therefore ancient traditions don't need to be codified to be understood. Murder isn't defined in statute either, but we all know what it is.
Since you don't understand the polygamy argument, let me try to help you. Under the traditional definition of marriage - that it is about creating a framework within which two people can raise their biological children together - I can easily explain why it is one man and one woman for life, and why I can't marry a man (because we can't have children together), and I can't marry two people (because at least one of us would not be the aprent of a child raised in that context), and why I can't marry my sister (because it would be bad for the offspring so produced).
Now you want to change the definition of marriage so that it is about two people who are in love. Ok, fair enough, but you need to consider the logic of this change. It is really foolish to enact poorly thought-through law; it leads to all kinds of messy consequences. So, under your new proposal, why can't three people who love each other get married? Why can't I marry my sister if we love each other? Explain, within the logic of your new definition, why you are excluding those other types. Or, if you are not excluding them, you need to be honest about that. Many people will not have realised that the change in the law you are making may necessarily be interpreted by the courts as having a broader impact in the future. Currently, the courts have no power to enforce same sex marriage in states where it has not been explicitly legalised. But if we don't define the new status of marriage carefully, then future cases may arise where the courts observe that the law is inconsistent unless other types of marriage are permitted, and they will be obliged to permit them in order to iron out the discrepancies. That's what a Supreme Court is for.
Now, if you actually think that these other forms of marriage are acceptable and you don't mind them being legalised in the future, you should make this plain, so that the people who are trying to make up their minds whether to support SSM can decide whether they still support it when they realise it means that plural marriage is also being justified. If they feel that plural marriage is not justified, that may cause them to re-evaluate whether they really want SSM after all.
Alternatively, if there is some reason why SSM should be permitted but plural marriage should not, then please explain what this is. What is special about the number two that means that two people can get married but three cannot? I can explain the logic of my position on the basis of the traditional definition of marriage; I want to know whether you can explain the logic of your position on the basis of your new definition.
Moreover, you should also explain why marriage is still being regarded as something for life. Why not change it to be a temporary contract, renewable if desired? If it is about people who love each other rather than about children, there is no reason we should expect it to be for life if they no longer love each other. Therefore, with our new definition, it would make more sense to turn marriage into a form of contract law, and make pre-nuptual agreements mandatory.
Conscious Z,
Your point about the term 'gay marriage' proving that the definition has already changed is completely inaccurate. Real tennis is not a form of tennis, though it bears some resemblances to it. Calling it real tennis makes more sense than calling it real basketball. American football is not football, though it bears some resemblances to it. (Actually, I've never understand why a game you play with your hands should be called football, but that's another issue.) There's a building in London called the Gherkin, but I wouldn't like to see you eat it. No, actually I would. I'll pay to watch
You say the use of the term shows the definition has already changed. When was the time before which people wouldn't have understood what was meant by 'homosexual marriage'? (I grant that the term 'gay' to apply to homosexuals is of recent origin.) I'm pretty sure you could have discussed this question with Abraham and he would have known what it meant. Are you suggesting the definition had already changed before that time?
There's a man in Sudan who was forced to marry a goat. A woman in Germany claims to be married to the Berlin Wall. That we have some understanding of what those things might mean does not mean that we actually think they are married in a true sense of the word, or could be.
In fact, it is the fact that you have to prefix 'marriage' with the term 'gay' that indicates that the definition has not yet changed. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would all understand that marriage included both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Prefixes would be redundant. It would be a bit like talking about a human man.
And finally...
Now, about slippery slopes. The slippery slope argument is actually important. Let me give the historical example of abortion. When this was legalised in the UK in 1967, it was to deal with the really hard cases like rape, incest and severe foetal abnormality. Proponents at the time said that 'abortion on demand' was not their intention. The effective use of abortions for social reasons was unthinkable. But now, even the MP who introduced the Abortion Bill in 1967 says that he is shocked at the way his bill is now being used. Fewer than 2% of abortions in the UK now are carried out for the reasons intended by those who passed the original Act.
This backs up the point I was making earlier about sloppy law. It is really important to think carefully not just about what changes you want to make now, but also about how those changes will impact in the future. Changing the law does not just change what people are allowed to do; it also changes, over the long term, the very way people think. We need to look ahead, and consider whether the changes we make now will lead to consequences that we don't think should come about.
When civil partnerships were introduced in the UK in 2004, we were told that there was no need for gay marriage, and that such a change was not just around the corner. Just nine years later, the Same Sex Marriage Act was being passed. Although I think civil partnerships were probably right, I have a lot of sympathy for those who feel it was a Trojan Horse, being used as the thin end of the wedge (sorry for the mixed metaphor).
Responsible citizens need to think carefully about the long-term consequences of the changes they are making. And if they see danger in those long-term consequences, they are perfectly entitled to be opposed to the current change. There is no human right to SSM. There is nothing inconsistent or immoral about a state deciding it wants to retain traditional marriage. No injustice is being committed - especially not if some kind of civil union is available for same sex couples. So the thrust of the argument put forward by SSM-proponents, which makes out that the only morally acceptable way forward is to legalise SSM, is entirely false.
Roonwit