Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[JustMeSee]

Disclaimer: I am neither in favor of nor opposed to legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Now, you want a secular argument against same-sex legal marriages. Well, it is bad economics. It requires redistributing resources away from real need.

Where did anybody come up with the idea that if two people love each other and, based on that love, are committed to each other in an exclusive relationship that the government owes it to them to reward them with certain benefits and protections?

The argument in favor of such government intervention is, of course, that without it society will implode.

There is nothing in the above paragraphs about religion.

What is the real need, and what resources?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

What is the real need, and what resources?

See [thread=7852375]this thread[/thread].

 

[FireDragon76]

I've argued the gay marriage issue at least 50 times and to date, I've never heard a decent secular argument against gay marriage. Every single person I've argued with that is against gay marriage is against it because of their religion. I've yet to argue with an atheist who was against gay marriage.

Where did anybody come up with the idea that if two people love each other and, based on that love, are committed to each other in an exclusive relationship that the government owes it to them to reward them with certain benefits.

Our society is deeply influenced by Christianity, and Christianity values love. And not just love in an abstract sense or warm sentimentality, but concrete embodiment in the lives of real persons. The distinction between sexual love and other forms of love also is not absolute throughout Christianity, even if C.S. Lewis tried to artificially separate agape from eros. Reading the Song of Songs, and its traditional Christological interpretation, should put to rest the idea that eros and agape are mutually exclusive.

I can think of plenty non-religious reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, but most of them would be difficult to justify to the average person, and that's what matters in the end. And the average person has values that are deeply shaped by various religious or humanistic traditions. We cannot discuss these things without references to some kind of metaphysical belief about reality and what the interrelationships between persons and phenomena mean.

 

[JustMeSee]

See this thread.

I read the thread.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Should NASA send men to Mars? They seem to be working up to that. Is there a "real need" for that? How are we to measure that?

It seems to me that the government is not a frugal one that has a "real need" standard for anything that it does. So why should we suddenly have one for gay marriage?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This isn't really a secular argument against it, but I guess one question that gets posed if we allow homosexual marriage is, "What about other consensual forms of marriage which are currently outlawed by the state?"

If we acknowledge there are no good secular arguments against gay marriage, then what exactly are the good arguments against incest and polygamy?

And I guess that question doesn't really matter because there isn't really a strong "incest marriage" or "polygamy marriage" movement at the moment.

 

[Belk]

This isn't really a secular argument against it, but I guess one question that gets posed if we allow homosexual marriage is, "What about other consensual forms of marriage which are currently outlawed by the state?"

If we acknowledge there are no good secular arguments against gay marriage, then what exactly are the good arguments against incest and polygamy?

And I guess that question doesn't really matter because there isn't really a strong "incest marriage" or "polygamy marriage" movement at the moment.

The arguments generally come down to harm. Personally I am not sure I agree with the arguments but as you say there is little push for these marriages. Though there are still Mormon sects who would be for the later.

 

[trunks2k]

If we acknowledge there are no good secular arguments against gay marriage, then what exactly are the good arguments against incest and polygamy?

Incest would be a question of true consent, particularly with close relatives. There's way too much room for some sort of coercion for a parent/child or sibling/sibling relationship. I don't think you'd want to open the sort of door that it's OK to view your child or sibling as an acceptable (future) sexual partner. On the other hand, if you had, say, siblings that were separated while very young and never knew each other, and then meet years later only to find out they are related; I wouldn't mind. Even if you take genetic problems due to procreation between close relatives into account, those generally aren't much of an issue unless it happens over the course of several generations.

Polygamy one could argue that the whole legal system framework of marriage is simply not equipped to handle multiple people married to each other. Whereas there's no real functional legal complication to changing marriage from one man, one woman to two people of any sex.

 

[JustMeSee]

There are polygamous marriages that are religious, but not legal. Problems usually arise from government sanction and underage religious marriages. Of course, other compound issues tend to be involved.

Non religious bigomists frequently keep their legal spouses in the dark about each other. At least, this is what gets the media attention. It is a crime.

Any future consideration of poly marriages should involve all spouses involved. This is a much more complex topic than same sex marriage.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Incest would be a question of true consent, particularly with close relatives. There's way too much room for some sort of coercion for a parent/child or sibling/sibling relationship. I don't think you'd want to open the sort of door that it's OK to view your child or sibling as an acceptable (future) sexual partner. On the other hand, if you had, say, siblings that were separated while very young and never knew each other, and then meet years later only to find out they are related; I wouldn't mind. Even if you take genetic problems due to procreation between close relatives into account, those generally aren't much of an issue unless it happens over the course of several generations.

Polygamy one could argue that the whole legal system framework of marriage is simply not equipped to handle multiple people married to each other. Whereas there's no real functional legal complication to changing marriage from one man, one woman to two people of any sex.

If one really wanted to be a devil's advocate, they could argue these points. Its generally impossible to form a really airtight ethical position. But again, its not really a concern until the day when there is a strong "incest marriage" or "polygamous marriage" movement.


To the OP, there aren't really any "airtight" secular arguments against homosexuality. I think there are secular arguments (Mark posted one), but it just comes down to whether you personally view the argument as compelling. If you think reproduction is important for you or society or the state then the reproduction argument seems more compelling.

 

[keith99]

Incest would be a question of true consent, particularly with close relatives. There's way too much room for some sort of coercion for a parent/child or sibling/sibling relationship. I don't think you'd want to open the sort of door that it's OK to view your child or sibling as an acceptable (future) sexual partner. On the other hand, if you had, say, siblings that were separated while very young and never knew each other, and then meet years later only to find out they are related; I wouldn't mind. Even if you take genetic problems due to procreation between close relatives into account, those generally aren't much of an issue unless it happens over the course of several generations.

Polygamy one could argue that the whole legal system framework of marriage is simply not equipped to handle multiple people married to each other. Whereas there's no real functional legal complication to changing marriage from one man, one woman to two people of any sex.

Bolding mine.

One of the huge advantages of marriage for the state is that it serves to designate the next of kin.

Any 2 person marriage is dissolved upon death of either. For a Poly marriage that becomes a very sticky question which becomes harder and harder as one adds more people.

 

[WindStaff]

IF mankind were in danger of dying out then I could come up with a reason. In that case there would be a secular reason.

However our current problem is over, not under, breeding.

I doubt marriage has too much an effect on population decreasing or increasing. Most women like the idea of being married before children, but that is a growing rarity. At the same time, marriage can be the ground in which a well fortified baby canon can sit upon.

Though, it is virtually certain that marriage has a direct effect on the general health and constitution of society. This is perhaps why Sodom and Gomorrah went the way they went, having little morals relevant to marriage.

 

[jayem]

Bolding mine.


Any 2 person marriage is dissolved upon death of either. For a Poly marriage that becomes a very sticky question which becomes harder and harder as one adds more people.

Problematic to be sure, but not necessarily unsolvable. I think a state could legally recognize a plural marriage. But before issuing a license, it can require the parties present a comprehensive prenuptual contract specifying all the spouses' rights, duties, obligations, property ownership and division, child care and custody matters, inheritance and estate issues, medical decision making, matters relating to divorce and adding another spouse, and a clearly defined way to arbitrate any disagreements not covered in the prenup. Basically, the partners have to agree in advance how to handle as many marriage issues as might conceivably arise. And the state should require that each spouse have his/her own legal representation while the contract is being negotiated, and that each spouse has signed it freely and without any duress.

Realistically, I doubt any state would amend its marriage laws in such a fashion. And the legal expenses involved would be formidable. But it would be a good test. Any group that can stay together while negotiating all these details, and actually reach an agreement, might have a shot at a successful marriage.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Should NASA send men to Mars? They seem to be working up to that. Is there a "real need" for that? How are we to measure that?...

NASA's plans are probably an attempt to be relevant again and not get defunded or dissolved.

During the Cold War when there was the Space Race an argument could probably be made that NASA was needed. I don't know about now.

It seems to me that the government is not a frugal one that has a "real need" standard for anything that it does...

The way things are and the way things ought to be are two different concepts.

So why should we suddenly have one for gay marriage?

Nobody singled out same-sex marriage.

Government redistribution of resources in the form of marriage is bad economics, period.

Therefore, because same-sex marriage is government-sanctioned marriage, and because government-sanctioned marriage is bad economics, we have a purely secular argument against same-sex marriage.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Does this sound like people who are entering an essential social institution and who therefore need protection and benefits from the government?:


From Wikipedia:

"A starter marriage is a first marriage that lasts five years or less and ends without the couple having any children together.

In her 2002 book The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony Pamela Paul analyzed historical trends in American matrimony, pointing out that, as of 2002, Americans were getting married only slightly older than 100 years before, but that they were living decades longer. (In fact, Americans of Generation X are getting married at a rate closer to that of their grandparents than of their Baby Boomer parents.) She also claimed that some young couples get married for reasons not strong enough to support a long relationship, and that an increasing number of them end their marriages quickly. Paul's book caused controversy for suggesting that these divorces are a good thing, if the couple have not had children.

Paul's research consisted mostly of census data analysis and interviews with dozens of young divorced people, most of whom fell into one of several categories: people who got married to complete a "power couple" life, to move out of their parents' houses, out of fascination with weddings, or because they had been dating a long time and marriage was easier than breaking up..."

 

[Queller]

Disclaimer: I am neither in favor of nor opposed to legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Now, you want a secular argument against same-sex legal marriages. Well, it is bad economics. It requires redistributing resources away from real need.

Actually it's good economics as it represents increased profit opportunities for a multitude of service oriented businesses, e.g. florists, caterers, bakers, musicians, etc.

I'm not sure what resources are being distributed to same-sex couples or what real need those resources are being taken away from.

Where did anybody come up with the idea that if two people love each other and, based on that love, are committed to each other in an exclusive relationship that the government owes it to them to reward them with certain benefits and protections?

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just same-sex marriage.

 

[Queller]

If you think reproduction is important for you or society or the state then the reproduction argument seems more compelling.

I've never understood why anyone considers the reproductive argument against same-sex marriage even the slightest bit compelling. It isn't as if people are going to stop making babies if the government sanctions same-sex marriage.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just same-sex marriage.

It is a response to the "we love each other" / "I have the right to marry the person I love" / "people do not choose who they love" argument that has frequently been made specifically in support of legal same-sex marriage.

 

[Strathos]

Isn't an argument against marriage in general also an argument against SSM?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The way things are and the way things ought to be are two different concepts.

I'm aware of that, but you are proposing a standard for legislation that has nothing to do with the American system. There is nothing in the Constitution demanding purely economic justifications for government action. This kind of request at least begs a philosophical description and defense of this standard.

For instance, the end of slavery might have been bad economics, but that wouldn't be a compelling reason to have kept slavery as an institution.

Government redistribution of resources in the form of marriage is bad economics, period.

It is not at all clear that:

1) That is bad economics.
2) Bad economics ought to be the standard of legislation.
3) How precisely this standard is to be defined and understood.

It all just seems to mean what people's values are for society. If one's value is that homosexuals shouldn't get married, then all money spent on gay marriage looks like a waste. If one's value is that they should be able to get married, then all that money looks like money well spent. "Economics" is all about means, not ends, and it doesn't carry any normative weight all by itself.

It could just as easily be that equality is a higher standard for legislation -- for instance, in order to remove special privileges -- and that this is a proper guide to legislators. That would make sense for a liberal republic, and is in the spirit of the end of slavery and other efforts to make people equal under the law.

So, the argument from bad economics seems like a bad one to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark