Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Cearbhall]

How would preventing same-sex marriages increase the reproduction rate?

It wouldn't, necessarily, but in a society where the sole purpose of marriage truly is procreation, the government would have no cultural obligation to allow marriages that can't produce children.

 

[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.

No, not at all. As I said, we already acknowledge that adoption is a second-best option - necessary in some circumstances, the best that can be done for that particular child, but never the ideal. So we have adoption. But by having same sex marriage we say that actually adoption is just as good as being brought up by your biological parents.

Roonwit

 

[Belk]

No, not at all. As I said, we already acknowledge that adoption is a second-best option - necessary in some circumstances, the best that can be done for that particular child, but never the ideal. So we have adoption. But by having same sex marriage we say that actually adoption is just as good as being brought up by your biological parents.

Roonwit

No. That does not logically follow. It would be no different then any other case where a non biological parent adopts a child along with a biological parent.

 

[Cearbhall]

So we have adoption. But by having same sex marriage we say that actually adoption is just as good as being brought up by your biological parents.

How so? They adopt kids from the same pool as opposite-sex parents and single parents. Kids aren't getting put up for adoption just so same-sex couples can have them. In fact, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt kids who wouldn't otherwise get adopted (namely, black children) because of empathy for other oppressed populations. This helps to fight the cycle of poverty, so they actually fill a societal need.

In the rest of those same-sex households which include children, the kids are the biological children of one of the parents, in which case, yes, that is the best place for them.

 

[Roonwit]

Which, again, I said is not ideal. I did not say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, incidentally - that's a separate question. What I said was that by calling it 'marriage' we change the expectation that child-rearing is normally and is best done by two biological parents to saying that any two competent adults are just as good as the biological parents.

Roonwit

 

[Cearbhall]

Which, again, I said is not ideal. I did not say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, incidentally - that's a separate question. What I said was that by calling it 'marriage' we change the expectation that child-rearing is normally and is best done by two biological parents to saying that any two competent adults are just as good as the biological parents.

I understand, but you haven't provided evidence that this leap of logic is the truth. What Belk said. I don't see any such implication in the legalization of SSM.

Marriage is not about procreation. Infertile opposite-sex couples have always been able to marry in the US (to the best of my knowledge). That doesn't mean anyone is saying that it would be better for children to be taken from their biological parents and adopted by these people. Not to mention that it's perfectly legal for a single person to have a child.

 

[Belk]

Which, again, I said is not ideal. I did not say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, incidentally - that's a separate question. What I said was that by calling it 'marriage' we change the expectation that child-rearing is normally and is best done by two biological parents to saying that any two competent adults are just as good as the biological parents.

Roonwit

No. Again that does not logically follow. If having two people who are not the biological parents adopt is "Not ideal" then that holds true regardless of the sex of the participants. There is nothing about SSM that would lead one to believe it has changed anything in regards to child rearing. So we yet again have an argument that works against marriage in general but not against SSM specifically.

 

[Roonwit]

No. Again that does not logically follow. If having two people who are not the biological parents adopt is "Not ideal" then that holds true regardless of the sex of the participants. There is nothing about SSM that would lead one to believe it has changed anything in regards to child rearing. So we yet again have an argument that works against marriage in general but not against SSM specifically.

No, because in marriage, it will normally be the case that the two people getting married will have their own children and bring them up, while in a same sex relationship that can never be the case. By saying that same-sex partnerships are 'marriage', therefore, we necessarily change our expectation of what is the normal way for children to be raised, ie. by their two biological parents.

Roonwit

 

[Roonwit]

Marriage is not about procreation.

Actually, it is. It's only really because of the need for a stable environment for raising a family that we need long-term committed partnerships. Otherwise, there would be no great problem with switching partners as often as you feel the need.

Roonwit

 

[Roonwit]

Not to mention that it's perfectly legal for a single person to have a child.

But we still recognise that single-parenthood is not ideal. Most people think the child should have a relationship with their father as well, and recongise that it would be better if both parents live together with the child.

Roonwit

 

[Cearbhall]

No, because in marriage, it will normally be the case that the two people getting married will have their own children and bring them up, while in a same sex relationship that can never be the case.

No. We've already explained that this is not an expectation of an opposite-sex couple that enters into a legal marriage in the United States. Infertile couples and couples who do not intend to have biological children are just as welcome to partake in the institution. There's no justification for inventing this expectation simply to discriminate against same-sex couples.

 

[Roonwit]

No. We've already explained that this is not an expectation of an opposite-sex couple that enters into a legal marriage in the United States. Infertile couples and couples who do not intend to have biological children are just as welcome to partake in the institution. There's no justification for inventing this expectation simply to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Nothing is being invented here. Infertile couples rarely discover their infertility before they are married and try to have children - thus demonstrating that they wanted children. And if they became fertile, as they hope, then they are best placed to have children within marriage.

That there is no question asked about intent to have children does not change the fact that the reason for having the institution of marriage is for rearing of children. That doesn't mean that every married couple has to have children (though the vast majority will). If they wanted to have children, it would be best for them to have their children within their marriage and raise them as a couple.

Roonwit

 

[Cearbhall]

Nothing is being invented here. Infertile couples rarely discover their infertility before they are married and try to have children - thus demonstrating that they wanted children.

Not that this changes anything regarding SSM anyway, but do you have statistics on this?

Regardless, demonstrating it does not mean that there was a requirement in the first place.

That there is no question asked about intent to have children does not change the fact that the reason for having the institution of marriage is for rearing of children.

What is your evidence, then, if you know it's not in the contract? Where's your secular justification? Your personal interpretation of marriage laws is not a reason to ban SSM.

If they wanted to have children, it would be best for them to have their children within their marriage and raise them as a couple.

Then this also applies to SSM. Notice that there were plenty of same-sex couples who had children before they could get married. Wouldn't it be better for those children to be in a married household?

 

[Queller]

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.

As long as we continue to have step-parents, single parents, IVF and adoption, legalizing same-sex marriage does not change that ideal in the slightest.

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.

By legalising step-parent 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 step-parent marriage (rather than just step-parent 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.

Do you see any problem with the above statement?

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

Are you OK with step-parents? Because this argument fits just as perfectly against step-parent marriage as it does against SSM.

 

[WindStaff]

Same sex marriage certainly deters stds, especially aids. In states that have legalized gay marriage, these statistics have reduced dramatically.

The irony, I suppose, is that God condemns them anyway_
It might have something to do with the natural order of mankind, not having been designed for homosexuality, but precisely the opposite thereof_

 

[Belk]

No, because in marriage, it will normally be the case that the two people getting married will have their own children and bring them up, while in a same sex relationship that can never be the case. By saying that same-sex partnerships are 'marriage', therefore, we necessarily change our expectation of what is the normal way for children to be raised, ie. by their two biological parents.

Roonwit

Allowing SSM changes what people consider normal not one whit. Allowing SSM it will still "Normally" be the case people will get married and have children. This whole line of argumentation is irrelevant since the government is not in the business of enforcing what people should consider normal.

 

[Skaloop]

Same sex marriage certainly deters stds, especially aids. In states that have legalized gay marriage, these statistics have reduced dramatically.

The irony, I suppose, is that God condemns them anyway_
It might have something to do with the natural order of mankind, not been designed for homosexuality, but precisely the opposite of.

Actually, since God is in control, it could be said that He is reducing the rates for couples in a same sex marriage because he approves of them.

 

[WindStaff]

Actually, since God is in control, it could be said that He is reducing the rates for couples in a same sex marriage because he approves of them.

God creating those to their own destruction, you mean.

Predestination is a fascinating thing, because by self-evidence, you have your own will in some sort of degree, right?

I can't force you to do what you do not will to do- you think God made people thoroughly incapable of being abominations?
Pfft. Gay is a lifestyle, not an inherent trait.

 

[Queller]

Pfft. Gay is a lifestyle, not an inherent trait.

Prove it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Pfft. Gay is a lifestyle, not an inherent trait.

I mean, there are some non-heterosexual individuals who say that this is true for them, or that sexuality is fluid. I think it's different for different people. Doesn't really matter to me. The only reason the "Born this way" mantra is emphasized is to gain the support of those who think it would be wrong to choose it.