Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Roonwit]

Either way, proponents of SSM may be remaining silent on the issue of polygamy for prudential reasons -- it seems far more likely to get SSM laws changed than it does polygamist laws.

Yes, that's my point exactly. Because if you take the change in definition to its logical conclusion then it is obviously unacceptable. So they go for a piecemeal approach instead that amounts to special pleading. That isn't justice.

There is no injustice in keeping marriage as it is. No-one is being denied the right to get married. But what is being asked for is a change of definition of what marriage is. There is no human right for that; it's up to society to decide. But I think society should be enabled to decide and not simply have significant change enacted by stealth.

Roonwit

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, that's my point exactly. Because if you take the change in definition to its logical conclusion then it is obviously unacceptable. So they go for a piecemeal approach instead that amounts to special pleading. That isn't justice.

Correct, that isn't justice, that's a, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

There is no injustice in keeping marriage as it is.

There's no injustice in changing it, either.

No-one is being denied the right to get married.

To merely get married? No. To get married to the person they love who they actually want to be married to? Yes.

But what is being asked for is a change of definition of what marriage is.

As has happened many times. Remember when marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman of the same race?

There is no human right for that;

No, but there are constitutional rights for that.

it's up to society to decide. But I think society should be enabled to decide and not simply have significant change enacted by stealth.

Society is deciding, slowly but surely, that same-sex marriage is marriage that should be legally recognized by the state.

And how is it by stealth? It's a huge movement, one of the primary points on multiple political platforms. Hardly stealthy.

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

Of course I know that. I was just waiting for you to admit it. Thanks. That'll be all.

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes, that's my point exactly. Because if you take the change in definition to its logical conclusion then it is obviously unacceptable. So they go for a piecemeal approach instead that amounts to special pleading. That isn't justice.

There is no injustice in keeping marriage as it is. No-one is being denied the right to get married. But what is being asked for is a change of definition of what marriage is. There is no human right for that; it's up to society to decide. But I think society should be enabled to decide and not simply have significant change enacted by stealth.

Roonwit

The change in definition has already happened, otherwise it would be nonsensical to even say "gay marriage." Christians spend too much time talking about definitions on this issue. Definitions are plastic, not static. They change with usage. It is quite clear that marriage can now mean two people of the same sex, otherwise the phrase "gay marriage" would not be a common phrase.

You should stop conflating the polygamy issue with SSM. It is not special pleading to separate the issues, as they have key differences. As the previous poster said, you are committing a slippery slope fallacy. The issue of SSM should be evaluated on its own merit, not what you think the agenda of its proponents might be.

There simply is no good secular argument against same sex marriage. None.

 

[Cearbhall]

You should stop conflating the polygamy issue with SSM. It is not special pleading to separate the issues, as they have key differences. As the previous poster said, you are committing a slippery slope fallacy. The issue of SSM should be evaluated on its own merit, not what you think the agenda of its proponents might be.

There simply is no good secular argument against same sex marriage. None.

I've never understood the polygamy argument. Two isn't magically closer to three just because the two people are of the same legal sex. SSM doesn't separate procreation and legal marriage any more than current opposite-sex marriage laws, so...

 

[David Brider]

I'm talking about adoption, because that is the only way for same-sex couples to have children.

No, it's not.

 

[David Brider]

But what is being asked for is a change of definition of what marriage is.

No; what is being asked for is that the parameters of who is allowed to get married be expanded from "one man and one woman" to also include "one man and one man" and "one woman and one woman". The definition of marriage remains unchanged.

 

[David Brider]

But proponents of SSM aren't suggesting that we exclude polygamy.

Probably worth bearing in mind that there's an important difference between polygamy (one person having multiple spouses, who are unaware of each other's existence) and polyamory (a relationship involving more than two people). I can't think of anyone I know who would approve of the former being legalised, whereas at least some of my friends would approve of the latter being legally recognised as marriage.

 

[Conscious Z]

Probably worth bearing in mind that there's an important difference between polygamy (one person having multiple spouses, who are unaware of each other's existence) and polyamory (a relationship involving more than two people). I can't think of anyone I know who would approve of the former being legalised, whereas at least some of my friends would approve of the latter being legally recognised as marriage.

I'm not sure that there is anything in the definition of "polygamy" that implies that spouses don't know about each other.

 

[Roonwit]

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

 

[Conscious Z]

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.

Wait, I guess I missed it....where did you provide a solid secular justification for the rejection of SSM? It certainly wasn't your bit about polygamy, was it? The two have key features that distinguish them, thus making them separate issues. Maybe polygamy should be allowed and maybe it shouldn't, but that's a different argument. You in no way demonstrated that SSM should be opposed.

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....American football is not football, though it bears some resemblances to it....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

The point isn't inaccurate. When people say "marriage" now, a large portion of the population doesn't assume it refers solely to a marriage between a man and a woman. It is widely used as referring to two men or two women as well. Definitions depend upon usage, not normative objectives. In other words, they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. People already use the word "marriage" to refer to gay unions, thus the definition has already changed.

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.

Actually, we no longer have to prefix it with "gay." A large portion of the population no longer assumes that "marriage" refers to a man and a woman. Definitions don't change because laws are changed or society comes to some grand conclusion. They change because people begin using words differently. In the case of "marriage," it has already changed.

The "human man" example misses the mark, however, because there is only one species of man, but there are multiple types of marriages. It would be like saying a "male dog," which is not redundant because there could also be a female dog.

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.

I would argue that the reverse occurs; it is not law that changes society, but society that changes law. Society's views on abortion and gay marriage changed, thus the laws were adjusted accordingly. When loopholes are discovered in laws that permit behavior that society does not deem as just, the laws are modified.

Slippery slopes are logical fallacies. You should avoid them. Gay marriage should be evaluated for its own sake, not based upon what you think the next evil to come out of the "gay agenda" will be.

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.

I disagree. I think it is very immoral to deny a group of citizens the opportunity to have equal recognition of their relationships by the government and society based on their sexual orientation. To me, that's a great injustice, and fortunately, enough people agree that the laws are changing.

 

[Conscious Z]

Under the traditional definition of marriage - that it is about creating a framework within which two people can raise their biological children together ....

So heterosexual couples who don't plan to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry? Their relationship is not encompassed by the definition of "traditional marriage," so why should they be permitted?

Alternatively, if there is some reason why SSM should be permitted but plural marriage should not, then please explain what this is.

Well, one key feature of plural marriage is that it would be extending rights and financial benefits to more than one person, which clearly distinguishes it more from any marriage involving two people. That's a significant difference that at least shows that it is a separate issue.

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;

No, you can't. You can't explain why heterosexual couples who don't plan to have kids should be allowed to marry....or why couples past the reproductive age should be allowed to marry....

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.

Again, you're conflating all sorts of issues here. Marriage hasn't been "for life" in years, as divorce has been a common affair for many married couples for decades.

The personal beliefs or desires of proponents of SSM are irrelevant. Even if every proponent of SSM wanted to legalize the marriage of fourteen gay donkeys eventually, that would have no bearing on whether we as a society should allow the marriage of two homosexuals.


Face it: your plural marriage argument sucks. To summarize it, you are essentially saying that SSM proponents fall into one of two categories: 1) those who don't believe plural marriage should be legalized, and 2) those who do believe plural marriage should be legalized. Those in #1 can't articulate why plural marriage should be opposed, or why it's different than SSM, therefore we should oppose SSM, too. That's a non-sequitur, as it's possible that folks in #1 are wrong about plural marriage but right about SSM. For folks in #2, your claim is that they should be honest about their intentions, and that somehow their ultimate objective has some bearing on whether SSM is justified. That's either an ad hominem or a slipper slope fallacy....or maybe poisoning the well....I'm not sure exactly what type of hogwash it is, but the personal objectives of proponents of a view have nothing to do with the merits of the view itself.

 

[Roonwit]

Wait, I guess I missed it....where did you provide a solid secular justification for the rejection of SSM?

It's there in post #108. Of course, what you are looking for is a justification for the rejection of SSM that starts from the premise that SSM should be permitted... I might have more difficulty in supplying one of those.

It certainly wasn't your bit about polygamy, was it? The two have key features that distinguish them, thus making them separate issues. Maybe polygamy should be allowed and maybe it shouldn't, but that's a different argument. You in no way demonstrated that SSM should be opposed.

No, the polygamy stuff was my moving on to a second line of argument, in addition to the first. I didn't demonstrate that SSM should be opposed on the basis of the polygamy issue, but I did explain why a reasonable person would withhold judgement on SSM until the polygamy question is also settled.

The point isn't inaccurate. When people say "marriage" now, a large portion of the population doesn't assume it refers solely to a marriage between a man and a woman.

A large part (probably a majority), haven't yet made that switch. Moreover, even those that have are working with an inconsistent picture of what marriage is - they're taking a model of marriage that was intended for one purpose and trying to use it for another purpose. A bit like using a tractor to take the kids to school. Both look equally ridiculous to any thinking person.

They change because people begin using words differently. In the case of "marriage," it has already changed.

At most, I might concede that it is changing, not that it has changed.

I would argue that the reverse occurs; it is not law that changes society, but society that changes law. Society's views on abortion and gay marriage changed, thus the laws were adjusted accordingly. When loopholes are discovered in laws that permit behavior that society does not deem as just, the laws are modified.

But as the law changes, that also changes the way in which people think, which fuels the next change in the law.

Slippery slopes are logical fallacies. You should avoid them. Gay marriage should be evaluated for its own sake, not based upon what you think the next evil to come out of the "gay agenda" will be.

It would be nice if it were the case that everything could be evaluated purely on its own merits, but unfortunately that isn't how the world works, not being made up of philosophers.

Besides which, I think there is plenty reason to reject SSM even when evaluating it for its own sake. The slippery slope argument is more about why we should really care a lot about this issue than about what the right decision is. If I were making my policy on the basis of slippery slope arguments then I would never have supported civil partnerships.

I disagree. I think it is very immoral to deny a group of citizens the opportunity to have equal recognition of their relationships by the government and society based on their sexual orientation. To me, that's a great injustice, and fortunately, enough people agree that the laws are changing.

It isn't based on their sexual orientation, it is based on the fact that the relationships they want to have recognised do not fulfill the conditions required for a marriage. There is no more ground for recognition of those relationships as marriage than there is for the woman who married the Berlin Wall to get legal recognition for her marriage.

Roonwit

 

[Conscious Z]

A large part (probably a majority), haven't yet made that switch. Moreover, even those that have are working with an inconsistent picture of what marriage is - they're taking a model of marriage that was intended for one purpose and trying to use it for another purpose. A bit like using a tractor to take the kids to school. Both look equally ridiculous to any thinking person.

A given definition need not be utilized by the majority of the public in order to be recognized as a practiced definition. What the intention for marriage was is irrelevant to how it should be used today. Besides, plenty of people before didn't use marriage to raise kids....should they be prevented from getting married as well?

It isn't based on their sexual orientation, it is based on the fact that the relationships they want to have recognised do not fulfill the conditions required for a marriage. There is no more ground for recognition of those relationships as marriage than there is for the woman who married the Berlin Wall to get legal recognition for her marriage.

Roonwit

That's a silly bureaucratic reason, and that's exactly why we should CHANGE the conditions required for marriage. When those conditions are changed, there will be plenty of grounds to recognize those relationships.

You are essentially saying that we shouldn't change laws to recognize gay relationships as marriage because the law doesn't recognize gay relationships as marriage.

 

[Conscious Z]

Roonwit,
Your argument on post #108 does not articulate why heterosexual couples who do not wish to have kids, or couples who are too old to do so, should be allowed to marry. Furthermore gay couples are just as likely to become parents as infertile couples, yet you seem to give infertile heterosexual couples a pass while not doing so for homosexual couples.

Along with the polygamy argument, the child rearing argument sucks.

You also seem to have trouble distinguishing historical intent from what should be done today. The authors of our the 14th amendment to the Constitution almost certainly did not intend for the 14th amendment to give blacks equal rights, but that does not mean that the Supreme Court should permit discrimination because historically "men" meant white men.

 

[Roonwit]

That's a silly bureaucratic reason, and that's exactly why we should CHANGE the conditions required for marriage. When those conditions are changed, there will be plenty of grounds to recognize those relationships.

You are essentially saying that we shouldn't change laws to recognize gay relationships as marriage because the law doesn't recognize gay relationships as marriage.

No, I'm saying that the law shouldn't recognise gay relationships as marriage because the vehicle of 'marriage' contains a whole load of paraphernalia that is irrelevant to what you now want it to be used for. Perhaps it is time to abolish marriage altogether if it no longer serves a useful purpose. Or to create another, parallel institution, that serves the purpose required (like civil partnerships). But that's why the current questions need to be broadened to embrace the whole question of what marriage is and what it is for and what kinds of relationships should be included, and whether the state should be involved at all. All these questions should be addressed together. Otherwise you just end up with a disordered mess, with bits and pieces stuck on and hewn off all over the place, which makes no sense at all.

Roonwit

 

[Conscious Z]

No, I'm saying that the law shouldn't recognise gay relationships as marriage because the vehicle of 'marriage' contains a whole load of paraphernalia that is irrelevant to what you now want it to be used for. Perhaps it is time to abolish marriage altogether if it no longer serves a useful purpose. Or to create another, parallel institution, that serves the purpose required (like civil partnerships). But that's why the current questions need to be broadened to embrace the whole question of what marriage is and what it is for and what kinds of relationships should be included, and whether the state should be involved at all. All these questions should be addressed together. Otherwise you just end up with a disordered mess, with bits and pieces stuck on and hewn off all over the place, which makes no sense at all.

Roonwit

So why should heterosexual couples who don't intend to have kids or heterosexual couples who are too old to have kids be allowed to marry? They are not using marriage for its original intent.

No one has claimed that marriage is no longer useful. It's just about different things than you claim it used to be about.

 

[Roonwit]

Roonwit,
Your argument on post #108 does not articulate why heterosexual couples who do not wish to have kids, or couples who are too old to do so, should be allowed to marry. Furthermore gay couples are just as likely to become parents as infertile couples, yet you seem to give infertile heterosexual couples a pass while not doing so for homosexual couples.

I think I have dealt with the infertility argument, since you can't discover you are infertile until you actually try to have children.

As for couples beyond child-bearing age, perhaps this is a historical anomaly that should be ironed out. That said, most people who get married beyond child-bearing age will be getting married for a second time, because a previous partner died or left them, or else would have got married younger but couldn't find the right person. These people still hold to the ideal of marriage.

Regarding people who don't want children, I wonder how many of these actually get married in our modern society. And why they choose to. In places where sex outside marriage is frowned upon, the desire to have children also seems very strong.

Perhaps such people are also in need of a different kind of institution. I note that there is a push in the UK to have civil partnerships extended to heterosexual couples.

But heterosexual couples could, in principle, in the ideal, have and raise their own biological children together. Homosexual couples cannot do that, even in principle, even in the ideal. Thus, to consider homosexual unions as marriage, the understanding of what marriage is for has to be changed. And that change should be justified. And if the paraphernalia of 'marriage' is not suited to the change that is being made, then the institution itself should also be changed, not just the boundary conditions for who can qualify.

Along with the polygamy argument, the child rearing argument sucks.

No, it doesn't suck, it's just that you don't like its conclusion. It's actually a pretty solid argument.

You also seem to have trouble distinguishing historical intent from what should be done today. The authors of our the 14th amendment to the Constitution almost certainly did not intend for the 14th amendment to give blacks equal rights, but that does not mean that the Supreme Court should permit discrimination because historically "men" meant white men.

Actually, the whole line of argument about historical intent was to demonstrate that the definition of marriage is being changed, which a number of posters on this thread are still loathe to admit. Once you recognise that a change is being made, it is then incumbent on you to explore the implications of that change and to explain why it is better than the current position.

Note, I am not arguing that there are no good arguments in favour of legalising SSM. I am just responding to the OP's implication that there are no good arguments against it.

Roonwit

 

[KitKatMatt]

Regarding people who don't want children, I wonder how many of these actually get married in our modern society.

I am a member of a "childfree" forum on another site. The site is really huge, and a great many of the people are married.

The legal perks of marriage are desired by many people, no matter if they want kids or not.

 

[Roonwit]

The legal perks of marriage are desired by many people, no matter if they want kids or not.

Then perhaps what they are looking for is a modified kind of business law or charity law, rather than a modified kind of marriage law.

Actually, this is a point of discrimination that should be addressed. When civil partnerships were introduced, the issue of, say, elderly sisters who live together was raised. They become liable for inheritance tax if one or the other dies. That is a great injustice, and they should be eligible for civil partnership status too, in my view.

Roonwit