Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Roonwit]

If you want to protect the word marrage from SSM, good luck on that. As it is, none of the reasons you have given convince me that SSM is a bad idea and destroys marrage. There is nothing wrong with any two people wanting to live their lives together, it doesn't impact my marrage.

Ok, fair enough. But you must at least acknowledge that this is your preference, having considered the evidence. Other people are entitled to a different preference. And, from a secular point of view, neither preference is particularly better than the other.

What impacts marrage more is people marrying in haste, or thinking they can change their spouse after marrying them. I have seen more bad or ruinned marrages from this then anything else. You want to save marrage, focues on that and not SSM.

I'd see it as both/and rather than either/or.

Roonwit

 

[Cearbhall]

With regard to US law, you are right that I am not familiar with the recent case law on the subject, so I was dealing with the common law heritage shared with the UK.

That's perfectly understandable, but I'm informing you that this is not how US law works. Shared heritage does not trump modern precedent.

Otherwise, children are obligatory. Not ever having kids is abnormal, largely something you see proclaimed by lesbians and feminazis. Otherwise the overwhelming majority of women do in fact want to have children as pregnancy is a fundamental part of being a woman.

This website makes me feel sheltered, ironically. I know that this mindset exists, but I fortunately have not really encountered it. What on Earth...

 

[WindStaff]

Very different things. Marrying an animal is wrong because the animal can't consent (some people have problems with this). Marrying your sibling is wrong due to the passing of bad genetic traites. Neither one applies to SSM.

The fact you do tie them together shows you don't put much thought into this. There is nothing harmfull in SSM. It doesn't impact my marrage. Does it impact yours?

Those arguments are extraordinarily poor. Stupid even, basing it all on the consent of animals as if animals consent to anything period including their capture and detainment from nature.

Also, siblings could simply adopt. It's no different then gays, but there is a moral issue in it even still where you say isn't in homosexuals.

Essentially, you base the reckoning of gay marriage based on the sheer desire for one to want it legal, the same as if society became bent on wanting horses and men to marry.

It doesn't affect my marriage at all, and neither does a crime downtown, a pink teacup orbiting Mars or a standoff in Mexico. That's just a complete non-argument.

 

[Paulos23]

Ok, fair enough. But you must at least acknowledge that this is your preference, having considered the evidence. Other people are entitled to a different preference. And, from a secular point of view, neither preference is particularly better than the other.

Having considered the evidence, I see no reason to make it illegal. And that is all you have given, is preference and opinion, not much fact.

I'd see it as both/and rather than either/or.

Roonwit

Fair enough. But I say it still stands that both reasons are bigger threats to the inistution of marrage then SSM.

 

[Paulos23]

Those arguments are extraordinarily poor. Stupid even, basing it all on the consent of animals as if animals consent to anything period including their capture and detainment from nature.

Also, siblings could simply adopt. It's no different then gays, but there is a moral issue in it even still where you say isn't in homosexuals.

Essentially, you base the reckoning of gay marriage based on the sheer desire for one to want it legal, the same as if society became bent on wanting horses and men to marry.

It doesn't affect my marriage at all, and neither does a crime downtown, a pink teacup orbiting Mars or a standoff in Mexico. That's just a complete non-argument.

So what? Just because you interpreate the Bible to say that SSM is a sin that it should be illegal? You have shown no harm. I have shown harm for the other two. You haven't even given that.

Like I said, it does no harm, it can help stablize society by having more couples that can adopt and/or have one stay at home. There is no downside to this.

 

[Cearbhall]

What I do know is that the European Court of Human Rights, which is possibly the most liberal court in the world, refused to rule that there is a right to same sex marriage in countries that have not explicitly permitted it by statute.

That's fine, in my opinion. Every country has a different culture, different constitutional rights, and different precedent regarding marriage. In the US, however, we don't have anything in place that justifies banning SSM.

For the US you may want to look up Loving v. Virginia, in the US it is the primary case used to show that marrage is a right. Most of the arguements you have used had been used in that case, except it was for not allowing interracal marrage.

In short, your arguements don't hold water in the US. Good luck with the EU.

It's particularly notable that the federal government was even willing to overstep its boundaries and force interracial marriage on the few remaining states that forbade it.

 

[WindStaff]

So what? Just because you interpreate the Bible to say that SSM is a sin that it should be illegal? You have shown no harm. I have shown harm for the other two. You haven't even given that.

Like I said, it does no harm, it can help stablize society by having more couples that can adopt and/or have one stay at home. There is no downside to this.

The majority of HIV exists among homosexuals. Trying to say it is natural is an exercise in futility, which is why it is virtually non-existent in nature and why the psychology books were basically forced into submitting homosexuality as something different for anti-discrimination.

There is a major downside to it, as it's going against nature. Homosexuality tripled over the past thirty years, it's bad influence on culture altogether. Men and women becoming so adversarial that homosexuality has become the fallout for many people. Society should be trying to fix the former and not support the latter.

 

[Paulos23]

This website makes me feel sheltered, ironically. I know that this mindset exists, but I fortunately have not really encountered it. What on Earth...

It is out there, even in the big cities. I still run into it, which is a shock.

 

[Paulos23]

The majority of HIV exists among homosexuals. Trying to say it is natural is an exercise in futility, which is why it is virtually non-existent in nature and why the psychology books were basically forced into submitting homosexuality as something different for anti-discrimination.

You should look at the numbers, by this argument all women should be lesbians since they have the lowest number of HIV cases in the US. And across the world this is just untrue with the largest numbers of infections being from Hetrosexual contact.

There is a major downside to it, as it's going against nature. Homosexuality tripled over the past thirty years, it's bad influence on culture altogether. Men and women becoming so adversarial that homosexuality has become the fallout for many people. Society should be trying to fix the former and not support the latter.

It is clear you are stuck in church propaganda from the 80's and 90's. I remember when my Christian friends told me this. Then I had them meet some gay folks and they rethought what they where told.

The reason gays are adversarial, is because Christians are advesarial to them. When Christians stop being advesarial, they will stop as well.

 

[Cearbhall]

The majority of HIV exists among homosexuals.

Source?

it is virtually non-existent in nature

Source?

 

[Roonwit]

For the US you may want to look up Loving v. Virginia, in the US it is the primary case used to show that marrage is a right. Most of the arguements you have used had been used in that case, except it was for not allowing interracal marrage.

Interesting. In truth, I'm not sure how they managed to use the 14th Amendment to support that case, although there is a difference with SSM in that the Virginia laws were statutes that were introduced by Virginia, and therefore it could be enquired into the reasons for doing so, and those reasons could be judged unconstitutional as they were against the spirit in which those constitutional provisions were enacted. That cannot be done with marriage as a whole, which is an institution whose origins go back long before the existence of the US, UK or even the Roman law (out of which UK law first arose), and was certainly not framed with regard to the specific exclusion of SSM. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that discussion of marriage in the constitution was intended in a sense other than that of one man and one woman, since that would have been the universal understanding of the term at the time.

You say that the arguments I have used were used in that case, but I can't see how they would be the same, since it is physically possible for an interracial couple to bear a child, while it is not physically possible for a same-sex couple to do so.

Anyway, it is interesting that some judgements have used this case in reference to SSM, although also interesting that some judgements have refused to do so. It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court makes of it. As I look at it, from a brief skim through, it seems like such a judgement would have to be based in ideology, not with any real basis in law or the constitution. I think if the court makes a judgement here it is probably overreaching itself. This is a matter for the legislature, not the courts.

Roonwit

 

[Queller]

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.

How in the world is "some people don't want to make the change" an argument against SSM?

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.

Traditional marriage is still the norm in society. Likely it will always be. 2nd marriages, step-marriages, same-sex marriages, post-child-bearing marriages, childless by choice marriages, etc. will always be non-normative. That those arrangements are not the norm isn't an argument that justifies making any one of those arrangements illegal.

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.

Just as 2nd marriages, step-marriages, post-child-bearing marriages, childless by choice marriages, etc. don't 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.)

That doesn't follow. Why can't a same-sex couple be considered a "second-best" option like adoption and step-parenting?

[quotw] 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.
[/quote] Why not? Give one example of how same-sex marriage has affected heterosexuals in the context of this discussion.

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.

I disagree with the part in bold because a same-sex couple raising a child is no different than other adoptive parents or step-parents.

I also disagree with your implication that people who support same-sex marriage haven't thought it through first.

 

[Queller]

I'm talking about adoption, because that is the only way for same-sex couples to have children. This is different to the normal pattern for marriage, and by making SSM legal then we change the definition of marriage such that it makes adoption normal rather than second-best.

Except that it isn't the only way for same-sex couples have children. One member of a same-sex couple can have a biological child and the other can adopt that child. Exactly like two step-parents.

 

[Queller]

I am justified in saying that unless we also include consideration of polygamy, and can explain why marriage should be changed to allow SSM but not polygamy, then we should keep the definition of marriage unchanged.

Sorry but that doesn't logically follow.

For one thing, polygamous marriages will require rewriting every law that pertains to marriage. Same-sex marriage does not require anything more than changing the words "husband" and "wife" on a marriage license to "spouse 1" and "spouse 2".

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

Not in the United States of America, thank goodness. You need an actual reason, not just a desire.

 

[Queller]

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.

Where did you provide a "solid secular justification for rejecting SSM"? It can't be anything to do with children because having children is not a requirement for children nor are children the reason the government sanctions marriage. It also was definitely not in post #108.

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.

You have given no reason to think that same-sex marriage would be any worse for children than 2nd marriages, step-marriages, or any other type of legal marriage other than first marriages. You have just asserted that it is so.

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.

Interracial marriage was explicitly forbidden by law for more than 200 years in many states in the US.

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.

The discussion is about what kind of norms we want to have in our society (in the US at least).

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).

Why do you exclude 2nd marriages, step-marriages, etc. from your argument? They have the exact same effect on children being raised by their biological parents as does same-sex marriage.

Earlier you were claiming that unless proponents of same-sex marriage also considered polygamy, we should let marriage stay unchanged. By your logic then, unless opponents of of same-sex marriage also consider 2nd marriages, step-marriages, post-childbearing marriages, and childless by choice marriages and explain why they should not be made illegal but same-sex marriages should be illegal, then we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

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.

There is nothing special about the number two in marriage in and of itself. However, the entire legal framework of marriage is based on their being only two participants. If that entire framework can be successfully changed to encompass multiple partners, I have absolutely no problem with polygamous/polyamorous marriages. But don't pretend that changing the law to encompass them is a simple as it is for same-sex marriages.

Moreover, you should also explain why marriage is still being regarded as something for life.

Because (most) people who enter into marriage desire it to be that way.

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.

That statement goes to the very heart of the problem, at least in the US. Here, no state offers a civil union that exactly matches the rights, privileges, and protections as those offered by marriage.

Also, here in the US most people have a cultural distate for any governmental institution that smacks of "separate but equal".

 

[Queller]

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.

What, specifically, are the conditions required for marriage?

Please note that if a condition is required for marriage, then marriage cannot happen without it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Cearbhall,

That there is nothing in statute defining marriage is irrelevant.

It's really not. It's all that matters. We are not legally obligated to make sure that our intentions match up with centuries-old traditions. You seem to be in favor of enlarging the government's role when it comes to marriage.

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.

Murder is prosecuted according to codified murder laws, just like anything else.

 

[Queller]

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

It is not a solid argument because you don't apply it to all similarly situated couples equally.

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

You said it yourself: two people. I don't understand why you think that two same-sex people brings us any closer to a three-person marriage than an opposite-sex couple. 2 and 2 are exactly the same distance from 3.

The key here is that I don't want to change anything. We don't need to. An opposite-sex legal marriage isn't any more about procreation than a same-sex legal marriage, so a same-sex marriage doesn't lead us to polygamy any more than an opposite-sex marriage. Legalizing SSM does not take away from the focus on children, because that focus doesn't exist in a legal sense in the first place. Current opposite-sex marriages are about love. Current same-sex marriages are about love. If some people attach additional meaning to their marriages and the institution in general, that's fine, but it is not legally recognized.