Non-religious Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage

[Daniel Peres]

I watched, for years now, many conservatives make worthless relgious arguments against same-sex marriage. I say worthless because non-Christians will never be persuaded eith religious arguments.

However, the left is slso wrong. They have the attituded that to be fair same-sex couples must be permitted to marry. The truth is that the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples is incidental. The benefits are merely incentives designed to benefite society. In other words, there is a legitimate state interest in encouraging traditional marriage.

This state interest is that society needs children. It us beneficial to society that men take financial and emotional respnsibilty for mothers and their children.

Marriage also has positive effects on society in how it affects men also. In general, marriage makes men mor responsible people. It’s no accident that married men pay lower car insurance rates; they drive more respnsibly.


Now, what legitimate state interest is there in encouraging same-sex marriage? Same-sex couples cannot produce new members of society. Some do go against nature and find ways to have children.

However, it is a fact that children do best with a mother and a father. Not only that but think about what boy who is raised with two mothers learns about himself, as a male. He grows up learning that men are not necessary in the family.

The state has no business in promoting same-sex marriage because society does not benefit.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem is that gay activists rejected civil union laws that were made in states like Vermont.

Getting the same rights as heterosexual couples was not good enough. They wanted same-sex unions
to be accepted as the moral equivalent to heterosexual marriages.

The argument I have is that the word "marriage," had one meaning and that is, the union of
one man and woman. Gay activists are using the word "marriage" inappropriately.

Does it hurt anyone? Yes, it reduced the sanctity of marriage to be anything people want it to be.

 

[BobRyan]

I watched, for years now, many conservatives make worthless relgious arguments against same-sex marriage. I say worthless because non-Christians will never be persuaded eith religious arguments.

what do atheist-centric nations say about same-sex marriage?

North Korea?
Russia - USSR ?
China?

frm: LGBT rights in China - Wikipedia
China "The government's approach to LGBT rights has been described as "fickle" and as being "no approval; no disapproval; no promotion"

China’s forced invisibility of LGBTQ communities on social media | Lowy Institute

A safe place for young people in China to discuss their sexual and gender identities has suddenly been silenced.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Russia's upper house of parliament passes tougher ban on 'LGBT propaganda' | CNN

Russia's upper house of parliament unanimously voted on Wednesday to toughen a controversial law banning what the bill describes as "LGBT propaganda," making it apply to Russians of all ages.

www.cnn.com

N. Korea

LGBT rights in North Korea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

North Korean law does not recognize same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So it appears that atheist friendly nations - have some innate rejection of LGBTQ even without the religious argument.

But from a meterialist POV I am not sure how they claim to derive their source of morality. So it is interesting.

 

[Tolworth John]

I watched, for years now, many conservatives make worthless relgious arguments against same-sex marriage. I say worthless because non-Christians will never be persuaded eith religious arguments.

For informatio, the site wintery knight is worth following as he bases his arguments for Christianity and hetrosexual marriage on science.
There are plenty of articles with links or direct quotes from other sites that have either science based arguments or statistical arguments.

 

[Arcangl86]

I watched, for years now, many conservatives make worthless relgious arguments against same-sex marriage. I say worthless because non-Christians will never be persuaded eith religious arguments.

However, the left is slso wrong. They have the attituded that to be fair same-sex couples must be permitted to marry. The truth is that the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples is incidental. The benefits are merely incentives designed to benefite society. In other words, there is a legitimate state interest in encouraging traditional marriage.

This state interest is that society needs children. It us beneficial to society that men take financial and emotional respnsibilty for mothers and their children.

Marriage also has positive effects on society in how it affects men also. In general, marriage makes men mor responsible people. It’s no accident that married men pay lower car insurance rates; they drive more respnsibly.


Now, what legitimate state interest is there in encouraging same-sex marriage? Same-sex couples cannot produce new members of society. Some do go against nature and find ways to have children.

However, it is a fact that children do best with a mother and a father. Not only that but think about what boy who is raised with two mothers learns about himself, as a male. He grows up learning that men are not necessary in the family.

The state has no business in promoting same-sex marriage because society does not benefit.

If the only state interest in promoting marriage is the production of children, then people who couldn't have children or aren't planning on child wouldn't be allowed to marry. So obviously there is more to it. The biggest societal benefit is that marriage creates stable long term relationships and increases social capital for both the couple and society as a whole. Also married people as a whole have happier, healthier and more finically secure lives. Those same stable family units provide a place for the healthy raising and development of children, both natural born and adopted. So even if a couple can't produce children naturally, and they can in many cases, there are still strong reasons for the state to encourage marriage.

 

[Daniel Peres]

If the only state interest in promoting marriage is the production of children, then people who couldn't have children or aren't planning on child wouldn't be allowed to marry. So obviously there is more to it. The biggest societal benefit is that marriage creates stable long term relationships and increases social capital for both the couple and society as a whole. Also married people as a whole have happier, healthier and more finically secure lives. Those same stable family units provide a place for the healthy raising and development of children, both natural born and adopted. So even if a couple can't produce children naturally, and they can in many cases, there are still strong reasons for the state to encourage marriage.

You are stating a tiny exception. Anyway, most people don’t discover their inability to procreate unti after marriage, and when that does happen they usually have the option to get an annulment because of it.

what do atheist-centric nations say about same-sex marriage?

North Korea?
Russia - USSR ?
China?

frm: LGBT rights in China - Wikipedia
China "The government's approach to LGBT rights has been described as "fickle" and as being "no approval; no disapproval; no promotion"

China’s forced invisibility of LGBTQ communities on social media | Lowy Institute

A safe place for young people in China to discuss their sexual and gender identities has suddenly been silenced.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Russia's upper house of parliament passes tougher ban on 'LGBT propaganda' | CNN

Russia's upper house of parliament unanimously voted on Wednesday to toughen a controversial law banning what the bill describes as "LGBT propaganda," making it apply to Russians of all ages.

www.cnn.com

N. Korea

LGBT rights in North Korea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

North Korean law does not recognize same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So it appears that atheist friendly nations - have some innate rejection of LGBTQ even without the religious argument.

But from a meterialist POV I am not sure how they claim to derive their source of morality. So it is interesting.

This is very simple. Morality is simply whatever the atheist leaders want them to be. There is no actual good or bad. Believe it or not, in his final book “Out of My Later Years” Albert Einstein wrote (I’m paraphrasing), “Science can only teach us about facts, and how they relate to each other. We need religion to teach us what is right and wrong.”

BTW, as a child, Einstein attended a Catholic school. He knew the NT so well that he used to tutor his fellow students. Although he never became a Christian, he once said about Jesus, “I have always been enthralled by the Nazarene.”

 

[Daniel Peres]

If the only state interest in promoting marriage is the production of children, then people who couldn't have children or aren't planning on child wouldn't be allowed to marry. So obviously there is more to it. The biggest societal benefit is that marriage creates stable long term relationships and increases social capital for both the couple and society as a whole. Also married people as a whole have happier, healthier and more finically secure lives. Those same stable family units provide a place for the healthy raising and development of children, both natural born and adopted. So even if a couple can't produce children naturally, and they can in many cases, there are still strong reasons for the state to encourage marriage.

Your rebuttal is not on point anyway since I am not referring to the reason people get married, but rather the reasons the state promotes marriage.