Is there any secular argument against gay marriage?

[jillianbean]

Apologies if this has been discussed 20 million times already, but I'm new to the forum. And if this belongs somewhere else, please let me know.

I'm gay, and I live in Texas. This state will secede from the Union before they allow queers to destroy the sanctity of marriage. But I digress.

From everything I've read and seen about the arguments against gay marriage, I don't think I've seen one argument that isn't based on the person/group's religious belief. I've written my congressmen, local politicians, etc, and they tout their opinion that "the Bible says marriage is only between a man and woman." The Bible also says it's okay to stone your wife if she cheats on you. But I digress again.

Is there, or does anyone know of, any argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religious belief? And if not, why is public policy being dictated by the religious beliefs of those in power? The arguments they do try to make, that gays make bad parents, or they're just child molesters, or whatever other terrible things they say, are usually quickly squashed because they have no data to back up their outlandish opinions.

I personally don't care if they call it marriage or not. While I can appreciate why some are upset by the whole "seperate but equal" stance some states have taken by allowing civil unions that hold the same rights, but just not calling it "marriage". I'm curious if anyone has any more information for me, and what your opinions are in this matter.

 

[Piscivore]

Is there, or does anyone know of, any argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religious belief?

None that I've ever heard.

And if not, why is public policy being dictated by the religious beliefs of those in power?

Good question.


Good luck to you.

 

[Upchurch]

Is there any secular argument against gay marriage?

Yes: homophobia.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Is there, or does anyone know of, any argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religious belief?

Tradition is a secular argument, so is the argument that marriage is for making kids, or that gays don't make enough money for it to be a good idea for society to let them marry.

Are there any good arguments against gay marriages, though? None that I know of.

 

[Upchurch]

Are there any good arguments against gay marriages, though?

Oh, that's a different question.

 

[Lolly]

Here in Australia it's the Marriage Act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I've no idea whether the Bible was the original basis for the law being drafted that way. So, here, the argument isn't religious ("the bible says so") but secular insofar as it's the law ("the law says so").

Personally, I think people should be allowed to do anything they like if it doesn't hurt anybody else. If two people want to make a commitment to each other and pool their resources, that's their business and it hurts no-one. "That's just the way it is" (ie between a man and a woman) doesn't answer the question "why not?". I can't see any real reason why not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Apologies if this has been discussed 20 million times already, but I'm new to the forum. And if this belongs somewhere else, please let me know.

I'm gay, and I live in Texas. This state will secede from the Union before they allow queers to destroy the sanctity of marriage. But I digress.

They Ruined the sanctity of marriage when they let women own property. Everthing else has just been the slippery slope of giving women rights.

I personally don't care if they call it marriage or not. While I can appreciate why some are upset by the whole "seperate but equal" stance some states have taken by allowing civil unions that hold the same rights, but just not calling it "marriage". I'm curious if anyone has any more information for me, and what your opinions are in this matter.

The issue is how equal things can be when they use seperate terms. I know that in Briton there are some issues with their seperate but equal issues. For example there was no where on hospital forms for a Civil Union Partner, just a spouce.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here in Australia it's the Marriage Act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I've no idea whether the Bible was the original basis for the law being drafted that way. So, here, the argument isn't religious ("the bible says so") but secular insofar as it's the law ("the law says so").

Personally, I think people should be allowed to do anything they like if it doesn't hurt anybody else. If two people want to make a commitment to each other and pool their resources, that's their business and it hurts no-one. "That's just the way it is" (ie between a man and a woman) doesn't answer the question "why not?". I can't see any real reason why not.

The thing is that marriage really isn't just between those involved. It is about society recognising that they are a family now. This isn't an issue for how people live by themselves, but when soceity gets involved it gets complex.

One of the posters here had an issue where his lover died, and as they were not married he couldn't get his stuff back because the house/rental was not in his name, and his partners family who had been estranged for a long time got everything because they were the closest to him legaly.

 

[pgwenthold]

The arguments they do try to make, that gays make bad parents,

The problem with this argument is that, even if it is true, it is not an argument against gay marriage, but moreso gay adoption (or gay IVF).

The fact that there are plenty of states that already allow gay adoption (I don't know if Texas is one of them) completely destroys it. In fact, what it means is that the state is allowing gay adoption, but insisting that the parents are NOT married! How is that "good for the children" in any way? The state allows the children to be adopted, but won't allow the parents to get married? That is mental.

 

[cwalner]

The closest that I have heard is a financial argument. That allowing gays to marry to will allow them acces to certain financial benefits from the government that they are not currently allowed. That the government cannot afford these additional costs at this time. Generally benefits listed in this argument are things like social security survivor benefits.

It is a fairly weak argument and does eventually break down into a religious one, when you confront someone expressing it with a simple question. 'Why are those benefits appropriate for hetersexual couples, but too expensive for gay couples?' Not much, but that is the best secular argument that I have heard.

I personally don't care if they call it marriage or not. While I can appreciate why some are upset by the whole "seperate but equal" stance some states have taken by allowing civil unions that hold the same rights, but just not calling it "marriage".

I disagree with this for the same reasons that the above argument is used. Too many state and federal benefits are tied to marraige that are not included in any civil union legislation that I have seen. The problem is to truly make civil unions 'seperate but equal' every right and responsiblity that is implict in marraige has to be explicitly stated in the civil union legislation. This means one of two things. Either it would be much easier legally to just call it marriage, or something gets left out and they are not truly equal. Also remember that marriage has a special status in federal law so that State issued marriage licences establish that status and all the benefits/responsibilities thereof. A State issued civil union may be 100% equal in the eyes of the state, but it does not have that same special status federally, so is not equal on the federal level.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Have any studies been done on the effects on kids being raised by same-sex couples?

I'm not saying that there are any effects (positive or negative), but if developmental outcomes were found to be negatively affected this would be grounds for a secular argument against gay marriage, just like beneficial effects on kids from being raised by two parents versus being raised by only one parent might lay the groundwork for a secular argument in support of policies to facilitate marriage (e.g. subsidized marriage counseling.)

 

[pgwenthold]

Have any studies been done on the effects on kids being raised by same-sex couples?

Yep, quite a few.

The general consensus is that children raised by gay couples are only different from those raised by hetero-couples in one respect: they are more accepting of diversity, and, in particular, gay people.

I think that is what the homophobes mean when they say that "it harms the children." It harms the children in that they aren't being brought up with a good hatred of gay people, and that makes them bad.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

nm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

 

[Sun Countess]

The closest that I have heard is a financial argument. That allowing gays to marry to will allow them acces to certain financial benefits from the government that they are not currently allowed. That the government cannot afford these additional costs at this time. Generally benefits listed in this argument are things like social security survivor benefits.

It is a fairly weak argument and does eventually break down into a religious one, when you confront someone expressing it with a simple question. 'Why are those benefits appropriate for hetersexual couples, but too expensive for gay couples?' Not much, but that is the best secular argument that I have heard.

A very weak argument indeed. Take the case of any two men and two women. If the two men marry the two women, all four gain those benefits. If the two men marry each other and the two women marry each other, all four gain benefits. Where's the difference? It's not like anybody is creating extra humans somewhere and giving them benefits. Everybody is pulled from the same pool of consenting adults. And let's not forget that a few responsibilities also go with those benefits. If my husband doesn't pay his bills, we're both on the hook.

 

[StuBob]

Yes: homophobia.

As usual, someone (in this case the Mighty Upchurch) beat me to it!

So good arguments? No.

I do recall listening to a right-wing radio talk show on the topic, and the argument brought forth was the slippery slope one of "if we allow gays to marry, what is next? Marriage between a man and a sheep?" It was rather amusing, but I believe the speaker was serious.

Good luck to you, and if possible, move to New Hampshire!

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

They Ruined the sanctity of marriage when they let women own property. Everthing else has just been the slippery slope of giving women rights.

Bah, they ruined marriage long before that. Aristotle clearly defines the basic family unit as one man, one woman, and at least one slave. It's part of the family itself. I figure things went downhill when they started allowing marriages without a slave

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is a fairly weak argument and does eventually break down into a religious one, when you confront someone expressing it with a simple question. 'Why are those benefits appropriate for hetersexual couples, but too expensive for gay couples?' Not much, but that is the best secular argument that I have heard.

I am not sure you can say it is fundamentaly religious though. It stems from intolerance and prejudice against homosexuals, but that does not have to be based on a religion. I am sure there are racist and homophobic atheists.

 

[jillianbean]

Yes: homophobia.

Lol, true that.

 

[jillianbean]

Tradition is a secular argument, so is the argument that marriage is for making kids, or that gays don't make enough money for it to be a good idea for society to let them marry.

Are there any good arguments against gay marriages, though? None that I know of.

In my opinion, though there are exceptions to any rule, most traditions are based on religious ideologies. While at some point the rule was probably made based on biological procreative laws, it is still based on the Bible's rule of matrimony.

 

[jillianbean]

I disagree with this for the same reasons that the above argument is used. Too many state and federal benefits are tied to marraige that are not included in any civil union legislation that I have seen. The problem is to truly make civil unions 'seperate but equal' every right and responsiblity that is implict in marraige has to be explicitly stated in the civil union legislation. This means one of two things. Either it would be much easier legally to just call it marriage, or something gets left out and they are not truly equal. Also remember that marriage has a special status in federal law so that State issued marriage licences establish that status and all the benefits/responsibilities thereof. A State issued civil union may be 100% equal in the eyes of the state, but it does not have that same special status federally, so is not equal on the federal level.

This is a very good point. Invariably, in the long run, it would be much easier to just rewrite the rule of marriage, instead of creating an entirely different set of rules for a relatively small group of people.