The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

It's often assumed that if you oppose Gay Marriage you are most likely a Bible-thumping Christian Fundamentalist. While this may account for many who oppose Gay Marriage, it does not include those who oppose it on logical and rational grounds. It gets rather irritating to be told that your views are shaped by "some book" or that you are "bigoted against gay people" whenever you discuss why Gay Marriage provides no benefit to the State.

The following article does a decent job summarising reasons for opposing Gay Marriage on non-religious grounds.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Thoughts?

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Marriage is a religious thing.......thats why religion is against it.

I think if 2 people love each other and are of legal age then no one should stop them from living a happy life.
No need to get married, marriage is just a piece of paper

I will never get married....im not gay myself, i just dont believe a piece of paper can make a bond stronger. Its a pointless outdated waste of time....and MONEY.

People have the right to do whatever the hell they want provided it doesn't hurt anyone.

Seeing as how the article is pretty much based on the idea that gay marriage will affect our ability to "propegate the species/society", and realizing that "propegation" doesn't seem to be a problem, as we have plenty of people, with more always on the way, I'd say the whole thing is ridiculous, and based on a non-issue.

Just my thoughts...

reply to post by subject x


Gay people can also donate sperm if they wanted to, so there is NO issue whatsoever.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage.

Love and commitment should be all that is required period.

so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

Of course not, they are no different to anyone else.

I guess the basis of his argument can be summed up from his first statement:

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

So, if a marriage doesn't benefit the state, they shouldn't allow it? Yeah, that's why we should get married, to benefit the state. How did Kim Kardasian's or Brittany Spears' marriage benefit the state?

To follow Mr. Kolasinksi's argument to its logical conclusion, we should just have the state assign our spouses to us, for the maximum benefit of the state.

if two people are happy together let them be together. Its nobody elses damn business. Way to many people poke noses where they dont belong and do nothing but add to the misery in the world.. Theres a hell of alot more serious problems facing humanity than whether or not two people of the same or opposite gender are together..

Having read the article that is presented, there are a few things that can be stated to that end:

Not every one wants to have children, nor do they desire such. Many couples are often having children as they believe that they are suppose to, yet not one of these arguments has ever answered the question, what if the parents are not fit to be parents or have children?
That is a valid question as this brings up, yet once again that the reason for denying a group of people the very right to enjoy the same freedom and rights as every one else is based off of the ability to procreate. Yet fails to take into account that if that is the sole basis for allowing marriage it would then by nature of the very argument disallow those who are past the age of child bearing years, such as older couples, or those who are by nature or deliberate action are sterile.

While there are arguments that state a child would benefit from having both a father and a mother to raise such, the very nature of society today invalidates that argument as there are families where either the father or the mother is no longer there either having abandoned their family, or has died, or where both couples are working, leaving the child alone or with a babysitter while they work to make ends meet. Is that healthy for a child where neither parent is there at the same time or where the child hardly ever sees the other parent?

Under that argument one could argue that those in the military are not really fit to be parents, as is shown right now, where one or both parents are deployed to a conflict zone, and could either end up killed or return home disabled, and not able to properly care for the child when they return. Further complicated when said parent is returning from a conflict, they are suffering from PTSD, and thus that complicates matters even more, especially when they are having to deal with a young child or are ultimately not able to deal with said child.

To further invalidate the argument and article, is that like so many others, they tend to go over the same topics, where the mention of gay marriage is somehow equal to those who want to marry more than one spouse, yet fail to accept or realize that such has been already covered by the courts, and has been discussed, debated on and ultimately a determination has been already made and would need to be made a separate issue on its own. Even those who want a plural marriage, are not looking for validation, but rather that such be made not illegal, thus proving that such has already been discussed, and talked about years ago.

While they are stating many different aspect of rights by a states, the fundamental point has to be, that if society is suppose to be free and just, freedom and equality for all, then it needs to be just that, where when the issues of such that has never been discussed before, are discussed and the same considerations given as it has been in the past.

To further question the validity of this article, one could look at the very keywords used at the very bottom of the paper, where things like butt bandits, deviant rump rammers, and so forth are used to bring up this paper. Combined with the fact that this was printed on Feb 17, 2004. Means that this has already been discussed and talked about already.

The ultimately reality is that every time this issue goes to court, those who would deny 2 people of the same sex the right to marry, fail to make valid reasonable arguments as to why such is to be denied and often the witnesses of such do not show up in court. There really is no way to determine how such would effect the USA, and it is time either to end all rights and benefits for marriage once and for all, or to allow 2 people of the same sex to marry.

The state should stop regulating relationships between people altogether. Marriage as an institution recognized by the state is not needed at all. If you want to subsidise procreation, then subsidize procreation, not marriage.
All these non-issues like gay marriage and polygamy/polyandry will go away if the word "marriage" was nonexistent in the law.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

This has been one of my issues for a while. I have many friends who are gay/lesbian, and I would never dream of telling them how to live their life, nor would I ever think of trying to deprive them of their pursuit of happiness. However, the political correctness and demands for equal rights are growing so absurdly out of control that we may indeed see the above brought to fruition in due time unless the distinction is made. If people want to live in harems and men want to father 100 children, then hey....he'd better be able to pay for them all! But that's their business, as long as they are making a free choice to do so and not being forced. So, depriving anyone the right to do as they please shouldn't be an issue in a society that is in a free fall in moral standards. Why stop at gay marriage? The issue with having modern day harems, however, is sheer population control. And if that man wants that many children populating the Earth, he should be able to prove his DNA is worthy of such a feat.

Personally, I'm torn. We, as a society, have gotten so darn careless with procreation, its ridiculous. Children have become nothing more than an unwanted symptom of unbridled casual sex, so this too is a serious issue in my mind. Just because it's "heterosexual", doesn't mean it makes a society better. If our ultimate goal is to improve the DNA of our species, then shouldn't we care and be more cautious about who procreates and who doesn't? Arranged marriages were present for a reason, back in the day. Not saying we should go back to that by any means, but it's something I do think about. Sometimes I wonder - if I had a serious medical condition, would I be responsible and not pass on those genes, or would I not care and potentially curse my future generations?

What would you do?

Originally posted by Maslo
The state should stop regulating relationships between people altogether. Marriage as an institution recognized by the state is not needed at all. If you want to subsidise procreation, then subsidize procreation, not marriage.
All these non-issues like gay marriage and polygamy/polyandry will go away if the word "marriage" was nonexistent in the law.

Perhaps, but some people WANT regulation. Their opinions count too, do they not? I wouldn't care either way, to be honest, but I know many who do care.

reply to post by Maslo


Or they could remove the word Gay or Homosexual, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender all together. Then we could go back to the days where everyone had to remain in the Closet. So not to be ridiculed, harassed, attacked or even hospitalized just because their sexual orientation is different from Heterosexuals.

Is that what your wanting?

Screw those who who just want to live their life's peacefully without without having to look over their shoulders all the time.

Hi, look ill put it this way, i dont mind gay people, but i do have a problem with them snogging in public.
Its the same with straight people -- i dont want to see them snogging and touching each other on the seat in front of me on the bus

reply to post by AnonymousFem


What? How did you arrive at that from what I have said? Of course I dont want that. And yes, except for one law that states discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, I dont think such words need to be in laws. Secular civil unions only, for all (heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous/polyandrous partnerships), maybe with the added clause that in case of adopting children standard nuclear family has precedence, is all that is needed IMHO.

Sorry, but all that article does is wank on about the benefits to the state (procreation). I know this is said over and over but, what about all the heterosexual couples that do not have children and/or never planned to have any?

Kinda blows most of that articles argument out of the water.

reply to post by Garfee


The difference is that most heterosexual couples can procreate if they decide to, whereas homosexual couples cannot without a third party. The benefits that marriage affords should be restricted to couples with the potential to procreate independently.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Just wondering if you know or not that homosexuals pay taxes too.

reply to post by Garfee


Taxes are also paid by non-athletes to fund Australian athletes. Shall we start funding non-athletes the same way we fund athletes because they pay taxes as well?

reply to post by Dark Ghost


If non-athletes choose to become athletes, yes.