Are there any arguments against gay marriage that don't involve religon? (that also make sense?)

As the title says.

Are there actually any arguments out there that are against gay marriage that dony involve religion and actually make any sense?
The only arguments i've read are "marriage is between a man and a woman!" and "marriage is about creating families".

Well the first argument has stemmed from religion and i will accept that argument from any christian who has followed hte bible 100% literally (but no one out there is that.. faithful) and the second argument is ridiculous when you consider that infertile people are allowed to marry.

Are there actual GOOD reasons why two men or two women who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry?


J

In my opinion, no. There is no good reason. It's entirely one of those bigotries based on religion or ickiness.

I suppose you could make the (lame) argument that gay couples are less likely to have children and that this could affect a nation somehow. But, unless you're talking about the ragtag fleet from BSG, the argument has no leg to stand on.

The problem with your question is that there are absolutely no arguments against gay marriage that make sense, irrespective of their involvement with religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Batman

I suppose you could make the (lame) argument that gay couples are less likely to have children and that this could affect a nation somehow. But, unless you're talking about the ragtag fleet from BSG, the argument has no leg to stand on.

---

Wait, do you find that to be a silly argument or not?

J

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

The problem with your question is that there are absolutely no arguments against gay marriage that make sense, irrespective of their involvement with religion.

---

So my question doesn't exactly have a "problem", it has an "answer"?

J

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J Word

Wait, do you find that to be a silly argument or not?

---

I think it is one of the most well thought-out, eloquently written arguments I've ever made up on the spot. That's why I referred to it as "lame".

I'm worried that if gays get married and start families they will move to the suburbs and take meticulous care of their houses and yards, making mine look bad.

Hmm...I may now have to retract my previous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

I'm worried that if gays get married and start families they will move to the suburbs and take meticulous care of their houses and yards, making mine look bad.

---

So, wait. You're saying your beef with gay marriage is that it would end up increasing your property value?

You do know you could take out a bigger home equity loan if that happened, right?

Very few opinions of opponents to same sex marriage are based on religion. The majority of such opinions are based on either the ick factor or are based on a fear of change, (which, itself, tends to be rooted in the ick factor).

This is not to say that there are no religious opponents, only that while religious opponents do the best job of organizing money to finance anti-SSM campaigns, the opinions of the vast majority of opponents of SSM are rooted not in religious beliefs, but in a consternation that feelings with which they have grown up are being challenged.

I once read an article that said a lot of databases would have to be rewritten, because they wouldn't allow for SSM. I found it rather lame, but it was honestly the best argument against it I've ever found.

On one of the comments on the CNN iReport thing about Cindy McCain, some yokel rages against the idea of same sex marriage because AIDS is more prevalent in gay men, and if they allow them to marry, it will spread even further and we'll soon have third world levels of AIDS in this country.

The logic was impressive.

Let's see. If we allow gay men to marry and presumably enter into more monogamous and legally stable relationships, we'll see an INCREASE and wider spread in the level of AIDS. Presumably to people outside the gay community.

How does that work again?

Does the fact that heterosexual marriage is legal contribute to the spread of STDs in the non-married and/or gay populations? What is that spectacular missing leap in the middle there that says that if gay people can marry, straight people will suddenly be getting AIDS?

But if gay people can get married, they might marry straight people and spread their gay diseases!

...oh wait...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caerie

I once read an article that said a lot of databases would have to be rewritten, because they wouldn't allow for SSM. I found it rather lame, but it was honestly the best argument against it I've ever found.

---

Yes, but re-coding all those databases to allow SSM would create jobs. How can anyone be against job creation?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caerie

I once read an article that said a lot of databases would have to be rewritten, because they wouldn't allow for SSM. I found it rather lame, but it was honestly the best argument against it I've ever found.

---

Yeah, I noticed that when I picked up a genealogy program to keep track of the characters in my second book. No SSM, No polygamy, no way to show adopted kids and birth parents, no way to show godparents or BFF. Really, it was a limited sort of program.

I wonder if any software companies have looked at upgrading their databases to include SSM fields. Or do we have to wait for one of the really populous states to approve it?

I can't say for sure, but I'd think that the upcoming US Census would make provisions for same-sex couples in its surveys. After all, SSM is legal in several states; this wasn't the case in 2000. It would make sense for this information to be included in survey data.

Not that I agree with it, but I think the most coherent non-religious argument I've heard against legalizing same-sex marriage is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, regardless of the sexes of those getting hitched.

It would require a massive re-tooling of our tax and legal codes, as well as likely having other unintended consequences. It's probably completely unworkable and short-sighted, and for dubious benefit, but at least it's more substantial than "ick".

Time once again to dig out my "Defense of Marriage Act"?

The one that outlaws and/or invalidates every marriage that does not involve the raising of children or the intent to raise children.

After all, if they want to say that Marriage is about procreation, then let's limit it to just that.

What's the "massive retooling"? (You'll pardon the expression....) Oregon opened up domestic partnerships, and now taxes me as if I'm married. It doesn't seem like it was that hard. (Again....)

Lesbians have no sexually transmitted HIV. Either the argument swings both ways (ditto....) or it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by susan

What's the "massive retooling"? (You'll pardon the expression....) Oregon opened up domestic partnerships, and now taxes me as if I'm married. It doesn't seem like it was that hard. (Again....)

Lesbians have no sexually transmitted HIV. Either the argument swings both ways (ditto....) or it doesn't.

---

The "re-tooling" was in reference to government getting out of the marriage biz altogether. Recognizing SSM doesn't seem like it would require much more than just expanding the definition of an already-established term ("marriage"). Eliminating marriage as a concept from government OTOH, would have wider-ranging effects since much of the tax code and the legal system gives marriage special consideration and status.

BTW, there's a movement among liberal churches, including my own Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ. Many ministers have chosen not to sign marriage licenses until the state they're in allows gay people to get married as well. Some have even said that ministers have no business being agents of the governments, so they will never sign a marriage license at all.

They will still happily perform the wedding ceremony, as that is their business, but you'd also have to go get married by a public official like a judge so you can get the official signature.

An interesting conservative take on the question from Salon.com.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phouka

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

I'm worried that if gays get married and start families they will move to the suburbs and take meticulous care of their houses and yards, making mine look bad.

---

So, wait. You're saying your beef with gay marriage is that it would end up increasing your property value?

You do know you could take out a bigger home equity loan if that happened, right?

---

So, your sarcasm detector is broken?

Quote:

---

The "re-tooling" was in reference to government getting out of the marriage biz altogether. Recognizing SSM doesn't seem like it would require much more than just expanding the definition of an already-established term ("marriage"). Eliminating marriage as a concept from government OTOH, would have wider-ranging effects since much of the tax code and the legal system gives marriage special consideration and status.

---

Okay, I see what you're saying.

What is a marriage? Is it some legal contract between two people to share property, or is it supposed to be some covenant to affirm the sexual love between two adults?

If it's the first thing, then it doesn't make sense and you could allow any two consenting adults to get married, even if it's brother-sister or mother-son. If it's the second thing, then I could see logical arguments for restricting it to opposite-sex couples. Biologically humans evolved as a two-gender species and sex evolved as a mechanism for reproduction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Truth and Beauty

What is a marriage? Is it some legal contract between two people to share property, or is it supposed to be some covenant to affirm the sexual love between two adults?

If it's the first thing, then it doesn't make sense and you could allow any two consenting adults to get married, even if it's brother-sister or mother-son. If it's the second thing, then I could see logical arguments for restricting it to opposite-sex couples. Biologically humans evolved as a two-gender species and sex evolved as a mechanism for reproduction.

---

How does "sexual love" = "reproduction"?
ETA: And that also goes back to "Would that mean banning marriage to people who don't want, or can't have children?

J

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caerie

I once read an article that said a lot of databases would have to be rewritten, because they wouldn't allow for SSM. I found it rather lame, but it was honestly the best argument against it I've ever found.

---

I believe the first same-sex couple to seek a divorce in Canada had a related problem. The language in the laws was changed to include same-sex marriage (i.e. from "one man and one woman" to "two people"), but it took a while for the divorce law to catch up, so the legally married same sex couple found they couldn't legally get a divorce. (I think it's been resolved now.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The J Word

How does "sexual love" = "reproduction"?

---

It doesn't. I married a woman whose disability meant that she couldn't have children. Or more accurately, that getting pregnant and attempting to carry a foetus to term would kill them both long before the foetus was viable. (In case anyone's wondering, it was Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Or "Lou Gehrig's", for all you baseball fans).

Of course, even though we had no intention of breeding, I can't imagine that anyone would declare our marriage void.

So what's the deal with gay couples? I can't help but agree with the people who have said that it's society's "Ick Factor", or possibly just basic insecurities coming into play.

But let's throw the pigeon among the cats, while expanding this topic a bit: Should a (male) gay couple be allowed to adopt?

The motivation for disallowing it is this: Other than the fact that "society" seems to still think that a gay household will produce a gay kid - you know, like it's a choice, male gay couples are supposedly less stable and more likely to end in divorce/separation/etc than a male/female couple. This leaves the child in a parlous position - part of a state-sanctioned one-parent family.

Two notes:

1) Here in the UK, that doesn't seem to happen. Gay couples can adopt very easily, even in the face of objections by the blood relatives of the child.

2) "Supposedly" is in italics not because I am doubtful per se, but because I have no statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silenus

An interesting conservative take on the question from Salon.com.

---

It's pretty telling that the only thing in there that even approached actual argument was, yes, a pure appeal to religious tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phouka

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

I'm worried that if gays get married and start families they will move to the suburbs and take meticulous care of their houses and yards, making mine look bad.

---

So, wait. You're saying your beef with gay marriage is that it would end up increasing your property value?

You do know you could take out a bigger home equity loan if that happened, right?

---

So, your sarcasm detector is broken?

---

Nooooooo. The needle is pegged at "tongue firmly in cheek". But thanks for playing!

Well, there is this one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dangerdad

Well, there is this one.

---

Which doesn't qualify (due to that "making sense" requirement.) It's not actually an argument about gay marriage at all, it's just three instances of post hoc ergo propter hoc "argument", in somewhat melodramatic terms, claiming that other social changes have had other effects on marriage, I suppose in order to invite the reader to imagine that marriage might well just disappear entirely if we allow the queers to get married. Any reader with any sophistication will immediately notice that the author is unable to come up with any conceivable scenario by which this might occur. No one is going to find that 'essay' remotely convincing unless they're just shamelessly trying to find rationalizations for their prior opposition to gay marriage rights.

Why do opponents of gay marriage act as if it is a real possibility that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages? Last I heard, no one had sued (at least successfully) an Orthodox synagogue for refusing to marry two non-Jews, or a non-Jew and a Jew. Surely the same principle applies here? I'm completely baffled by this argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DaphneBlack

Why do opponents of gay marriage act as if it is a real possibility that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages? Last I heard, no one had sued (at least successfully) an Orthodox synagogue for refusing to marry two non-Jews, or a non-Jew and a Jew. Surely the same principle applies here? I'm completely baffled by this argument.

---

Do the people who originated those arguments really, honestly think that, or is it just a Chewbacca defense meant to confuse and worry people? It's so utterly left field and silly, I can't fathom the thought process behind it beyond the desire to mislead people.

Another argument that crops up now and again is the "slippery slope" argument that people will be wanting the right to marry animals next.

But this is ultimately a straw man argument, as only Humans have the ability to consent, and are legally recognised as "people".

When someone breeds the cow that actually wants to be eaten, and is capable of saying so, clearly and distinctly, we'll discuss inter-species marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DaphneBlack

Why do opponents of gay marriage act as if it is a real possibility that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages? Last I heard, no one had sued (at least successfully) an Orthodox synagogue for refusing to marry two non-Jews, or a non-Jew and a Jew. Surely the same principle applies here? I'm completely baffled by this argument.

---

Oh, yeah, the essay linked above at janegalt.com mentioned this one. Like, how, since divorcés are allowed to remarry in the US, the Catholic Church is legally obligated to marry them, right?

I don't think people make this argument in good faith. It's just a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead people who are just desperately trying to find rationalizations for the opinions they already had.

I suppose I could have read down to where Caerie posted the same thing instead of posting myself, but eh, there you go. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

The problem with your question is that there are absolutely no arguments against gay marriage that make sense, irrespective of their involvement with religion.

---

And, of course, the issue that rational people who have an issue with gay marriage tend to look at marriage as a religious institution, and therefore, view the idea of gay marriage in the same light as a Hindu briss or a pagan baptism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phouka

Yeah, I noticed that when I picked up a genealogy program to keep track of the characters in my second book. No SSM, No polygamy, no way to show adopted kids and birth parents, no way to show godparents or BFF. Really, it was a limited sort of program.

---

[hijack]
There's plenty of genealogy software on the market, and I would be surprised if you couldn't find one that at least covers the natural/adoptive parent thing. My own software of choice, Brother's Keeper, allows you to define parent/child relationships as (IIRC) Natural, Adoptive, Step, Foster, Other. I don't believe it presently accommodates SSM, but you have the option of defining gender as "?" (handy when Great Auntie Maud sends a letter that says Cousin Sandy and his wife had a baby, Shannon Ashley Smith, and doesn't mention the child's gender), which would be a work around that would allow you to record the marriage of two same sex individuals. If the idea of gay people being marked genderless somehow offends you, you could go right ahead and mark everyone in the database the same way so at least everyone's equal.
[/hijack]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliahna

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phouka

Yeah, I noticed that when I picked up a genealogy program to keep track of the characters in my second book. No SSM, No polygamy, no way to show adopted kids and birth parents, no way to show godparents or BFF. Really, it was a limited sort of program.

---

[hijack]
There's plenty of genealogy software on the market, and I would be surprised if you couldn't find one that at least covers the natural/adoptive parent thing. My own software of choice, Brother's Keeper, allows you to define parent/child relationships as (IIRC) Natural, Adoptive, Step, Foster, Other. I don't believe it presently accommodates SSM, but you have the option of defining gender as "?" (handy when Great Auntie Maud sends a letter that says Cousin Sandy and his wife had a baby, Shannon Ashley Smith, and doesn't mention the child's gender), which would be a work around that would allow you to record the marriage of two same sex individuals. If the idea of gay people being marked genderless somehow offends you, you could go right ahead and mark everyone in the database the same way so at least everyone's equal.
[/hijack]

---

[further hijack]GenoPro. Same sex marriage, sibling marriage, adoption, pets, non-specific gender if all you know is that a child was born... I use it for charting really messed up fictional families, because it's very flexible. I don't much care for the interface, though.[/further hijack]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The J Word

How does "sexual love" = "reproduction"?
ETA: And that also goes back to "Would that mean banning marriage to people who don't want, or can't have children?

---

I didn't say anything about reproduction.
And I'm not saying that the argument is necessarily a good argument.
But, for what it's worth, someone can argue this way:
In a current US marriage ceremony, there is a lot said about the love between the two people getting united.
Obviously, the love being referred to is a love related to sex - we don't allow two brothers, or a mother and son, to get married.
Humans have evolved as a two-sex species. Ordinarily, the sexual attraction (which is the basis of the type of love celebrated in a marriage ceremony) is between two people of the opposite sex.
Therefore marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Now, if you want to say that marriage should be between any two people that love each other, regardless of the type of love, then like I said, brother/sister or brother/brother or father/daughter (assuming consenting adults here) should all be allowed the right to marriage. Then the question arises - why limit it to two?

If you want to say that marriage is in addition a legal contract to help share property, then it should be open to pretty much anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dangerdad

Well, there is this one.

---

That was an interesting article, but I'm not really sure it applies.

In both cases involving marriage, the lawmakers assumed that people would not make stigmatized choices because of government policy change. This proved to be untrue, and the choices became less stigmatized. This is similar to arguments people may make about gay marriage: if we destigmatize same sex marriage than more people will engage in it. Yup, you bet that more gay people will get married if gay marriage is legalized!

The problem with the article is that these two stigmatized behaviors: unwed motherhood and divorce, ultimately led to changes that were bad for society. Although legislators could foresee potential problems stemming from their policy changes, they didn't the problems would really occur due to cultural pressure.

This article alone doesn't support an argument against gay marriage because it fails to point out how gay marriage could be bad for society. We still haven't heard anything besides the religious factor or the 'ick' factor to argue against SSM. What actual potential societal problems can we imagine stemming from SSM? The only one I've ever heard is that there might be less reproduction, leading to population decline. IMHO, that is a good thing. And here's a news flash: gay men and women are not going to get married to straight people and have children with them just because gay marriage isn't legal!

I did appreciate the link though, the article was a good read.

Not to mention the fact that lots of gay people do have children.

This whole thread is silly. Opposition to gay marriage doesn't have to be rooted in religion; it can also be rooted in plain old tradition. Obviously, this is going to seem nonsensical and fallacious to anyone who does not believe it is important to preserve society's traditions and very important to people who do think it is an objective moral fact that these traditions need to be preserved. While I don't agree with the second viewpoint, by any means, it is not as stupid as many people think—social conservatives are concerned that if traditions are allowed to be casually destroyed by society, it will "progress" to one that seems no longer worth living in to them, the same way socialists believe that unrestrained free-market capitalism will lead to a society of greed in which all sense of brotherhood and altruism is lost to the pursuit of looking after oneself first.

Personally, while I'm for same-sex marriage rather than what we have now, I'd rather the government get out of the marriage business entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

This whole thread is silly. Opposition to gay marriage doesn't have to be rooted in religion; it can also be rooted in plain old tradition.

---

Which is kind of what i was asking.
Every argument i had seen had either been religious, or really ridiculous, so i asked for reasons people would oppose gay marriage that weren't one of those things.
I don't buy the "tradition" argument, unless it is by people who don't want to advance in other ways (technology, medicine..).

J

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Another argument that crops up now and again is the "slippery slope" argument that people will be wanting the right to marry animals next.

But this is ultimately a straw man argument, as only Humans have the ability to consent, and are legally recognised as "people".

---

So that's a straw man? Well, what happens when I want to marry a man who's actually made out of straw? Slippery slope, my friend.

Seriously, I haven't seen a good argument against allowing SSM. In the modern U.S., men and women have pretty much the same legal rights and status in almost every area. So, in a legal contract, it doesn't matter what the genders of the parties involved are. I don't see why marriage shouldn't be the same way: a specific kind of legal union of two people, with the genders irrelevant.

[quote=The J Word]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "Vox Imperatoris":13gjrqj2

This whole thread is silly. Opposition to gay marriage doesn't have to be rooted in religion; it can also be rooted in plain old tradition.

---

Which is kind of what i was asking.
Every argument i had seen had either been religious, or really ridiculous, so i asked for reasons people would oppose gay marriage that weren't one of those things.
I don't buy the "tradition" argument, unless it is by people who don't want to advance in other ways (technology, medicine..).

J[/quote:13gjrqj2]Lots of traditions aren't worth keeping. Fifty years ago the law encoded the tradition that marriage was between a man and a woman -- of the same race. Can you imagine a politician publicly supporting a return to miscegenation laws? Fifty years from now, people will feel the same way about the suggestion that two dudes can't get married.

We closed on a property today in a state which recognizes our relationship. The forms were all the same; the state has shifted real estate practice so that an attestation of our relationship that's legal in the state is all that's required. The terminology on the paperwork remains "borrower/co-borrower" and "buyer/co-buyer." No fuss.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The J Word

I don't buy the "tradition" argument, unless it is by people who don't want to advance in other ways (technology, medicine..).

---

But by using the word "advance," you're sort of begging the question. Change is not necessarily advance. Indeed, to the kind of people for whom tradition is important, change is looked at with suspicion, and is at least as likely to be a step in the wrong direction as in the right one.

People—some people far more than others—are wary of change. They fear change. They stubbornly resist change, in themselves, their society, their way of life. This is largely a psychological, nonrational response, but there is a rational component too: It's not entirely unreasonable to suppose that "we've always done it that way" because "that way" is what has been shown to work, to allow society to run smoothly, to fit with human nature (or with the what God intended for human beings—though then, of course, you get into religious arguments), and any attempt to monkey around with the way things have always been could have all sorts of unforeseen negative consequences.

[quote=Thudlow Boink]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "The J Word":2a8ue59k

I don't buy the "tradition" argument, unless it is by people who don't want to advance in other ways (technology, medicine..).

---

But by using the word "advance," you're sort of begging the question. Change is not necessarily advance. Indeed, to the kind of people for whom tradition is important, change is looked at with suspicion, and is at least as likely to be a step in the wrong direction as in the right one.

People—some people far more than others—are wary of change. They fear change. They stubbornly resist change, in themselves, their society, their way of life. This is largely a psychological, nonrational response, but there is a rational component too: It's not entirely unreasonable to suppose that "we've always done it that way" because "that way" is what has been shown to work, to allow society to run smoothly, to fit with human nature (or with the what God intended for human beings—though then, of course, you get into religious arguments), and any attempt to monkey around with the way things have always been could have all sorts of unforeseen negative consequences.[/quote:2a8ue59k]

Yes. I don't agree with the social conservatives on this issue, but this is how they think.