Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

S/O Non-Religious Reasons Against Same Sex Marriage

Posted by   + Show Post
Since the US is not a theocracy & the US Constitution has the Establishment Clause I don't care about religious reasons to have laws against or bans on SSM.

I am wondering if anyone here is against SSM for purely non-religious reasons, & if so, would be willing to share those reasons.

I am for either legalizing SSM or getting rid of US marriage for all couples & the US only recognizing civil unions for both straight & gay couples. I strongly support the US Constitution, including the Establishment Clause, & I don't think that religion should be used to infringe on the rights of our citizens.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Feb. 5, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Replies (271-279):
Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Feb. 25, 2013 at 10:14 PM


Quoting 2012Rabbit12:

AND IF U CLAIM TO SERVE GOD YOU MUST AGREE WITH THE THINGS HES AGAINST. OK BYE.

lol

2012Rabbit12
by on Feb. 26, 2013 at 5:28 PM

you guys are still posting on this stupid topic?!! talk about something else! think about it. there really are no non religious reasons against gay marriage because God created marriage. go ahead with your dumb attacks. it doesnt mean anything. just one thing ...you say this not a religious post...but you have a religious symbol on your posts. im so bored, on bed rest.. but even on bed rest i think ill find something more productive to do. how much can u say about this nonsense. even jewish religion is against gay marriage.. so now who is the hypocrite? my internet will be cancelled any minute. so dont bother with ur senseless comments.

2012Rabbit12
by on Feb. 26, 2013 at 5:34 PM

lol.

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 3:46 AM

Same-sex couples being able to adopt, or one partner being able to adopt the biological child of the other, can be legally accomplished outside of marriage.

Consider this, from a Professor of Ethics and Social Science Emeritus:

"The legalization of same-sex marriage may give public codification to modernity's march toward breaking apart these goods sex from love, sex from procreation, and parenting from procreation. It finally changes the logic of marriage. Same-sex marriage does not simply extend an old institution to a new group of people. It changes the definition of marriage. It reduces marriage primarily to a committed affectionate sexual relation. It goes further. It gives this new and more narrow view of marriage all of the cultural, legal, and public supports that accrued to the institution when it functioned to hold together this complex set of goods. Should liberalism give up its interest in complex organizations of the good in the name of a flat justice which actually promotes new injustices? Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of law. It no longer will serve, in cooperation with other parts of society, to channel behavior and socialization to
achieve this synthesis of goods. It will function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers. Rather than extending the marital status and privilege to same-sex couples and then gradually to other kinds of caring relationships (which logic will dictate), we should find alternative ways of meeting the dependency needs of same-sex couples, interdependent friends, and dependent but unmarried kin. Tax benefits, legal adoption, welfare transfers, and more refined and accessible legal contracts should be used to meet these needs, not the institution of marriage itself
."

http://cslr.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/media/PDFs/Op-Ed_Pieces/Browning.Liberal_Case_Against_Same_Sex_Marriage.3.24.200.pdf

This argument is not prejudicial to gays, it also recognises the other relationships which would still be excluded even if same-sex marriage is legalised, and it recognises the public interest in conserving the heterosexual-only designation for marriage.

Quoting Bookwormy:

The government should have an interest in ending bigotry.

Further, there should be a public interest in guiding potential same sex parents to legally commit to one another, preferably before they reproduce together.

Again, ask my health insurance when my DD landed in NICU if there was a good reason to have a spouse when wanting another insurance to bill. They wanted to know who my husband was. I explained I wasn't. They wanted to know who my baby's father was. I explained she had no father. They were stunned silent. Finally, I explained that I had used anonymous donor sperm purchased via a bank & lived in a state where SSM was illegal & 2nd parent adoption can't be done for at least 6mo. They asked whom I had listed as her father on her birth certificate & I explained it was blank. If one is married, one's spouse is assumed the other parent & my partner's health insurance would have legally *had* to help defray the medical costs for 30 days. My DD would have two adults on her birth cert.

Explain to me please how my example does not demonstrate a public interest in SSM.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 Indeed.  But actually what I said was "legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns. There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners."


Quoting NewMom11222011:


If there is no public interest in homosexuals having sex then why are we having this discussion?


confused


Quoting Meadowchik:


 


No public interest in the sexual aspect.


My point with "platonic sisters" is that, even with legalised ssm, some people, some committed household relationships, are being marginalised and left out of the bundle of rights altogether.  At the same time, many others, while perhaps not specifically forbidden by law, are left alienated because the only way to legalise their relationship is through one narrowly-defined cultural institution that is sexual in nature.



Quoting NewMom11222011:


1) I believe if you look back at the underlined portion of what you said, you DID imply that since there "is no public interest" that it is unnecessary, but thanks for trying to clarify.


2) If you look at the underlined portion of what I said, you will see that I said "platonic partners of opposite sexes."  There are, of course, restrictions based on kinship and age, but it is generally true.  I'd never heard the term platonic sisters, but I would hope that relatives of that close a nature would be platonic.


Quoting Meadowchik:


 What I said is "legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns. There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners."


I did not say it is unnecessary for same-sex couples to legally commit.


No, not all platonic partners can legally marry.  Platonic sisters, for example, cannot. Everyone who wishes access to the bundle of rights associated with legal marriage have to take on the cultural implications that come with marriage.  


Quoting NewMom11222011:


It is all well and good for you to say it is unnecessary for same-sex couples to legally to commit to one another, but what you don't seem to be getting is that they WANT to legally commit to each other, for whatever reason.  No matter how many times they choose to get jiggy with it, or not, they want to be legally recognized as spouses to one another.  Platonic partners of opposite sexes can marry, if they choose, or not marry, if they choose.  Homosexual partners do not have that legal choice in many areas and that is what they are advocating for.


Quoting Meadowchik:


 Which is why legally connecting sex to commitment is completely unnecessary for same-sex couples. There is no public interest in guiding homosexual sexual behavior into committed, monogomous patterns.  There is, however, just as much reason to promote companionship between same-sex couples and, say, platonic partners.


Quoting Bookwormy:

I procreated intentionally in a SS relationship. It can't happen accidently, but it happens intentionally all the time.



 




 




 


 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Feb. 27, 2013 at 4:03 AM

 There are plenty of sexually active people who have no interest in being married, straight and GLBT, so we cannot reduce public health disease issues to where only the monogomous are protected.  Condoms and prevention awareness are important.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

Promiscuity, hetero- or homosexual, has attendant risks of STD's, including AIDS.  To me, that presents a definite public interest in promoting committed, monogamous patterns.

2012Rabbit12
by on Mar. 16, 2013 at 6:08 PM

pregnant belly

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Mar. 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM


Quoting 2012Rabbit12:

pregnant belly

Go troll some where else.

DestinyHLewis
by Destiny on Mar. 16, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Not saying I agree or disagree. I was just curious if I could find a secular argument against gay marriage because I haven't personally ever heard one. Here is one. 

THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

Adam Kolasinksi

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.

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

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.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

2012Rabbit12
by on Mar. 16, 2013 at 8:37 PM
blank stare
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured