The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

I think the guy might be one short step off, though......I don't think the state's purpose for marriage is procreation, but rather to set up a structure for state involvement in issues such as parental rights and inheritance for the protection of the procreated.....
 
Sorry, but this quote from your article is the gist of the argument, and is alarmingly false. I have pursued this line of questioning previously and reached the same answer. This is the ONLY REAL REASON fear filled conservatards are against gay unions and it is false reasoning. Your article is just that much more bunk, and deserves NO CREDIBILITY.

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?

Polygamous marriage is illegal in all 50 states. Allowing two people of any sex to marry DOES NOT threaten anti-polygamy laws in any way.
 
A couple of problems with this article jump out at me.

First of all, the state serves the public, not the other way around.

Second of all, the idea that marriage is based on producing children might have had some merit 100 years ago, but it is no longer a valid reason. Does anyone actually think we are in danger of having too FEW people? The growth in our population has been growing at a tremendous rate. We also have had a tremedous rate of children born out of wedlock. The entire sterility excuse is nonsense.

Third of all, this author still insists that it is about sex, hence the continued use of the phrase "sexual love". Married heterosexual people have sex, but their relationship is not defined as "sexual love". We accept that they love each other in ways that go beyond sex. Gay couples have the same emotional bond straight couples do. To try and relegate it to merely sexual is either done out of ignorance or to intentionally marginalize the relationship.
 
I doubt that same-sex unions can have much effect on marriage as a social institution. We live, to the extent the law allows, in a free society; and so one should be free to be miserable as one chooses, whether with a partner of the same sex or the opposite.
 
Return of Dune said:
Asuming that I am incorrect (which I am not), why don't you explain the "real" reason you give a shit what other folks do?
Click to expand...
My position has been clearly stated on this issue. I don't give a shit what you and your boy toy do in private, as long as you are both consenting adults. Just don't expect me to call it normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.

And keep it away from the kids, dammit.
 
As the article points out, the real issue with same-sex marriage is over legal recognition. Marital rights, like all rights, are defined by law. Marriage is a three-party contract between a man and a woman (although some state laws use the term "persons capable of contracting" or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

It should be noted that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.
 
Damn Yankee said:
My position has been clearly stated on this issue. I don't give a shit what you and your boy toy do in private, as long as you are both consenting adults. Just don't expect me to call it normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.

And keep it away from the kids, dammit.
Click to expand...

" I don't give a shit what you and your boy toy do in private, as long as you are both consenting adults", could also be aptly stated as I don't give a shit what you and your girltoy do in private, as long as you are both consenting adults. ". So that is not a valid excuse for continuing the refusal to allow gay marriages.

And the "And keep it away from the kids, dammit" is simply trying to connect pedophilia and homosexuality. That is inaccurate. I doubt anyone here would advocate pedophiles being allowed near children.

Which brings us back to the "normal moral natural and healthy" part again. The definition of "normal" is pretty vague, and since it is not used to exclude any straights from marrying, it is not a valid reason to exclude gays from marrying.

Moral? Since we have a seculatr gov't, the morality cannot come from religious texts. There is nothing showing homosexuality itself to be immoral.

Natural? If you want to use "natural" as a guideline for not allowing gays to marry, you will (of course) be willing to force what is not natural out of our lives? lol But, according to studies by National Geographic, homosexual behaviors are common enough in many higher species of animals, including mammals and birds. So "natural" doesn't work.

And lastly, we have "healthy". First of all, homosexuals can be as healthy as anyone. And since the laws against sodomy have been struck down, they cannot be used selectively to exclude one group. But if you insist upon using this, then you would be willing to not allow marriage between any straight couples who engage in the same "unhealthy" practices?
 
Nemo said:
As the article points out, the real issue with same-sex marriage is over legal recognition. Marital rights, like all rights, are defined by law. Marriage is a three-party contract between a man and a woman (although some state laws use the term "persons capable of contracting" or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

It should be noted that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.
Click to expand...

I believe the state should not be involved in marriage at all. The easiest way to solve this problem is to remove the state from the religious context of "marriage", and confine its power to a more secular union. Everyone who wants the benefits will get a licence for a "union" from the state. If they ALSO want a religious "marriage" they can do so thru the religious authority of their choice. And it will be up to each religious organization to determine whether they allow gays to marry or not.
 
I agree, government approval is unnecessary for the religious "marriage", simply make all licensing into "Unions" and let any adult enter them as they would...

The idea that we need to force people to follow the "tradition" of the majority, or that government can in some way protect the "sanctity" of marriage is ridiculous. It isn't the government's place to protect the traditions of the majority religions.
 
Damn Yankee said:
My position has been clearly stated on this issue. I don't give a shit what you and your boy toy do in private, as long as you are both consenting adults. Just don't expect me to call it normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.

And keep it away from the kids, dammit.
Click to expand...


Are you;
1. Too lazy to debate?
2. Incapable of providing a valid reason why gay union is harmful in any way.
3. The other true troll on the board who along with Yurt contributes little but confusion and animosity.

If your purpose here is truly to debate and not just to degrade others with whom you disagree, you will surely state your reason as to why gay union is evil.
 
Homos can declare themselves "married" and go live accordingly anywhere in the country and mind their own business....
If they want to make a legal binding contract about their rights and duties and obligations to each other....write it up and get a lawyer,,,,
They don't need government to interfere with their private lives in any way....
cased closed...
 
bravo said:
Homos can declare themselves "married" and go live accordingly anywhere in the country and mind their own business....
If they want to make a legal binding contract about their rights and duties and obligations to each other....write it up and get a lawyer,,,,
They don't need government to interfere with their private lives in any way....
cased closed...
Click to expand...

What legitmate reason do you have to restrict the civil rights of certain individuals? Your mind is the only thing that is closed.
 
bravo said:
Homos can declare themselves "married" and go live accordingly anywhere in the country and mind their own business....
If they want to make a legal binding contract about their rights and duties and obligations to each other....write it up and get a lawyer,,,,
They don't need government to interfere with their private lives in any way....
cased closed...
Click to expand...


Except that does not even begin to close the case.

Straight couples are granted up to 1,400 benefits (admittedly some are minor) when they get married. How about we give those same benefits to gays and then call it "case closed"?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Typical libtard tactic; pretending that he can define his opponent's position. FAIL
Click to expand...



Typical Dumb Yankee/Yurt troll tactic; pretending they've already provided proof and then refusing to link up. FAIL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top