Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
Just do a google search on "secular case against gay marriage" there are plenty of papers out there.
Oh, but I guess you've read them all, and dismissed everything they had to say.
Carry on.
In fact I did just do such a search. As expected, I was familiar with every element I encountered (there is not an endless list of reaons, only a small number of general topics really). The majority still end up as religious beliefs and 'morals' wrapped in transparent secular commentary, so I won't even consider these as valid secular reasons. Of the remainder, I listed some highlights below. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the strongest secular reasons against SSM? I don't expect you to change your mind about anything though, so it might be pointless. But perhaps I'm wrong?
Here's some of my quick thoughts:
-Marriage already has restrictions
-Marriage is costly to the state
-Marriage results in families, families grows society, a growing society helps the state.
-Slippery slope
-Majority rules
Restrictions / slippery slope Each element of secular marriage stands or fails on its own merits. Allowing SSM does not make any alternative marriage option stronger OR weaker. The massively complicated problems that polygamous marriages could end up in are not diminished, marriage to children (or pets....ffs) do not suddenly become capable of making informed consensual decisions, etc.
Families Let's jump right in: Why are marriages between non-child-bearing senior citizens permitted? Is it because they are so rare that its not worth the bother, as some have stated? Just how many is 'rare', and how does that number compare to the number of anticipated SSM's? As for not being worth the bother, how much 'bother' is limiting marriage to those under 50? Under 60? Whatever number you want to pick... It's no bother at all, so why would it not happen? BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE AN OUTRAGE, that's why!!! Why are families consisting solely of natural children brought up at all in the discussion of secular SSM? There is no secular definition of marriage that specifies 'bearing natural offspring' to be a necessary component. In any case, state benefits are not uniform, they depend on the couples financial and family situation; benefits given to a married couple without children are
not the same as to a married couple with children. If you don't have children, you don't receive state benefits for having children.
Cost to State Whether the state should provide benefits to married couples is a valid question. But it's
a completely different question. Also, it's interesting that the anti-equality side points out how costly marriage is, but that marriage is also beneficial to society by growth / producing families, despite that this growing society will recursively produce even more child-generating marriages - hadn't it just been pointed out how costly marriage was to the state? Even if you accept that growing society is a benefit to the state, then in what other way would SSM couples serve an interest to the state? It doesn't matter. Why? Because there is no secular definition of marriage that specifies 'serving the states interest' to be a necessary component. Maybe it should, but that is itself wrapped up in the other question mentioned above, whether the state should be involved in marriage at all, and the question of how useful each marriage is to the state can be leveled at
every individual marriage.
Majority Rules Fortunately, protecting minorities is the essence of the US Cconstitution, and at the very heart of what it means to be American, even if those suggesting it have never had a civics or history lesson.
There continue to be these incredible suggested reasons such as society will gradually disappear after SSM is permitted, or the value of each couples marriage is somehow dependant on every other couples marriage, and other ideas that I am unable to grasp, and I doubt the proponents can reasonably support themselves.
These are just some quick thoughts, the only argument of any merit is whether secular marriage should even exist. But while it does, it cannot be discriminatory without secular reasons.
Whether people or business can be bigoted and discriminatory is another topic I have partly mixed feelings about (I have some slightly Libertarian leanings sometimes, if someone wants to be a dick, should they be forced not to be a dick?), but while there are laws in place to prevent such discrimination, they should be upheld.
eta: ianal, I might not have written this up brilliantly, and I certainly don't want to regurgitate any old and dead discussion, and I have a feeling I might have done just this. So I will say that I am not interested in getting into any further petty discussion (I would
really like to hear anything well-reasoned I have not thought of though).