Gay marriage

[Coded-Dude]

I googled it out of curiosity and here it is.... "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage"

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 two 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-reading 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.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

The main counter point would be that same sex couple can adopt and therefor do create a family, even if they didn't bear the children themselves, and that argument only works for men as women couples can bear as many children as they want.

 

[MadDogs]

sorry, but citing having children as a reason for allowing or disallowing others to marry is total crap. Not only that, it's insulting to couples who have unsuccessfully tried for years to have children or have simply chosen not to have kids (for whatever personal reasons).

Yes, you cited the article as a non-religious reason for being against gay marriage. Now i'm telling you why that article (specifically the article, not you or your stance) is total and complete nonsense.

You are missing the point. The author gave a reason "WHY" he is against same sex marriage. We can all think it is nonsense BUT his rationale was not based on religious beliefs, was it?

 

[MadDogs]

Are you saying there are no atheists in gay bath houses?

Next time you are in one, why don't you ask? Just remember it's not polite to talk with your mouth full.

 

[Coded-Dude]

You are missing the point. The author gave a reason "WHY" he is against same sex marriage. We can all think it is nonsense BUT his rationale was not based on religious beliefs, was it?

He gave a reason, but it can easily be invalidated(making it illogical). You COULD argue that the states interest in marriage is solely for procreation(but he gives plenty of reasons why they don't restrict marriage to fertile couples so that argument already fails on a certain level), but you COULD just as easily if not more easily argue that the state's interest is not in procreation, but in raising productive(tax paying) members of society in any way possible. Whether that be allowing heterosexual couples to marry and breed, or allowing same sex couples to marry and adopt or artificially inseminate.

We are looking for logical secular reasons, and there aren't any good ones.

 

[MadDogs]

There are no logical secular arguments against gay marriage that I can think of …

I googled it out of curiosity and here it is.... "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage"

Amazing how enlightened you can become in a few minutes. And yes, that is the same op-ed that I previously posted.

The main counter point would be that same sex couple can adopt and therefor do create a family …

There could be more counters that you can agree or disagree with. But that is not the point, is it? The point is that there are secular reasons to be against same sex marriages. You can go back to enlightening yourself.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

If you are trying to denigrate your integrity today, you are doing a great job.

Thank you

 

[MadDogs]

He gave a reason, but it can easily be invalidated(making it illogical). You COULD argue that the states interest in marriage is solely for procreation(but he gives plenty of reasons why they don't restrict marriage to fertile couples so that argument already fails on a certain level), but you COULD just as easily if not more easily argue that the state's interest is not in procreation, but in raising productive(tax paying) members of society in any way possible. Whether that be allowing heterosexual couples to marry and breed, or allowing same sex couples to marry and adopt or artificially inseminate.

We are looking for logical secular reasons, and there aren't any good ones.

Dude ... Don't take this too wrong but I have zero respect for you and your opinions to think that you should be the one that defines what is logical or illogical. AGAIN ... the point is that the author had a reason that was not based on religious beliefs.

 

[MadDogs]

Thank you

You are welcome!

 

[Coded-Dude]

The point is....are there any valid logical reasons? An atheist could be a homophobe and while that is A reason it is not a logical valid reason. Arguing the state's interest is procreation is easily invalidated.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Dude ... Don't take this too wrong but I have zero respect for you and your opinions to think that you should be the one that defines what is logical or illogical.

Since your disdain for me and my opinion is obvious I will pose the question to you this way.....Do you honestly believe that procreation would pass strict scrutiny(as the state's sole purpose for only licensing heterosexual couples) in front of the courts when adoption and artificial insemination are alternative methods of creating a family? That is what I mean when I say logical and valid.