The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

The Tech (M.I.T.) - Cambridge, Mass. | Tuesday, February 17, 2004 | Adam Kolasinksi

[lentulusgracchus]

Just because something does not serve a logical purpose, does not mean it should be illegal.

That is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Everything not prohibited, is legal and permissible, and citizens need not answer questions from authorities about their legal activities.

The wide freedom of the Ninth Amendment is invaded every time the legislature sits to legislate. Once the legislature has made a law, the sum of Ninth Amendment freedom is diminished -- a good argument for minimizing legislation. However, given the fact of a compelling state interest, Congress or a legislative body may act, and having acted, direct the Executive to enforce the law. Laws against homosexual sodomy and homosexual marriage fall under this rubric, that society has the right and power to make law irrespective of shibboleths about the privacy of the bedroom. A printing press set up in my bedroom will bring Treasury agents calling, if I'm using it to produce $20 bills; and various other actions, otherwise private, can still be crimes. That is what homosexuals are complaining about, but they deserve no relief, since they are not objects of "oppression", but of the law.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

'Domestic Partnerships': An unfair tax break for the (gay) rich.

Thank you. I can never remember this correctly.

[Amerigomag]

striking back at heterosexuals for years of finding disfavor with their life style

About 10,000 by my reckoning ... if I recall my paleoanthropolgy correctly.

[MegaSilver]

MEGABUMP

[cartoonistx]

Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.

Not to nit-pick but LEGAL marriage was developed to protect women and children from abandonment and to ensure that men lived up to their commitment to pass-on their name and estate to children that they sire! It's primary purpose was to keep men honorable. Procreating doesn't require a license just a drive-in theater and a back seat!

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Steve Eisenberg]

It's somewhat silly to argue that the institution of marriage is simply a means of breeding children. This secular argument is plain dumb.

I agree with you. This is a far superior secular argument against legal recognition for same-sex marriage:

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

However, there is one good argument in the OP -- the one about the slippery slope from legal gay marriage to legal polygamy. The vast majority of gay marriage supporters turn into polygamy supporters as soon they start reading a few articles on the joys of polyamory.

Once established, nothing is more disasterous for women than letting men have more than one wife (hardly any women wind up with more than one husband). In countries where polygamy is at all widespread, married women see any single woman as a threat. Oh, and guys, they spend all your money so you won't be able to afford a second wife.

[NutCrackerBoy]

This opinion piece is rough around the edges, but it is fairly concise in exposing the absurdity of the gay marriage position. I think it could be fine in a second draft.

I don't think the author meant to praise the institution's record of "breeding" magnitudes of children, but rather the quality thereof. It astounds me that so many equal-rights defenders don't think about the importance of encouraging young men and women to get married and start a family. Civilizations take great pains to evolve rituals and rules around this.

[EdReform]

Bump

[MEGoody]

"Just because something does not serve a logical purpose, does not mean it should be illegal. Absent religious beliefs, I see no reason why not to allow homosexual marriages."

I see great harm to the fabric of society that can occur from throwing out the traditional marital arrangement. So obviously, I have reasons 'absent religious beliefs' to continue to define marriage as between man and woman.

[ArGee]

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.

Couldn't have said that better myself.

Of course, since this is a straight problem, it does make the entire argument against homosexual marriage difficult to forward. It puts it on the level of "Your sin is ickier than my sin."

Many people thought the only valid reason for wanting to impeach Bill Clinton was that he lied under oath. I thought he should have been impeached because he put his sexual gratification above the national interest, and because he abused a younger and more naive woman to satisfy his cravings. He showed neither the patriotism nor the character of a President. Using the office of the President to impress and use a child was a grevious sin, and it deserved losing the office.

America needs a serious moral house cleaning. If this homosexual marriage wake-up call only causes us to ban gay marriage, we will have won a battle, but lost the war.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

In the same way, morality is considered to be an invalid justification for argument.

I think SCOTUS actually codified that sentiment in their Lawrence vs. Texas argument.

Correcions welcome.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Arguing that these are rare is not an adequate answer if your entire principle is based on this concept.

Of course it is. Policy and law are made on the rule, not on the exception.

The argument that marriage is a legalized form of breeding has its flaws, but that isn't one of them.

The real case against homosexual marriage is that homosexual love is fundamentally different from heterosexual love and there is no benefit to forming families on homosexual love, whether children are involved at all.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Just because something does not serve a logical purpose, does not mean it should be illegal.

He answered that in the article. Did you read it?

I don't want to pay for your iwanna.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Not to nit-pick but LEGAL marriage was developed to protect women and children from abandonment and to ensure that men lived up to their commitment to pass-on their name and estate to children that they sire!

Considering that (almost) all societies were patriarchies and ruled by men until only recently, I have to wonder how the women ever put that idea over on the men?

Our ancestors must have been asleep at the switch.

Shalom.

[moehoward]

Well that about covers it. GREAT FIND!!

[cartoonistx]

God moves in mysterious ways.

[ArGee]

I see you got my point.

Shalom.

[AmishDude]

i think ur reasoning for not allowing gays to marry is absoulutely proposterous! they are people too and should have the right to marry just like everyone else. People see it as wrong,and that by marrying they cannot continue the human species, but everyday, people such as murderers, drug pushers, and even known child molesters, marry and procreate EVERYDAY! and since the world is already overcrowded, wouldnt that 10% of the population be doing the world a favor by not bringin more hungry mouths into an already economy struggling world?

What? You expect me to respond to this?