A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

[UnityofTrinity]

As it boils down most who argue against same sex marriage argue on religious ground. But with a church state separation paradigm in mind what non religious argument can you make against this issue?

[timotheos]

Originally Posted by UnityofTrinity

As it boils down most who argue against same sex marriage argue on religious ground. But with a church state separation paradigm in mind what non religious argument can you make against this issue?

A young boy looks at his father, and intuitively knows half his being comes from him. The same boy looks at his mother, and intuitively knows half his being comes from her. There is a goodness, a "rightness", in this knowledge.

Only an adult could attempt to blind himself to this knowledge; to subvert this knowledge in favor of his own designs. You do not need non-religious argument so much as to invite your opponent to, if only for a second, think with the clarity and innocence of a child.

It is understandably a tall order, for some.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Check out this academic article by, among others, Robert George, the chair of Princeton's political science department:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1722155

More articles by Robert George, though unlike the above one, these are not from professional/academic journals:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...279548434.html

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mir...d-bargain.html

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mir...d-others-.html

[Jim Dandy]

The Natural Law is not religious. Check it out.

The parts don't fit.

[Monte RCMS]

Tissue in the anal cavity is not "designed" for penetration.

It tears easily and allows harmful bacteria to pass through into the body thereby causing illness.

The human body is simply not intended for same sex intercourse.

[Elijah Baley]

Natural law fits better when your audience assumes either intent or design.

Making the case for design without a designer requires all sorts of sticky things, like telos, which are specifically if wrongly eschewed by modern philosophy.

[cornbread_r2]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

Tissue in the anal cavity is not "designed" for penetration.

It tears easily and allows harmful bacteria to pass through into the body thereby causing illness.

The human body is simply not intended for same sex intercourse.

This is just an argument against certain forms of sodomy which are neither peculiar to homosexuals nor necessarily practiced by homosexuals (i.e. lesbians) and has nothing to do with marriage, per se.

[Safia]

"Traditional" (the only type of) marriage = based upon natural law.

Same-sex marriage = entirely a legal creation, with no value intrinsic to humanity, etc.

Though Catholic, here's a great article on the topic that deals on the meta level with non-religious arguments.

[luke2219]

I'm not great at articulating it and this question deserves a good scholarly answer. I don't have that. But I've always wondered that myself until I heard the following reason. It makes sense to me and I believe it even if I'm poor at articulating it. Here goes.

First of all remember that what we are talking about is changing the definition of marriage to something other than a bond between one man and one woman. As it stands even people who have adopted a gay identity already have the right to get married they just don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender. So this isn't about rights. Those who identify as gay already have the right to get married. They want the definition changed so they can marry the same gender.

The state has a duty to provide for the well-being of its citizens. The state has an interest in marriage because of that duty. Otherwise, the state could just treat everyone as individuals, not recognize any marriage and people could marry according to their own religious or non-religious beliefs. But the state has an interest in marriage because families with a mother and a father provide more secure and stable environments that promote the welfare of the entire society.

When the state recognizes marriage between a man and a woman and gives benefits for that it is encouraging stable families that help the rest of society. As it stands right now, as a culture and state, we have not been doing so well in promoting marriage. That is why there are many divorces and single parent households. This has resulted in a rise in crime and poverty and a decline in educated and productive citizens. So even if we win this battle and keep marriage defined by the state as one man and one woman then we still have a long way to go so that marriage is upheld as an institution that makes for a strong nation.

Since it is the mother and father type families that best serve the country the state would be better off getting out of the marriage business all together than changing the definition. If the state changes the definition then it loses the benefit it has by promoting marriage in the first place: the overall better citizens that come from mother/father families.

I'll probably get blasted for not having some evidence, but for some of you this will be self-evident. There are plenty of individual cases of people raised in single-parent or otherwise non-traditional families that contribute greatly to the welfare of society. But the state has to look at generalities and the statistics of large numbers of people overall because that is who the state serves, large numbers of people. And there are plenty of studies that show that overall people raised in families with a mother and a father are much more likely to be citizens that help to improve the rest of society. Again, that doesn't mean that someone in a non-traditional family won't be, but that overall the mother and father families are best. And that is why the state should promote marriage. If the definition of marriage changes, then the state may as well get out of the marriage business altogether and let people marry however they want.

[John21652]

Originally Posted by cornbread_r2

This is just an argument against certain forms of sodomy which are neither peculiar to homosexuals nor necessarily practiced by homosexuals (i.e. lesbians) and has nothing to do with marriage, per se.

Heterosexsual marriages not consummated can be either annulled or used as grounds for divorce in civil marriage. Consummation is defined as penile-vaginal intercourse and always has been.

According to your thinking, consummation of marriage does not now matter and the definition of any marriage is rendered truly worthless.

How, if the argument against sodomy is dissallowed, can homosexuals consummate a "marriage". They can't unless sodomy is allowed, or consummation is given a totally new definition.

Thus, we now see another consequence on the institution of marriage that totally alters its meaning and significance. Consummation of marriage has always been an expectation that society has had, in order that a marriage would bear the fruit of children. That, pf course, is impossible with any same sex union.

[Jim Dandy]

We should consider that marriage was under the auspices of the Church for 16 centuries. Martin Luther succeeded in tearing it away from the Church and transferring it to the State. More of the havoc Luther wrought.

[Maui71]

It is not Darwinian...

[cornbread_r2]

Originally Posted by John21652

Heterosexsual marriages not consummated can be either annulled or used as grounds for divorce in civil marriage. Consummation is defined as penile-vaginal intercourse and always has been.

According to your thinking, consummation of marriage does not now matter and the definition of any marriage is rendered truly worthless.

How, if the argument against sodomy is dissallowed, can homosexuals consummate a "marriage". They can't unless sodomy is allowed, or consummation is given a totally new definition.

Thus, we now see another consequence on the institution of marriage that totally alters its meaning and significance. Consummation of marriage has always been an expectation that society has had, in order that a marriage would bear the fruit of children. That, pf course, is impossible with any same sex union.

According to this article, most states in the US already do not require consummation to render the marriage rite completed. I didn't research how long consummation has not been a requirement in the majority of states, but considering that only a few states allow same-sex marriage, I doubt this was a recent development in response to same-sex marriage laws.

I can think of only one way non-consummation can be proven and perhaps the extremely invasive nature of such examinations and the fact that hymens can be breached in completely non-sexual ways led to the general abandonment of this requirement. In addition, consummation can be the result of an illegal act -- rape being illegal even within marriage -- so perhaps states recognized the possibility and untenable proposition that an illegal act (rape) could be used to render another act (marriage) valid.

[hannajomar]

That's not what the word "marriage" means. It has always meant the union of a man and a woman. The argument in favor of gay marriage only works if you change the meaning of the word marriage. I'm no philosophy expert, but I think that must violate some law of logic. I could make the argument that Shaq is short, but I would have to change the meaning of the word short.

Of course, this opens the door for civil unions. I don't know where I stand on that.

[razredge]

Simple, what non-arbitrary reasons are there for not extending marriage to any other form of alternative sexuality - polygamy, incest, bestiality etc.