Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

I reckon at some point in time somebody already whacked the head over the dead horse on this topic but this is something I don’t really have a good answer to.

I work in a pretty scientific environment and I have to debate with people who have no bearing in faith. I usually have no problem getting the upper hand on occasion with debates on abortion. You can argue on developmental milestones, DNA, and appealing to a solid base of morality that most people have. Even the most militant atheist will admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with punching a pregnant woman in the stomach.

But gay marriage is a whole different animal, and outside of arguments that reference a divine creator and scripture, I haven’t found any argument that could hold much water scientifically and even ethically that sounded convincing enough to support a governmental ban on gay marriage. Any thoughts?

  1. It is in the interest of the state that people have children.

  2. Heterosexual marriages are an optimal way of producing and raising children.

  3. Therefore, the state should support heterosexual couples (marriages getting tax breaks etc.)

  4. If you give tax breaks etc. to homosexual couples than this defeats the whole purpose of marriage, as far as the state is concerned (reproduction).

Of course, then you have to explain what to do about infertile heteroxual couples…

Please do not take this as supporting SSM, but I can already see some flaws in this secular argument.

In the UK 50% of children are born outside of wedlock, and the population is rising faster than ever.

Undisputed in theory but in practice 50% of marriages in the US fail in the first 5 years and yet most children grow up to be capable individuals.

Again undisputed, but SSM-supporters will argue that many same-sex couples do have children from previous relationships or adopted and that for fulfilling the function of raising children they should be helped equally.

Agreed. You will also need to bear in mind that with spermbanks or even one night stands it is very easy for a lesbian to get pregnant and bear children. It may be harder for homosexual men but they can argue that they still fulfill this function of raising children (fostering, adoption, surrogacy).

Google non religious reasons against same sex “marriage” and you’ll find lots of articles on this. Among them is this one:

77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man-Woman Marriage
ruthinstitute.org/77Reasons/index.shtml

(Click the image that says “free read-only download”)

Biology - Man has one sex organ. Woman has one sex organ. These are designed to fit with the opposite and not with the same therefore it is impossible for a so-called same-sex “marriage” to be consummated.

Children - Statistics show that children always do better with a mother and a father. This is often called “two parent households” in statistics to be ambiguous for the sake of political correctness. Men and women are different, and each has their own complementary gifts to offer for raising a child. Two or more fathers can never equal a mother, and two or more mothers can never equal a father.

History - Homosexuals of the past never considered what they do to be marriage, not even in societies where homosexuality was accepted as normal behavior such as in ancient Rome and Greece. “Gay” activists of today can’t claim that this was because of oppression since the leaders of these ancient pagan societies who were in power and who made the civil laws practiced homosexuality themselves. The first country in human history in the world didn’t ever include homosexuality in the civil law definition of it until after the beginning of this century which has still only just begun.

If married couples get so much more government benefits than singles why are so many heterosexual couples choosing to “shack up” rather than get married? Also, when the “gay” lobby got their “civil unions” they had all the same benefits as married couple get. They promised that this would satisfy them. But as soon as they got it they wanted to push for changing the definition of marriage.

In Australia there was recently introduced a Marriage Equality Act in a State however the High Court declared that the Act was void for legal reasons. Here we have the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) which states in its definitions section that marriage is between a man and a woman for life and it later states that the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman must not be recognised in Australia. Commowealth law trumps State. We also have Constitutional opposition. In the traditional method of interpreting the Constitution we must use the meanings of words as they were understood by the framers, not the meanings that suit us at the moment, so when the framers said ‘marriage’ they meant marriage between a man and a woman.

Biologically, homosexuality is inimical to the purpose of a society, which is to protect and promote human life through generations.

A society in which there were no homosexuals would not be weakened in any way, but a society in which everybody was homosexual would perish.

Marriage, in its civil form, is a sanction by the civil society. And since homosexuality is inimical to its prolongation, the society has no reason to give homosexual relationships that sanction.

ICXC NIKA

Actually there is a little bit of evidence that some ancient Roman same-sex couples thought of their relationships as “marriages”. See books.google.com/books?id=JoS4ffPU1-0C&pg=PA279.

The Catholic emperor Constans prohibited same-sex weddings in 342 A.D., and his law is codified in the Theodosian Code, Book 9 Chapter 7 Paragraph 3: “When a man marries [a man] as a woman offering herself to men, what can he be seeking, where gender has lost its place; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.”

Christians have gotten rid of same-sex “marriage” before; I believe we can do it again.

For a good read on why same-sex marriage is harmful, read “What is Marriage?”. It syncs with Catholic sexual ethics and hashes out the reasons for what the shift in view entails. The two general ideas it refutes are the reformed view, which is that marriage is an emotional bond, and the libertarian view, which is that the government should keep its hands out of marriage.

The two prime challenges that are faced are that 1) A reformed view on marriage has become predominate long before same-sex marriage ever rose to preeminence. Without the acceptance of marriage as being necessarily both unitive and procreative, its defenders are fighting with one arm tied behind their back, 2) Reformists are using the mistreatment of homosexuals as a political battering ram; much of their gains have been through garnering sympathy.

You can make arguments based on incorrect biology or the optimum way to raise children, but ultimately those arguments don’t hold on there own.

We as a country tolerate some pretty ridiculous things that are bad for the individual, the family and society as a whole. For example smoking, over drinking, over eating, multiple sex partners (not necessarily same sex or marriage), gang membership, repeated divorce/marriages and other clearly bad and reckless decisions, but we don’t pass laws on it. Although I feel like sometimes we should, but that’s just not how the constitution works. People have the right to be stupid if they want to and they have the right to be wrong. If somebody wants to sit down and eat a bowl of broken glass and call it a meal, legally we can’t stop them. It’s a humdinger of a problem.

If this were true why was there close to a 2,000 year gap before homosexuals began to think about what they do as “marriage” again? For example, just go back 100 years in the United States or Europe or any other country in the world. Who were the homosexuals who were arguing for so-called same-sex “marriage” then? Propaganda and historical revisionism can easily produce “little evidence”. The book you provide as proof is only as old as 1965, when “gay” propaganda and historical revisionism first began to show itself in academia.

Defeating “gay” arguments with simple logic

Assuming this is correct, whether or not it is or isn’t constitutional doesn’t really address the question. The U.S. constitution has already undergone amendments on 26 occasions and it can happen again. Major constitutional rulings really boil down to what the 9 supreme court justices decide, and opinions among judges seem to vary just as much as though they were congressman.

With marriage though, we are talking about a natural ‘institution’ that serves and preserves the wellbeing of the species. We may be tolerant of stupid and wrong behaviours, but we aren’t tolerant of changing the fundamental rules and equations that support institutions. For example, with regards to the institution of education, we tolerate many ridiculous ideas, but no one, religious or secular, would tolerate teaching that 2 + 2 =5. The reason being is that, sure, some people can believe that equation to be true and still function within society, but if that equation came to be replaced as the standard… the entire society would gradually crumble since it is a false and unsupportable foundation for anything.

I’m not a propagandist for same-sex “marriage”, not that you said I am. I helped pass Prop 8 in California (the amendment that banned same-sex “marriage” until recently.) But I think the answer to your question may be due to the way European civilization changed after the fall of Rome. The thinking of Europe was more Christian than it had been under pagan Rome. Sexuality was more respected and sexually deviant ceremonies like same-sex weddings weren’t viewed as “fun,” or whatever the pagans had viewed them as.

But it isn’t historical revisionism to note that Nero (and several other Romans) had a castrated man for his so-called spouse. That is reflected in all the literature from the period and serves as an example of how backwards Rome was. It’s a shame America is headed that way in the name of “progress.”

I didn’t mean to imply that you are one of the propagandists. I was only challenging your assertion. Nero’s name seems to always come up when one talks about the history of this. If they want Nero on their team then I’ll let them have him. But, I don’t think it looks very good for them that their strongest example of historical evidence for so-called same-sex “marriage” is Nero (aka the 666 Beast of Revelation).

The link doesn’t seem to work. I think that this is the one you intended:

defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/9707137.pdf

Tried reading that article, very difficult with the type.:frowning:

It’s a pdf file. You have to keep hitting the + button at the bottom of the document to make the text larger.

:thumbsup: Well said. The SS"M" position is based on emotion and saying, “see, we got it legalized in X,Y, and Z places” which is a political power argument.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.