Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 02-20-2004 - 9:20pm |
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. 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.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Read the rest below:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Edited 2/20/2004 9:59:16 PM ET by independentgrrrl

Pages
The institution of Marriage has endured in its intended state (between a man and a woman) for thousands of years as a way to legally bind a man to a woman to ensure he provides for her and her offspring.
Sure civilization has evolved, but the simple truth is that the best place for a child to grow up understanding male/female gender and sex roles in society, is in a family composed of a man and a woman.
This is certainly not to say that gay couples cannot provide a loving home for children. Or that gay couples could "make" their children gay (think of the confusion of a straight child in a gay home, much the same as a gay child in a straight home, but that cannot be avoided) But they lack the "yin-yang" male/female influence that shape a young person's identity and relationship to the world around him.
I don't care if they get "civilly unionized" but it's not marriage and I do not think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. Get inseminated, O.K. it's legal to do that right now. But there should be priority to straight couples in adoptions.
They think that the entire Gay Marriage thing is just to call attention to it, and is by what they refer to as the "militant" gays.... I guess they mean the ones that really want to make a brash statement.
I think there is a fair compromise to this situation, and it is not that difficult, where both sides basically get what they are looking for....dont you agree?
>"as a gay child in a straight home"<
Where do gays come from if not from a mother & father?
>"I do not think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children."<
Why not?
>"Get inseminated, O.K. it's legal to do that right now."<
Is there going to be a legal change?
>"there should be priority to straight couples in adoptions."<
Straights have first pick of the kids?
Do you actually know any gays?
From what I understand, there are more than enough kids out there waiting to be adopted that no one would really need to be given a 'priority'. Personally, I think MORE people should adopt - gay, straight, whatever.
Sure civilization has evolved, but the simple truth is that the best place for a child to grow up understanding male/female gender and sex roles in society, is in a family composed of a man and a woman.
Oh really?
Personally, I think MORE people should adopt - gay, straight, whatever.
I completely agree.
"the best place for a child to grow up understanding male/female gender and sex roles in society"
Well, I grew up in a mom/dad family and I HATE the gender roles I was taught. I found them/find them very repressive and totally reject them. To hell with traditional gender roles.
Pages