NonReligious Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[SayNoToMullets]

On the "cheating the system" argument, my mom and a friend did once pose as a lesbian couple (claiming my dad as the gay houseboy) to share a household membership to BJ's . . .

Yeah, not the same thing at all.

[Guest Anonymous]

The only reason I can think of is the animosity it cause for the couple's family. This was something that was brought up about bi-racial marriages, and it isn't as big of a problem as it use to be. So, I think in time the same will happen for gay marriages. When my cousin married an African American man, there was lots of animosity. But now everyone accepts it, except for my cousin's father. He has cut all ties with her, and that is so sad.

[QAF_Rocks]

The only reason I can think of is the animosity it cause for the couple's family. This was something that was brought up about bi-racial marriages, and it isn't as big of a problem as it use to be. So, I think in time the same will happen for gay marriages. When my cousin married an African American man, there was lots of animosity. But now everyone accepts it, except for my cousin's father. He has cut all ties with her, and that is so sad.

It seems a strange reason for anyone to object to same-sex marriage. If homophobic family members are upset about the couple having a relationship, I don't see how there would be more animosity if marriage was on the table. It's not like they will approve if the couple just continues to live together without being married. They're upset about the couple having a relationship at all.

[CanadianHippie]

No, CanadianHippie. A "family" must include an adult male, an adult female, two (or more) children, and a dog all living together in a suburban house with a white picket fence. ;)

Well geeze, then I've never had a real family despite my mom and dad and siblings and even a dog for two years...we've never had that white picket fence.

[Kate]

It will return marriage to the civil contract it once was, and the issue will no longer be clouded by religious fervor. Right now we permit religious institutions to validate a single type of civil contract, marriage. I don't need a church to validate any other civil contract I enter into. Lets just leave religious celebrations of a civil contract in the churches hands and return the civil contract of marriage back to the state.

When people try to use "X is a religious institution" to deny other people basic human rights, I think making sure there is a very clear distinction between when X is a legal contract and when it's a religious contract is relevant.

Well, it kind of levels the PITA factor. Want to be legally married? A brief session with a court officer and you'll be married in the eyes of the state. Want to be (I know this makes me think FLDS, sorry), spiritually married? Find a church willing to perform the ceremony and you'll be married in the eyes of the church. So couples who want a church ceremony will be the ones who have to jump through an extra hoop, but it could be done at the same time people apply for their wedding licenses.

Compared to what same sex couples go through now, I don't consider it a big deal. I'd do it in the name of equality and the separation of church and state gladly.

I'm still not seeing it, though. I get that a religious institution can't validate any other contract so it's different and that it's a case where the line is gray between church and state, but that's a different issue. No one ever has to have a church validate a marriage. Every single state has courthouse marriages and other non-religious options available to everyone.

I live in a state that has legal gay marriage (not civil union or anything else, marriage equal in all ways) and has had for years now and we also have and have had religious weddings (which isn't just Christian). Some churches do marry gay couples and some don't (have no idea about other religions), but it has no effect whatsoever on whether or not gay couples can get married, only whether a gay couple can have a Catholic (or whatever) wedding. But separating it won't make that happen, either.

[valsa]

Every single state has courthouse marriages and other non-religious options available to everyone.

Then why do we need churches for legal marriages?

As others have said- leave the non-legal, spiritual marriage ceremonies for the churches and just make sure that everyone who wants a legal marriage gets the certificate from the government. That way, government isn't poking it's ass into religious ceremonies (except in cases of underage marriage and such) and religious entities aren't legislating their bigotry.

[Kate]

Then why do we need churches for legal marriages?

As others have said- leave the non-legal, spiritual marriage ceremonies for the churches and just make sure that everyone who wants a legal marriage gets the certificate from the government. That way, government isn't poking it's ass into religious ceremonies (except in cases of underage marriage and such) and religious entities aren't legislating their bigotry.

Yeah, I see it as a "separation of church and state" matter of principle issue--as a practical matter it seems like it would have no change for most and be one more hoop for others, but as a principle on church of state issue I see it. All I'm saying is I don't see where it has to do with gay marriage.

[valsa]

All I'm saying is I don't see where it has to do with gay marriage.

So people voting to outlaw gay marriage because marriage is seen a religious institution has nothing to do with gay marriage?

[FlorenceHamilton]

There is no need to have two ceremonies. The current system of officiating is just fine. Religious leaders usually obtain whatever state-required credential to be able to perform a civil marriage at the same time as they are performing their religious ceremony. In some states, people can marry each other and file the necessary paperwork themselves. (Pennsylvania comes to mind because this is a Quaker tradition).

What we need to do is to seperate the concept of civil marriage from the concept of religious marriage in our heads. Only the civil marriage is recognized by the Government, anyway. The reason religious leaders are the most common officiants is tradition and convenience. Secular or religious people may certify as "Justice of the Peace" and then have the powers vested by the state of....whatever.

If we seperate the legal marriage and religious marriage concepts, it becomes very simple. Two consenting adults of either gender may marry in the eyes of the state. A religious leader who also has the civil powers to marry people may refuse marry any two people, whether it is because s/he has to wash his/her hair or any other reason. Those two people will need to look for someone else to perform the ceremony. (Or they could go to City Hall). Religious ceremonies would still be done in the same way and would also fulfill the civil requirements of marriage. (As long as the Religious leader has registered with the state.)

The only thing that needs to change is the civil law...and the way we think.

[Kate]

So people voting to outlaw gay marriage because marriage is seen a religious institution has nothing to do with gay marriage?

Voting is a civil act, not, in and of itself, a religious one. People can and will vote for whatever reason they want and based on whatever belief system they hold--religious beliefs or otherwise. Church, Mosque, Temple (of all kinds) marriage doesn't change that. The fact that many, if not in some places most, marriages are civil marriages, and even the fact that civil marriages are allowed in every state, already seems to imply that marriage isn't always seen as a religious institution.

As I said above, my state and every other state that has gay marriage also allow religious institutions to marry people (and some of them marry gay people).

Do you really think legally requiring all couples to have a civil marriage (with or without optional religious blessing on top of it) is going to change how people view marriage? Personally, I think people who see it as a religious institution aren't going to say, "Oh, well it used to be, but now that the state stepped in I guess I'm just going to change my beliefs. I'm cool with gay marriage now. Where's that voting booth?"

[debrand]

Voting is a civil act, not, in and of itself, a religious one. People can and will vote for whatever reason they want and based on whatever belief system they hold--religious beliefs or otherwise. Church, Mosque, Temple (of all kinds) marriage doesn't change that. The fact that many, if not in some places most, marriages are civil marriages, and even the fact that civil marriages are allowed in every state, already seems to imply that marriage isn't always seen as a religious institution.

As I said above, my state and every other state that has gay marriage also allow religious institutions to marry people (and some of them marry gay people).

Do you really think legally requiring all couples to have a civil marriage (with or without optional religious blessing on top of it) is going to change how people view marriage? Personally, I think people who see it as a religious institution aren't going to say, "Oh, well it used to be, but now that the state stepped in I guess I'm just going to change my beliefs. I'm cool with gay marriage now. Where's that voting booth?"

Yes, I really think that requiring all couples to have a legal civil marriage will change how people view marriage. I'm not being sarcastic.

Churches will be helped by not having government involved in their business (which is why I think that religious institutions should only get tax exempt status when they are providing actual physical help to people. )

The reason that people fight against gay marriage now is that they view marriage as a religious institution. The Catholic Church already seperates out civil and religious seperations between spouses. You can be legally divorced while not being religiously divorced in the Catholic Church. Don't Catholics believe that you must marry in the church even if you had a legal ceremony outside of it? If Catholics can make the seperation between church and state marriage in their mind, I don't see why other Christians can't.

Religious people will probably put more emphasis on getting married in the church, like Catholics already do. Pastors can still perform ceremonies, they just won't be legally binding.

edited because I havne't had coffee

[2xx1xy1JD]

Not all clerics register to perform civil marriages. I know of some who don't, in part because they are used to perform religious marriages that are NOT also civil marriages (which I've seen done for Muslim men taking a second wife, or a Jewish couple where the wife has her religious divorce but the civil divorce is not yet final).

The original article was BS. It boiled down to:

1. Marriage isn't necessary if you sign enough other legal documents - not actually a reason NOT to allow something, plus not all legal rights and obligations of spouses can be created by private contract.

2. Concern about children - using evidence and stereotypes that were flat-out wrong.

[MarsGirl]

The tax implication argument is weak. If these people werent gay, they'd probably get married legally to someone of the opposite sex, thus adding more families to the tax benefit (or health insurance). When someone argues this point to me, it seems in my mind that they are suggesting they need to not allow gay marriage as a sort marriage control... a way to keep the number of marriages down... It's really dumb logic.

And, right, it's not like heterosexuals don't game the system. I've heard of marriages of convenience...

[valsa]

A religious leader who also has the civil powers to marry people may refuse marry any two people, whether it is because s/he has to wash his/her hair or any other reason.

I actually have a problem with this. If someone is given the power to perform a civil/legal marriage, they shouldn't be allowed to deny anyone who can legally get married. That's one reason I'd like a stronger divide between civil and religious marriage. Let religious leaders deny a religious marriage to whoever they want but once they start performing civil marriages, they should have to abide by the same discrimination laws non-religious civil marriage providers do.

[QAF_Rocks]

And, right, it's not like heterosexuals don't game the system. I've heard of marriages of convenience...

Even if people (straight or gay) do marry just to gain benefits, I don't see a problem with that. According to the current system, everyone is entitled to one legal spouse. Of course, some people don't want a spouse, but they do want the financial benefits that go along with having a spouse. I don't see why the government should care whether the civil contract between two people is for romantic or practical reasons. It's none of their business whether the couple is in love, having sex, raising children, or even living together. Why are a couple somehow more entitled to share benefits if they're in love vs. just good friends?

[Guest Anonymous]

It seems a strange reason for anyone to object to same-sex marriage. If homophobic family members are upset about the couple having a relationship, I don't see how there would be more animosity if marriage was on the table. It's not like they will approve if the couple just continues to live together without being married. They're upset about the couple having a relationship at all.

First of all, let me say right of the bat, I have no problem with gay marriages. Just based on my observations, it's one thing to know that your family member is gay, but taking the relationship further by getting married or having a commitment ceremony represents that the relationship is permanent. I've seen this in parents of gay couples, and I think the animosity lies in the fact they will not have any biological grandchildren. That's an absurd reason, but that's just the crazy observations I've made.

[Fluffy-Boo]

Yes, I really think that requiring all couples to have a legal civil marriage will change how people view marriage. I'm not being sarcastic.

I think there's something missing from this discussion that hasn't been addressed (I also didn't read pages 2 or 3 of this thread, so it's possible I missed all the really good stuff).

As far as I know, there is not a single religious institution here in the United States that is capable of performing a legally binding union on its own. All religious ceremonies have to be validated by a civil license which must be submitted to the county clerk.

In essence, what all religious institutions must acknowledge in this practice is that regardless of any pretty ceremonies and sermons, the marriage perform is null and void if that license isn't filled out properly and sent back to the state registrar. Heck, if you had a fun and lazy pastor, you could skip the ceremony, simply have him and a few witnesses sign the paper, and throw it back to the registrar, sans fancy speeches, and you will have a legally bound couple.

Most couples have to stand in a line to even get the blank license from the registrar. This alone should be demeaning to the church.

The church is POWERLESS in this country when it comes to legitimizing a civil marriage. Same with divorce, the churches can whine and moan when their members obtain a divorce without the clergy's consent, but they can't do a thing to remove the civil legitimacy of that divorce.

And yet STILL, religious people continue to talk about the sanctity of marriage and "what Goooooood has joined together, let no man tear assunder..."

So even if you make the ceremony a state affair, it will not change the mystical power that a religion holds over its people when it comes to marriage--be it a Baptist "no divorce EVER!" church to a FLDS polygamist commune.

Without religion, there really isn't an argument against gay marriage, although from a science/evolutionary perspective one could form an interesting postulate. However, on the flip side, without religion, one wonders why marriage still exists at all (?) as we don't have a single society throughout history that has proved itself to be monogamous.

[desertvixen]

Fluffy-Boo - pretty much everything you just posted. I'd personally prefer just to have the legal and get it over with.

In the military, you have to either be married or have a child to get family housing so two males would have to get married before they got the housing.

Under current post-DADT standards, the only way a gay couple could get around this is if one of the members was civilian and listed as the family care plan provider (ie, live-in babysitter) for the servicemember's child. Even if they get married in a state where gay marriages are recognized, due to DOMA the federal government will not recognize it.

The quality of family housing depends on the base where you are stationed. Usually, the houses are very close together, in duplex style with small yards. There are rules about the upkeep of those yards and the interior of the house has to be scrubbed down when you leave. It isn't perfect but there are lots of families who can offer support when a spouse is deployed. I think that someone who was faking marriage would be caught very quickly.

Housing is getting a lot better (although you still have to scrub down when you move out - just did that part today). And I would disagree that fakers would get caught - one, we already have had plenty of heterosexual couples who faked it for the benefits, and two, people aren't quite as much up in your business as they used to be. That being said, there would probably be more people looking for them to be caught out.

[valsa]

I think the animosity lies in the fact they will not have any biological grandchildren.

With the reproductive options available today, many gay people have their own biological child. Plus, I never hear parents getting as pissed when their child gets married to an infertile person. Or chooses to adopt instead of having biological children.

[smores]

This is the exact argument from ignorant mormons I've seen on other forums... except the one with whom I usually discuss this with (ie I keep pointing out how her religion has nothing to do with me) also thinks gays adopting is the worst thing for children since it's the breakdown of the natural family. She believes that children NEED one of each parent, and completely disregards the studies that tell her otherwise since she thinks they don't have enough proof.

[valsa]

She believes that children NEED one of each parent, and completely disregards the studies that tell her otherwise since she thinks they don't have enough proof.

I love when fundies do that. "You don't have enough proof for what you believe, so I'm going to stick with that I believe even though there's no proof for it"

[Avalondaughter]

I occasionally hear the argument from libertarians who say that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution and that such organizations have the right to deny marriage to whomever they please, but that legal marriages are dated and unfair tax-wise and all sorts of other mumbo jumbo. It's not really so much about gay marriage, but an argument against all legal marriage.

My brother, who is fairly liberal and not terribly relgious once said gay marriage was wrong because the foundation and purpose of marriage is to raise children. He seemedto think at the time that marriage without children is pointless. I didn't bother arguing to him about how gays can have children, or how people might want to marry for other reasons.

[Fluffy-Boo]

I occasionally hear the argument from libertarians who say that the government should stay out of marriage altogether.

I can easily tell you why the government does not stay out of marriage and it is because the government is highly concerned about the allocation of resources within a marriage.

In the early 1900's there were no child custody laws and alimony laws, so wives, husbands, or children that were abandoned during divorce became burdens to the state. Identifying paternity and custody costs are vital to maintaining state resources, which is why marriage or at least, paternity, became advantageous to the government.

This is also why polygamy was finally outlawed. Too many children being born due to "marriages" where the husband paid no support and the family lived off state aid. These nominal marriages became illegal for this reason.

In this case, your brother isn't too far off base in saying that marriage without children is pointless. Although commitment is important for many people, on a strict legal basis, legal marriage is truly only important for identifying parents and ensuring that any resources accrued during this union will be distributed to protect the family--and in the event of divorce, any spouses or dependents will be covered. This is the ideal.

[smores]

I love when fundies do that. "You don't have enough proof for what you believe, so I'm going to stick with that I believe even though there's no proof for it"

No kidding, right? She claims gay marriage/partnerships haven't been around long enough for us to know. Um, maybe not in the US? I sent her a long list of studies. She didn't even look at them and didn't have an answer when I pointed out that the studies weren't all US based. Nothing like sticking your head in the sand to make your point! :roll:

[ems]

Well geeze, then I've never had a real family despite my mom and dad and siblings and even a dog for two years...we've never had that white picket fence.

Completely off topic, but my cousin had a white picket fence for the first time when she went to teach in Vietnam.. :P