NonReligious Arguments Against Gay Marriage

[Avalondaughter]

Me too.

Me three!

The only drawback to that is if you really want a "wedding" it's easier to do that in a religious setting. My husband and I wanted our ceremony to be totally civil, but since we didn't want to have a cold ceremony at City Hall and wanted a ceremony with the procession and all of the trimmings, we had to find a judge to come to us. Since judges can't be paid to perform wedding ceremonies, unless you know someone, it's impossible to get one to commit to your wedding date. Most judges have better things to do than come to your wedding site and give a free ceremony. Hubby and I went with religious after all - albeit with the Ethical Culture Society, which is hardly religious!

[Witsec1]

I think in most states, one of your friends can send some money and 4 cereal box tops (ok, no box tops necessary) and get a certificate declaring him or her an ordained minister in the Universal Life church. So pretty much anyone can sign a marriage certificate. You could be married in the fun house at the amusement park by a Universal Life Church minister, and your marriage would be totally legit in all 50 states, as long as there is one and only one Y chromosome between the two of you. But letting teh gay get married, that would be degrading marriage!

ETA: according to the Universal Life Church website, its ministers can solemnize marriages in all 50 states. Also, you can become ordained for free (I thought there was a cost - not sure what their business model is, LOL)

http://www.themonastery.org/ordination-form

[Guest Anonymous]

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.

I completely agreee. It's crazy WTF logic at best.

[Guest Anonymous]

Re: insurance and other benefits. I am seeing more and more companies here in the U.S. are now offer medical, dental, vision, and life insurance for "domestic partners". The company I work for does. That's a step in the right direction.

[smores]

Yeah I think the insurance is a stupid argument, too, geniebelle. Every insurance I've seen lately offers coverage for domestic partners and the criteria is pretty easy to meet. If Obamacare hadn't passed while my husband was still in grad school (before we married), thankfully I still would have been covered by his terribly crappy school insurance.

[2xx1xy1JD]

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.

In Canada, there's an odd clause in the Marriage Act that allows a couple to get married without a license, if they had banns read in church instead. This weird exception was actually used in Ontario, Canada to permit the first same-sex marriages to take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... in_Ontario

That said, the clergy must still be registered and authorized to perform marriages, and not all of them are.

[2xx1xy1JD]

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.

In some ways, I think that this is the only slightly plausible rationale for opposing gay marriage - that marriage is old an legal structure which really isn't about everlasting love and commitment, but about creating legal rights and obligations based on the notion that people who are likely to procreate should be treated as a single economic unit. Ultimately, though, I think that the decision should be made by individual same-sex couples, and not by the state.

I think that any same-sex couple would need to have a consultation with a family lawyer and really figure out if marriage makes logical sense, legally speaking, or if a pre-nuptial agreement would be needed.

For example: imagine a same-sex couple, with no children. Partner A is a successful professional, who saved money prior to the marriage and purchased the high-end condo in which the couple now resides. Partner A has made all mortgage payments and paid all other household bills. Partner B is a alternative artist. B is very creative and artsy, but prior to moving in with A was waiting tables to survive. A and B move in together, and get married. Time passes, they start to have trouble reconciling their very different personalities, and then one day A comes home early and discovers B in bed with someone else. A is shocked and angry, and immediately throws B out of the condo. A couple of days later, A receives court papers: B is claiming that under the Family Law Act, A cannot interfere with B's right to possession of the matrimonial home, notwithstanding that ownership is in A's name alone. B is also claiming spousal support, half of the value of the condo, and half of the investments and pension earned during the marriage. A is thinking, "I paid for everything for years, B was the one who repaid me by cheating, so why am I going to lose half of my condo and have to pay all these other things?" The truth is that the law was designed to protect the wife and children in a more traditional family, where the wife may have stayed at home and been financially dependent upon the husband.

[debrand]

But couples do get married and divorced now without having any children. Jennifer Lopez's second husband got a share of her wealth and they were married for a short time.(Marc Anthony is her third, I think) If we have children be the reason for marriage then we need to prevent infertile or older couples from being married. The state will have to make each couple sign a paper saying that they agree to create children while married.

Same sex couples can use surrogates or adoption to have children.

[2xx1xy1JD]

But couples do get married and divorced now without having any children. Jennifer Lopez's second husband got a share of her wealth and they were married for a short time.(Marc Anthony is her third, I think) If we have children be the reason for marriage then we need to prevent infertile or older couples from being married. The state will have to make each couple sign a paper saying that they agree to create children while married.

Same sex couples can use surrogates or adoption to have children.

To be clear, I'm not saying that this is a good reason for not allowing it. Just pointing out some of the consequences of laws designed for a different set of circumstances.

[TXDuck]

The truth is that the law was designed to protect the wife and children in a more traditional family, where the wife may have stayed at home and been financially dependent upon the husband.

But in your scenario, B is a dependent spouse as well. Why should he be without legal protection? Maybe he was an "alternative artist". But he could also have been the couple's "house keeper" and social secretary ala traditional SAHM couples.

[ElphabaGalinda]

In some ways, I think that this is the only slightly plausible rationale for opposing gay marriage - that marriage is old an legal structure which really isn't about everlasting love and commitment, but about creating legal rights and obligations based on the notion that people who are likely to procreate should be treated as a single economic unit. Ultimately, though, I think that the decision should be made by individual same-sex couples, and not by the state.

I think that any same-sex couple would need to have a consultation with a family lawyer and really figure out if marriage makes logical sense, legally speaking, or if a pre-nuptial agreement would be needed.

For example: imagine a same-sex couple, with no children. Partner A is a successful professional, who saved money prior to the marriage and purchased the high-end condo in which the couple now resides. Partner A has made all mortgage payments and paid all other household bills. Partner B is a alternative artist. B is very creative and artsy, but prior to moving in with A was waiting tables to survive. A and B move in together, and get married. Time passes, they start to have trouble reconciling their very different personalities, and then one day A comes home early and discovers B in bed with someone else. A is shocked and angry, and immediately throws B out of the condo. A couple of days later, A receives court papers: B is claiming that under the Family Law Act, A cannot interfere with B's right to possession of the matrimonial home, notwithstanding that ownership is in A's name alone. B is also claiming spousal support, half of the value of the condo, and half of the investments and pension earned during the marriage. A is thinking, "I paid for everything for years, B was the one who repaid me by cheating, so why am I going to lose half of my condo and have to pay all these other things?" The truth is that the law was designed to protect the wife and children in a more traditional family, where the wife may have stayed at home and been financially dependent upon the husband.

Since A and B could easily be an opposite sex couple and i'm' sure that situation happens in both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, i'm not sure how that's an argument against gay marriage. It seems more like an argument against any marriage that doesn't produce children. Since opposite sex couples can and do get divorced without having children and same sex couples can have children within their marriage, this argument doesn't make sense to me.

[Fluffy-Boo]

For example: imagine a same-sex couple, with no children. Partner A is a successful professional, who saved money prior to the marriage and purchased the high-end condo in which the couple now resides. Partner A has made all mortgage payments and paid all other household bills. Partner B is a alternative artist. B is very creative and artsy, but prior to moving in with A was waiting tables to survive. A and B move in together, and get married. Time passes, they start to have trouble reconciling their very different personalities, and then one day A comes home early and discovers B in bed with someone else. A is shocked and angry, and immediately throws B out of the condo. A couple of days later, A receives court papers: B is claiming that under the Family Law Act, A cannot interfere with B's right to possession of the matrimonial home, notwithstanding that ownership is in A's name alone. B is also claiming spousal support, half of the value of the condo, and half of the investments and pension earned during the marriage. A is thinking, "I paid for everything for years, B was the one who repaid me by cheating, so why am I going to lose half of my condo and have to pay all these other things?" The truth is that the law was designed to protect the wife and children in a more traditional family, where the wife may have stayed at home and been financially dependent upon the husband.

The reason this argument is invalid is that this sort of thing occurs in heterosexual marriages. We cannot form an argument against gay marriage until there is a set standard for heterosexual marriage. And there isn't. "Irreconcilable Differences" and crazy alimony, custody claims have really done the whole system in.

There is only one circumstance in which I can see gay marriage being completely slammed down and that's if this was the year 3016 and global resources have become so scarce due to a nuclear or pathogenic apocalypse that only the alpha-humans are worth sustaining. The ill, elderly, disabled, and biologically sterile/infertile would have no place in this society and would likely be terminated in the womb, post-birth, or at the moment they are compromised.

In order to survive homosexuals would either have to feign heterosexuality in a marital union or be terminated due to genetic non-viability. In such a case, homosexuals wouldn't have to worry about marital rights because they would be denied all rights, even to life. So far the only deficiency a homosexual relationship really holds within society is that such persons cannot reproduce without a heterosexual union. Unless the state of the planet makes that a punishable offense, there is really no argument against allowing such persons to have every taxpayer benefit.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yeah I think the insurance is a stupid argument, too, geniebelle. Every insurance I've seen lately offers coverage for domestic partners and the criteria is pretty easy to meet. If Obamacare hadn't passed while my husband was still in grad school (before we married), thankfully I still would have been covered by his terribly crappy school insurance.

I wasn't using insurance as an excuse. I was just an off-topic comment stating something I was seeing more of lately. Sorry, I didn't clarify that.

[QAF_Rocks]

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.

Gotcha. I can see how that might happen if the family members are in denial about the person being gay. Like maybe they were hoping it was "just a phase," and that the gay person would come to their senses and settle down with a nice person of the opposite sex. A marriage would certainly put the kibosh on that.

Even today, so many parents of LGBT people assume that they won't be having grandchildren, which is kind of silly when you realize how many same-sex couples become parents. I can understand people making that assumption in the 70s or 80s, but now? Even the most sheltered straight person has probably heard of Heather Has Two Mommies. I was born in the late 70s, and my grandparents must have assumed they wouldn't have any grandchildren because their daughter was gay, but my brother and I turned up anyway! ;)

[QAF_Rocks]

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"

How much proof do they need? There are already about 100 different studies conducted over the past 40 years on children of gay parents. I bet that's more research than has been done on any other minority family configuration. It's especially annoying because no other family configuration has been expected to "prove" itself in this way.

The thing that bothers me is that they're never satisfied when you provide them with evidence. Their minds are already made up, so they keep moving the goalposts. They claim that there aren't studies, and then when you point out that there are studies, they claim that there aren't enough studies, or that the studies are biased. They simply disregard anything that doesn't fit their worldview. It's not really about evidence. No amount of evidence could convince them to change their minds.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The reason this argument is invalid is that this sort of thing occurs in heterosexual marriages. We cannot form an argument against gay marriage until there is a set standard for heterosexual marriage. And there isn't. "Irreconcilable Differences" and crazy alimony, custody claims have really done the whole system in.

I should have been more clear about my position in my post.

I don't think that this is a particularly good argument against LEGALIZING gay marriage (which I have always supported).

It's more of a factor to be considered by same-sex partners who do not intend on having children or having a stereotypical economic relationship, since the laws may not serve their needs.

I was just going through the exercise of seeing what potential threat to traditional marriage could POSSIBLY be posed by legalizing same-sex marriage, and the only one - which is a long-shot and IMO not a reason to refrain from legalizing same-sex marriage - is the slight possibility that we could see laws that were originally designed to protect wives in traditional marriages (where it was often only the man who had title to the home and investments, and the woman who did the bulk of the domestic work without pay) watered down if they are challenged by enough couples with different arrangements. I'll also add that I find some of the biggest complaints about the existing law come from women in heterosexual marriages who happen to earn more or have more assets than their husbands, and are completely resistant to the idea that they may actually owe their exes money.

[smores]

How much proof do they need? There are already about 100 different studies conducted over the past 40 years on children of gay parents. I bet that's more research than has been done on any other minority family configuration. It's especially annoying because no other family configuration has been expected to "prove" itself in this way.

The thing that bothers me is that they're never satisfied when you provide them with evidence. Their minds are already made up, so they keep moving the goalposts. They claim that there aren't studies, and then when you point out that there are studies, they claim that there aren't enough studies, or that the studies are biased. They simply disregard anything that doesn't fit their worldview. It's not really about evidence. No amount of evidence could convince them to change their minds.

For the record, this person wants to be a family & marriage counselor. :shock:

[Mommy22alyns]

My favorite argument against gay marriage was that one poster (his name has slipped my mind, but his wife was here too) who said it would lead to toaster marriage. LOL

Wait, someone actually SAID that??? I thought it was a joke. Now where is that pic that someone did about gay marriage and toaster marriage? I can't remember if I saw it here or on FB.