Essay talk:Secular Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage

The issue it seems is this. The people opposed to same-sex marraige are loons. They oppose it for an idealogical reason, and won't be reasoned with politicially, any more than propopnents will. Opposition to it is bigoted and wrong. But they see it as truth. Gay is evil. Therefore, the only way to get equal rights is to battle in the legal system. Because you can't convince people who make up their mind without any information, strictly for idealogical purposes. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't say it's impossible to change people's minds. We've made headway on this issue, and closed the gap in polls. This issue should be decided by the people, and not by courts. Liberal10 00:31, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Well of course it's not. Abolition and civil rights told us that. But shouldn't we've learned from our mistakes that maybe it should get done a little faster? And wouldn't the best way to do that be to battle? Because it's not coming any time soon, with most of the country living is Jesusland? When the bible is replacing the constitution? I just think the most effective way to deal with it is to battle. Because there is no convincing people who've made up their minds already. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 00:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

That's a strange argument. Surely all politics is based on ideology to some extent. Don't we support same-sex marriage for ideological reasons as well? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:54, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure which bit of the argument you think is strange, AKjeldsen. It's obviously necessary, at some level, to fight for change - to bring the issues to the people. I'd use the examples of abolition and the emancipation of women - a significant amount of social agitation was necessary to sensitise society to the issues. Would society have moved just as quickly without the abolitionists and the suffragettes? I suspect not - but, hey, you're the historian. As for it being "ideological" yes, you could say it is - but no more so than abolition and emancipation mentioned earlier.--Bob^{bing up} 10:02, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I have mixed feelings about all marriage as it confers legal rights on the parties which may be abused, especially if it is possible to divorce at a later date. (This also includes citizenship or residency rights conferred by governments.) However, for two people making a "commitment" there is the problem that marriage changes the dynamics of a relationship. I know of many couples who have co-habited for many years and even had children, but their relationship deteriorated once they made it legal. Modern marriage is a different institution to that of our stone-age ancestors. People now have different aspirations and expectations - women are no longer regarded as chattels. The legal act of marriage imposes restrictions and forces a couple to stay together through short term rough patches. The whole issue becomes very complicated but I think that the ultimate aim of marriage should be to produce a stable happy relationship between two people especially if they have children (or adopt). Unhappy traditional marriages can be more damaging for children than say a same-sex couple with children of some provenance. Unfortunately society often encourages early marriage with disastrous consequences. I know I am not the same person that I was when I married 20+ years ago and am even more different from the 18 year-old adolescent co-habiting with my first "love". If the availability of same-sex marriage encourages people to engage in a long-term stable relationship then I regard it as beneficial for society in general. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:27, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Shrink, with all due respect, it's really not fair to compare religious Christians to racist bigots. That's what so great about America, you have freedom of religion, and that means you can use it to guide you when you ask yourself questions like "Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?" You're not fighting an ideology of hate here (unlike during segregation and civil rights), you're fighting a set of organized beliefs that people cherish and hold dear. Telling people that having Christian beliefs and using them in politics is wrong is only going to antagonize them further, because they'll see it as an attack on their religious beliefs, which is basically what happened in California. --Liberal10 18:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Procreation

You state: What sort of rational basis would a state have to deny same-sex couples marriage? The most common one used is procreation. Rationally speaking, it is only possible for a man and woman to procreate, so the state has an interest in promoting procreation and child-rearing within wedlock, and to protect the nuclear family.

I'm not sure I follow this. 1) Why should the state necessarily always have an interest in procreation? 2) If the state does always have this interest why should it necessarily have this interest within wedlock? --Bob^{bing up} 14:19, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I suppose if you are germany, you have such a strong interest you are paying mothers to have children. But if the state really had an interest in procreation *via marriage* it would necessarily follow that 1) marriages would be logged as childless or "with child". 2)Those with children would receive some benefit (besides just the tax exemption for dependents... dependent can be a debilitated adult) that is a "perk" to them for doing the state's work, 3)the state would make sure parents are doing a good job, filling a quota, or something. If the Conservatives were correct that a marriage requires the ability to have children ("naturally" biologically between wife's egg and husband's sperm, cause we all know gay people can have children from other marriages, other relationships or adoption) then old women who have gone through menopause should not be allowed to marry, and every couple should have fertility testing before they enter into a state sanctioned marriage.--Waiting for Godot 14:56, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Bob, to answer your first question, it's because procreation is necessary to the survival of the human race, and for your second, they want to, for lack of better words, "focus on the family."--Liberal10 18:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)