Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
The Tech (M.I.T.) - Cambridge, Mass. | Tuesday, February 17, 2004 | Adam Kolasinksi

Posted on 02/20/2004 11:28:38 AM PST by rightcoast

THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

Adam Kolasinksi

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004

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 to 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-reaching 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 scoial 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.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Massachusetts; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: analecstasy; buttbandits; deviant; evenwithoutreligion; filthy; gaymarriage; gayrights; gross; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; itsstilldisgusting; marriage; perverted; poopsex; prisoners; rumprammers; samesexmarriage; sickness; spreadinghiv; stoolstuffers; vile; weird
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
This is an opinion piece that appeared in The Tech, an M.I.T. newspaper.
1 posted on 02/20/2004 11:28:38 AM PST by rightcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Bump.

A very well-articulated case against homosexual marriage that keeps religion out of it.

2 posted on 02/20/2004 11:33:56 AM PST by Dalan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Superb article. Thanks for passing it along.
3 posted on 02/20/2004 11:37:18 AM PST by Annie03 (donate at www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
This was published in paper funded by a public university? I'll be surprised they haven't aready strung this kid up the diversity flag pole.
4 posted on 02/20/2004 11:38:08 AM PST by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Great find.
5 posted on 02/20/2004 11:38:39 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
And why is sexual love more valuable than family or friendship love? Why should roommates who share expenses be barred from benefits simply because they do not have sex together? Why should adults caring for other adults -- family or friends -- be barred from all the benefits of marriage?
6 posted on 02/20/2004 11:42:22 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Annie03
Excellent article that makes a sound argument against gay and marriage..And it debates all of their arguments citing facts. Excellent! This should be in all major newspapers.

Wonder when our President will amend the Constitution.

Whatever happened to Bush's illegal alien worker program? I haven't heard anything, has anyone here heard anything about it?

7 posted on 02/20/2004 11:47:15 AM PST by stopem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
^
8 posted on 02/20/2004 11:47:19 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
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.

These benefits are already mostly available to homosexuals as "partner benefits". Unmarried heterosexuals are the ones mostly enjoying these benefits.

9 posted on 02/20/2004 11:51:03 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
This was published in paper funded by a public university? I'll be surprised they haven't aready strung this kid up the diversity flag pole.

You will notice that this particular "public university" is a "technical" one. These types of university generally attract those instructors and students who insist on logic, facts and "practical" results. Hence, if you are going to see any place where (and, admittedly, it may difficult) the practical considerations are held in esteem, it will be a places such as these.
10 posted on 02/20/2004 11:52:59 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast; Admin Moderator
I found a source article link; it wasn't there previously.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Admin/Mod, feel free to edit this post's header to reflect this link, if you wish.

Also, The Tech requests the following notice when posting their content online:

This article originally appeared in The Tech, volume 124 number 5, February 17, 2004. It may be freely distributed electronically as long as it includes this notice but cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.

11 posted on 02/20/2004 11:53:10 AM PST by rightcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
One of the best articles I've read on this subject.
12 posted on 02/20/2004 11:54:43 AM PST by somedaysoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stopem
Whatever happened to Bush's illegal alien worker program? I haven't heard anything, has anyone here heard anything about it?


Haven't heard anything. I think it may have been quietly tabled due to the outraged response. Wasn't mentioned in the SOTU address either (as memory serves).
13 posted on 02/20/2004 11:55:47 AM PST by Annie03 (donate at www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Ping


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

14 posted on 02/20/2004 11:56:08 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dalan
I find it interesting that there is a need to keep religion out of it, or a perceived value there.

In the same way, morality is considered to be an invalid justification for argument. As if morality is religious in nature when in fact, many atheists (if not all) have some basis of moral thinking.

"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have to come from the Bible to be justified.

"Homosexual behavior is a deviant sexual practice" doesn't either.

All that said, I think it is nice to see someone put it in the secular context because it does force the opposition to acknowledge that the case against gay marriage is not simply based upon religious or moral grounds.
15 posted on 02/20/2004 11:57:15 AM PST by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Paloma_55
I didn't mean to devalue the religious and/or moral perspectives of homosexual "marriage". I was merely pointing out that the fact that the argument against it can be put in a secular context does have value, when dealing with the forces of social decay.

Indeed, I do believe that modern moral and social values stand quite well on their own outside of the writings in any particular ancient book; this is the only way to pose an argument that the militant secularists cannot simply pass off as "religious fundamentalism".

17 posted on 02/20/2004 12:03:39 PM PST by Dalan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; rightcoast

These benefits are already mostly available to homosexuals as "partner benefits".


'Domestic Partnerships': An unfair tax break for the (gay) rich.

18 posted on 02/20/2004 12:04:26 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scripter; ArGee; lentulusgracchus; Bryan; MeekOneGOP
Ping
19 posted on 02/20/2004 12:05:27 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
read later
20 posted on 02/20/2004 12:16:08 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
This was published in paper funded by a public university?

MIT is a private school.

21 posted on 02/20/2004 12:24:19 PM PST by heleny (No on propositions 55, 56, 57, 58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Marriage exists because of children "and propagation of society is a compelling state interest." Yep.
22 posted on 02/20/2004 12:27:33 PM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Annie03; stopem
Whatever happened to Bush's illegal alien worker program? I haven't heard anything, has anyone here heard anything about it?

I heard on the radio yesterday that it was DOA...just as I predicted when it came out. We do, however, need to keep supporting H.R. 3534 (introduced by Rep. Tom Tancredo). Write your Congresscritters.

23 posted on 02/20/2004 12:28:38 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Luckily, (w sarcasm) science and tech helps them with those pesky reproduction issues. Thanks to surrogate mothers and adoption and, in the future, cloning, they feel this qualifies them for marriage the same as reproduction does for us 'breeders'. Using (except for cloning) most of the same reproduction methods as straight people, they feel they've leveled the playing field and 'corrected' for that 'reason' that straights throw at them as a reason to oppose gay 'marriage'. And let's not forget those who 'marry' and have kids with people of the opposite gender so they 'don't miss out', and then later divorce to be with their 'real' love, arguing for custody of their kids.
24 posted on 02/20/2004 12:29:36 PM PST by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Thanks for posting this. It makes a lot of sense without getting into morals.
25 posted on 02/20/2004 12:31:33 PM PST by heleny (No on propositions 55, 56, 57, 58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
It's starting. The TECH here is obsessed with gay marriage. The editorial board said that the Supreme Court should affirm the SJC. For 9 months the paper has been pushing for all things gay. Every single week there's another pro-gay marriage article and no balance. Rarely does a pro-family values letter or editorial get printed and when it does. Its bashed 3 times over in the next issue. Today's issue contained a brave letter that superbly twisted this gay obsessed columnists pro-gay marriage article to support the amendment as well as a rebuttal to Adam's article that misreprehented.
26 posted on 02/20/2004 12:50:56 PM PST by the right side jedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Cut to the chase. Homosexual marriage is about two (2) things and two things only...

(1) Acceptance in society. By heterosexuals having to accept gay marriage, they are forced to more openly accept gays in society or be seen as hypocrits.

(2) A depressed group (homosexuals) striking back at heterosexuals for years of finding disfavor with their life style. In short it is a way of striking back because they have been judged to be a lesser. A lesser person, a lesser of moral standards, a lesser of being accepted in society.

When heterosexuals become aware of this only then can we fight back effectively and say "We don't like it. We don't want it. We don't want it for our children. And nothing the homosexuals can do will change that."

Instead we are left to battle false arguments about homosexual just wanting to love each other, or about the benefits, or about legal justice.

It's not really about those things at all.

It's about acceptance and, to a lesser not, revenge.

You heard it here first.
27 posted on 02/20/2004 1:25:05 PM PST by BFM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homsosexual Agenda Ping.

Super busy again/still, haven't read this one yet, but it looks good.

Check out www.abidingtruth.com and wwwdefendthefamily.com - there are books and so on that also make the case against "gay" marriage and the "gay" life - many without reference to religion.

Let me know if you want on/off this list!
28 posted on 02/20/2004 1:38:46 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
This is brilliant! This doctoral student in economics is saying what I have been unable to articulate.
29 posted on 02/20/2004 1:56:26 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
You will notice that this particular "public university" is a "technical" one. These types of university generally attract those instructors and students who insist on logic, facts and "practical" results.

Well, except Chomsky. But as the world's most brilliant linguist, he might as well be the world's tallest midget.

30 posted on 02/20/2004 1:59:12 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
"This secular argument is plain dumb."

What an emotional response. :) I'm teasing you a bit there, but the reality is, homosexual unions serve no logical purpose whatsoever. They do not make sense from an evolutionary point of view or a religious point of view. They do not serve in any capacity to strengthen the fabric of society.

Homosexual unions are based solely on the 'iwanna' principle. And just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean it should be legal.

31 posted on 02/20/2004 2:07:11 PM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: rightcoast
The elaborate argument is based on one premise alone - the presumption of fertility.

The point is that marriage has not been *inevitably* tied to fertility for at least 70 years or more.

Nor is "natural reproduction" necessarily the default in marriage. Many couples where the wife is over 30 or 35 need artificial means to conceive, which to some people is morally the equivalent of homosexuality anyway.

33 posted on 02/20/2004 3:24:21 PM PST by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
My records describe MIT as a private institution.
34 posted on 02/20/2004 3:26:43 PM PST by Chris Talk (What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dalan
this is the only way to pose an argument that the militant secularists cannot simply pass off as "religious fundamentalism".

Alas, even this method of showing a "secular viewpoint"--whether or not it's an affected one--won't convince the hardened leftist moral relativist--or five supreme court justices. They can just say that the author is repeating a thinly-disguised sectarian "natural law" argument. "Is it any coincidence" they'd say, "that a Polish student makes an argument straight out of the Catholic natural law tradition?" Argument dismissed.

35 posted on 02/20/2004 3:30:37 PM PST by Dumb_Ox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: djreece
marking
36 posted on 02/20/2004 3:52:57 PM PST by djreece
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: the right side jedi
The TECH here is obsessed with gay marriage... Today's issue contained a brave letter that superbly twisted this gay obsessed columnists pro-gay marriage article to support the amendment...

That letter in question can be found at http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N6/saffordlet.6c.html

Its contents:

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CASE FOR HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

Sean Safford

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 6
Friday, February 20, 2004

Adam Kolasinski offers what appears on the surface to be a dispassionate argument against gay marriage based on the legal principle that the protection of a given minority group must further a compelling state interest [“The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage,” Feb. 17]. In short, his claim is that the state recognizes the marriage of a man and a woman because doing so encourages procreation and that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that people reproduce. The relationships of gay men and women fall short of marriage according to this logic.

First, it’s not at all clear that it is in state’s interest to encourage more children. In our own country, 120,000 children are adopted each year. Worldwide, there are far more children in search of a home than there are adults willing and able to raise them. To be coldly analytical about it, increases in both life expectancy and productivity rates mean that far fewer people are needed to make society run smoothly, not more.

But even if it was in the state’s interest to encourage procreation, what does marriage have to do with whether or not people decide to have children? Most of us are capable of procreating just fine without the government’s help, thank you very much.

Kolasinski recognizes that the state’s deeper interest is in providing children with a stable, loving environment. Prefacing his remarks with the insightful comment that “the differences between men and women go beyond anatomy,” he argues that “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.”

But his comments on the subject conflate the relatively limited evidence on gay parenting with the copious research which shows that having two parents is better than one. A review of the research published in the American Sociological Review indicates clearly that gay parents raise children who are every bit as capable on a wide range of measures as children brought up by straight parents. Indeed, because for most gay parents having a child requires overcoming numerous obstacles, there is evidence to suggest that gay parents are better caregivers.

On the other hand, it is certainly the case that, on average, children with two parents do better in life than children that grow up in single-parent households. Children of single parents, for instance, are 1.7 times more likely to drop out of high school. But the reason has nothing to do with whether those children are adequately prepared to live in a society made of men and women. The “empirically verified common wisdom,” to borrow a phrase from Kolasinski, is that it has everything to do with growing up in loving and financially stable homes regardless of whether those homes are headed by straight or gay parents.

The fact on the ground is that gay men and women are raising children -- according to research supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, estimates are between six and 14 million children have at least one gay parent. So Kolasinski’s arguments regarding the relationship between marriage and childrearing are backwards. It is very much in the state’s interest to ensure that the children of gay and lesbian parents are raised in families that are as equal as possible to those with straight parents. The far more serious danger is that, in not recognizing gay marriages, the state will enact into legislation that gay families are second-class in status.

That is not only a civil rights argument; it is an economic one, too. Like all economic institutions, marriage can be seen simply as a means of reducing transaction costs. Marriage would save gay and lesbian families -- and therefore society -- the cost of hiring a lawyer to draw up 50 separate contracts covering everything from whether they are automatically granted power of attorney in the event a loved one is hospitalized to the right to securing domestic partnership benefits at work.

How efficient -- economically speaking -- is it to have to run home, open the safe, and run back to the hospital to present “evidence” of one’s “contractual rights” when life and death decisions about one’s child need to be made? Whose interest does that serve (other than attorneys’)? From a pure efficiency standpoint, it is much more efficient simply to include gay and lesbian couples within the broader institution of marriage.

But casting the argument in terms of pure efficiency misses the point of the debate happening across the river. Kolasinski would have us believe that people get married because the government wants us to do so. The truth is quite the opposite: people of all sexualities have been hitching up for time immemorial. What has changed is the fact that more and more gay men and lesbians are doing it openly and with the blessing of their friends, families, and neighbors. The danger is that the state will lose touch with the society it is supposed to reflect. In doing so, it risks losing the legitimacy on which its claims to regulate society are based, and that is in no one’s interest.

Sean Safford is a doctoral candidate in the Sloan School of Management.


37 posted on 02/20/2004 3:56:52 PM PST by rightcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne
However, assuming homosexuality is hereditary, it is a negative evolutionary mutation. However, Homosexual creatures definitionally cannot pass on their genetic code (absent medical intervention). So from a Darwinistic perspective, homosexuals are a way whereby nature discards genetic refuse.
38 posted on 02/20/2004 4:05:18 PM PST by hillaryisalesbo (Vote Democrat, It's Easier than Getting A Job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
Arguing that these are rare is not an adequate answer if your entire principle is based on this concept.

The reply is that even marriages between people who don't intend to have children allow for the possibility of the production of children accidentally, so that such marriages still serve a public purpose.

In addition, marriage to cousins or polygamous marriages all allow for children, therefore, using these principles would require us to legalize those marriages.

Those cases are handled with other objections. Polyandry, for example, is rarely if ever carried forward successfully among the men involved, unless there is a separate strong rank-order bond among them. Tibetan polyandrists are usually brothers, and their birth-order ranking keeps the dissatisfied junior brothers in line, by pitting them against all their seniors, with the additional liability of legitmacy accruing to their elders.

Polygyny is more workable, but the Congress required the Mormons to put it aside before they would admit Utah to the Union. The moral conflict was clear and unambiguous, and the Mormon elders, with statehood glittering before them, blinked.

Incest is a different case and is handled by public-health arguments about the undesirability of intensifying even minor genetic weaknesses.

39 posted on 02/20/2004 5:50:10 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Adam Kolasinski offers what appears on the surface to be a dispassionate argument against gay marriage based on the legal principle that the protection of a given minority group must further a compelling state interest [“The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage,” Feb. 17]. In short, his claim is that the state recognizes the marriage of a man and a woman because doing so encourages procreation and that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that people reproduce. The relationships of gay men and women fall short of marriage according to this logic.

Safford misrepresents Kolasinki's central argument. The core of Kolasinki's case is this:

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.
[Emphasis added.]

Safford, besides insinuating the homosexual "rights" case with language like "the protection of a given minority group", which is propagandistic and beside the point, except insofar as the advocates of institutional change are a tiny minority, tries to shift the burden of proof to the majoritarians, which in the continuing homosexual attack on America has become a standard, and knowingly fallacious, tactic. It is not on society to defend its institutions, and it need not yield even on being shown a point of argument, but rather, should yield only if satisfied in its own conscience that the minority have the better argument for doing things their way, or for claiming some right, relief, or redress.

Secondarily, Safford's distortion of Kolasinki's statement becomes obvious with a little condensation: "the protection ....must further a compelling state interest...." (emphasis supplied) suggests that the state will not protect the civil rights of homosexuals or other minorities unless the observance of those rights is in the state interest, and this is an invidious and untrue statement to impute to Kolasinski. Kolasinski is not talking about civil rights; he's talking about a marriage license.

The key here is that society owes nothing beyond a hearing to the proponents of radical change, who bear the burden of making their point to the satisfaction of the majority, and not just of making their point to their own solipsistic satisfaction.

40 posted on 02/20/2004 6:20:08 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
Just because something does not serve a logical purpose, does not mean it should be illegal.

That is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Everything not prohibited, is legal and permissible, and citizens need not answer questions from authorities about their legal activities.

The wide freedom of the Ninth Amendment is invaded every time the legislature sits to legislate. Once the legislature has made a law, the sum of Ninth Amendment freedom is diminished -- a good argument for minimizing legislation. However, given the fact of a compelling state interest, Congress or a legislative body may act, and having acted, direct the Executive to enforce the law. Laws against homosexual sodomy and homosexual marriage fall under this rubric, that society has the right and power to make law irrespective of shibboleths about the privacy of the bedroom. A printing press set up in my bedroom will bring Treasury agents calling, if I'm using it to produce $20 bills; and various other actions, otherwise private, can still be crimes. That is what homosexuals are complaining about, but they deserve no relief, since they are not objects of "oppression", but of the law.

41 posted on 02/20/2004 6:28:02 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
'Domestic Partnerships': An unfair tax break for the (gay) rich.

Thank you. I can never remember this correctly.

42 posted on 02/20/2004 7:43:07 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BFM
striking back at heterosexuals for years of finding disfavor with their life style

About 10,000 by my reckoning ... if I recall my paleoanthropolgy correctly.

43 posted on 02/20/2004 7:52:36 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
MEGABUMP
44 posted on 02/20/2004 10:19:47 PM PST by MegaSilver (Coulter/Harris 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.

Not to nit-pick but LEGAL marriage was developed to protect women and children from abandonment and to ensure that men lived up to their commitment to pass-on their name and estate to children that they sire! It's primary purpose was to keep men honorable. Procreating doesn't require a license just a drive-in theater and a back seat!
45 posted on 02/20/2004 10:38:16 PM PST by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightcoast
BTTT
46 posted on 02/22/2004 10:30:24 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
It's somewhat silly to argue that the institution of marriage is simply a means of breeding children. This secular argument is plain dumb.

I agree with you. This is a far superior secular argument against legal recognition for same-sex marriage:

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

However, there is one good argument in the OP -- the one about the slippery slope from legal gay marriage to legal polygamy. The vast majority of gay marriage supporters turn into polygamy supporters as soon they start reading a few articles on the joys of polyamory.

Once established, nothing is more disasterous for women than letting men have more than one wife (hardly any women wind up with more than one husband). In countries where polygamy is at all widespread, married women see any single woman as a threat. Oh, and guys, they spend all your money so you won't be able to afford a second wife.

47 posted on 02/22/2004 10:56:12 AM PST by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
This opinion piece is rough around the edges, but it is fairly concise in exposing the absurdity of the gay marriage position. I think it could be fine in a second draft.

I don't think the author meant to praise the institution's record of "breeding" magnitudes of children, but rather the quality thereof. It astounds me that so many equal-rights defenders don't think about the importance of encouraging young men and women to get married and start a family. Civilizations take great pains to evolve rituals and rules around this.

48 posted on 02/22/2004 1:44:20 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Bump
49 posted on 02/23/2004 9:33:38 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
"Just because something does not serve a logical purpose, does not mean it should be illegal. Absent religious beliefs, I see no reason why not to allow homosexual marriages."

I see great harm to the fabric of society that can occur from throwing out the traditional marital arrangement. So obviously, I have reasons 'absent religious beliefs' to continue to define marriage as between man and woman.

50 posted on 02/23/2004 12:17:11 PM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson