Skip to comments.The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Posted on 05/19/2012 8:42:33 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
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 ones 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.
When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals.
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.
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.
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 states 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... 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 can 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 than 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.
Unfortunately for Barry/Barack even the neo-nazi extreme right-wing bigoted ( sac/off) European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled homosexual marriage is not a human right:
Heterosexual marriage assures continuity of societal structures which ultimately give legitimacy to childrens patrilineal and matrilineal lines. How strongly maintained these are is a matter for the individuals involved, yet society, it appears to me, would quickly break down without the authority endorsed by such organization as one can clearly see by simply looking at the majority of criminality regularly detailed in daily news accounts.
Of course this would be quickly condemned as homophobic by advocates for “gay” marriage. Yet, as this would result in the overall dilution of human descent due to demands of “fairness”, and it’s overall disillution atrributable as well from homosexual parents essentially ingnoring it, it seems easy to see that it’s true nonetheless.
Even the ancient Greeks appeared to understand this to the extent that although their society was rife with homosexuality, such ideas of homosexual marriage were barely, if even ever considered.
A 2012 bump to an excellent 2004 article.
Don’t bring up the ancient Greeks unless you are talking bathhouses. Their practices in the military, as with Spartan buggery of boys, blows the whole genetic predisposition thing out of the water, a fact the radicals pushing the gay agenda are well aware of.
This argument fails immediately thanks to surrogacy and sperm banks.
“there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoes Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development.”