Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

Thanks

**curran12**

Well, given that marriage began as something of a religious concept, it is difficult to divorce it (so to speak) from a religious argument. I was unaware that there even were non-religious arguments against it.

Also, that is one snazzy signature you got there. :3

**Palindrome**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.
Thanks

It boils down to tradition. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a women and some people really don't like breaking with tradition.

**Sigvatr**

I'm going with "tradition" and I'm out of this thread, watch it go to up to 10 pages, get at least 5 people banned and then locked.

Popcorn is on me.

**Jihadin**

Tradition and the word "Married".

Have at it again.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Let me try.
Women have this thing called cooties, men have those things called dooties. If you initiate a marriage between a man and a woman, the cooties and dooties mix together, it creates a chemical reaction that prevent the marriage from making a big explosion like a nuclear bomb. If there are only cooties or only dooties, the chemical reaction will not work, and therefore explosion.

…

…

…

I am not very good at that, I guess. Well, at least I tried

. Honestly cannot find any better reason.

**Mr. Burning**

I'm with Sig on this one.

Teh gays™ is one of many summer blockbuster threads that require 3d specs and popcorn for maximal pleasure.

**Orlanth**

Marriage means couple plus social tradition.

The social tradition is based entirely on religion so if you remove religion from it, which is what same sex marriage would do you cheapen the concept.

You can legally have a same sex committed relationship, so why not settle for that. The purpose of same sex 'marriage' is to demand the right to impose an alien worldview on a religious principle. It appears to be about tolerance yet is the opposite.

If a same sex partnership is called something else other than a marriage there is no challenge to the concept of marriage.

The problem however is that many laws differ between married couples and unmarried couples, in this secular law has to change to permit a registry equal to marriage without marriage occurring. Thus in actuality it is a legislative not a religious issue, but its easier to force change on religion under a mantra of 'tolerance' than to change legislation to extend legal coverage for married people to all couples in a formally registered relationship.

**welshhoppo**

Some people do not like it because it 'destroys family life.'

They think that if little Timmy has two mummies or two daddies then he is going to be bullied at school and you should feel ashamed for what you will do to poor little Timmy.

There is also the issue of succession. As of yet there is no way for a two men or two women to have genetic offspring. As such people don't like it because it destroys family lines.

**Ahtman**

curran12 wrote:
Well, given that marriage began as something of a religious concept

Except of course it didn't, and was more of an exchange of goods/land and/or political ties/power. Traditional marriage is something of a misnomer as there is no singular tradition and they can vary quite a bit from culture to culture.

**AduroT**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

Thanks

Don't want to have to explain it to the children.

**Co'tor Shas**

AduroT wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

Thanks

Don't want to have to explain it to the children.

I like this answer the best so far

.

curran12: Thanks, it's the original tau concept art, back when they were grimdark and badass.

**Iron_Captain**

A discussion of marriage without religion? Seeing as that marriage is a religious concept, that is kinda hard.
In any case, marriage is a traditional bond between a man and woman. Same-sex marriage perverts that tradition into something entirely different.
I am not against something like a 'special bond' between two gays, but please don't call it marriage. Invent a new word for it instead, like 'Life partnership' or something like that.

Also, that is another discussion, but I really pity the children of same-sex couples. You really don't want your classmates to find out that you have two gay dads. Two lesbian moms is not as bad (at least when you're a boy), but you will probably still be made fun of.

**Jihadin**

Dowry

**Co'tor Shas**

Isn't that what a prospective suitor paid to the parents to marry?

**Leigen_Zero**

Apparently the big problem is that it causes flooding:
http://news.sky.com/story/1197250/ukip-councillor-blames-floods-on-gay-marriage

For me, I think it's down to the fact that when an organisation reaches an age & size similar to that of a geological process, it will become as receptive to change as said geological process. E.g. it' will take a heck of a long time before anything we do affects the way continental drift drifts continentally...

Edit:
With regards to the 'religion' debate, I think that only really applies in nations where there is no separation between Marriage (in the religious sense) and Marriage (in the legal sense), and lets face it, most of the nations that don't distinguish between the two tend to be even less tolerant of homosexuality than the current gay marriage debate.

**d-usa**

This thread has been done over and over again. Marriage for everyone is going to happen, and people are just going to fight it tooth and nails and look stupid until they give up.

50 years ago I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife for the same reasons that are given today. And in the future people will look at people fighting same-sex marriage the same way we look at people fighting interracial marriage.

There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

**dereksatkinson**

d-usa wrote:

There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

Oh really?

In my opinion, the right to engage in "marriage" should not be dictated or regulated by the state in any way shape or form. Neither traditional nor same sex marriage should be recognized by any government entity. The same rights and privileges of inheritance should be freely transferable to any other individual or entity without restriction.

That is a non-religious argument.

**d-usa**

dereksatkinson wrote:
d-usa wrote:

There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

Oh really?

In my opinion, the right to engage in "marriage" should not be dictated or regulated by the state in any way shape or form. Neither traditional nor same sex marriage should be recognized by any government entity. The same rights and privileges of inheritance should be freely transferable to any other individual or entity without restriction.

That is a non-religious argument.

That's a non-religious argument against state regulation of all marriage, not a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

But C+ for effort.

**whembly**

There is no good arguments against SSM imo.

As someone who loves to spread 'Murrica around... isn't it the epitome of freedom to marry whomever you want? Regardless of race, sex, 40k army?

**Palindrome**

Jihadin wrote:
Tradition and the word "Married".

Have at it again.

'Married' and tradition. Feel better now?

**dereksatkinson**

d-usa wrote:
That's a non-religious argument against state regulation of all marriage, not a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

But C+ for effort.

It's not my fault you are asking the wrong question.

If an individual believed that homosexuality and by extension same sex marriage is morally wrong, you aren't going to change that. Nor should they.

The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

**Frazzled**

The OP does bring a good point.

Another is children/adoption and inheritence after that. Male parentage was assumed under the law by the husband, as was inheritence to those children.
Historically also raising said children, and social protection for the mothers.

Currently a lot of that is out the window.
I still contend that an ideal situation for raising kids is father and mother to get both perspectives (and grandparents and extended family). But life is not an ideal situation and there are plenty of great parents of every hue, affiliation, and gender, and yet still not enough to go around for all the kids waiting to be adopted.

Raise them right, raise them proppa, raise them fierce.

**d-usa**

dereksatkinson wrote:
d-usa wrote:
That's a non-religious argument against state regulation of all marriage, not a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

But C+ for effort.

It's not my fault you are asking the wrong question.

If an individual believed that homosexuality and by extension same sex marriage is morally wrong, you aren't going to change that. Nor should they.

So that's a religious argument against same-sex marriage.

The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

And once again a non-religious argument against all marriage, not just same-sex marriage.

**dereksatkinson**

welshhoppo wrote:
Some people do not like it because it 'destroys family life.'

http://sociology.about.com/od/Deviance/a/Psychological-Explanations-Of-Deviant-Behavior.htm

Deviant behavior is any behavior that is contrary to the dominant norms of society. There are many different theories on what causes a person to perform deviant behavior, including biological explanations, psychological explanations, and sociological explanations. Following are some of the major psychological explanations for deviant behavior.

There are several fundamental assumptions that all psychological theories on deviance have in common. First, the individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories of deviance. That is, individual human beings are solely responsible for their criminal or deviant acts. Second, an individual’s personality is the major motivational element that derives behavior within individuals. Third, criminals and deviants are seen as suffering from personality deficiencies. Thus, crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual. Finally, these defective or abnormal mental processes could be caused from a variety of things, including a diseased mind, inappropriate learning, improper conditioning, and the absence of appropriate role models or the strong presence of inappropriate role models.

Psychoanalytic Theory

Psychoanalytic theory, which was developed by Sigmund Freud, states that all humans have natural drives and urges that are repressed in the unconscious. Additionally, all humans have criminal tendencies. These tendencies are curbed, however, through the process of socialization. A child that is improperly socialized, then, could develop a personality disturbance that causes him or her to direct antisocial impulses either inward or outward. Those who direct them inward become neurotic while those that direct them outward become criminal.

Cognitive Development Theory

According to the cognitive development theory, criminal and deviant behavior results from the way in which individuals organize their thoughts around morality and the law. Lawrence Kohlberg, a developmental psychologist, theorized that there are three levels of moral reasoning. During the first stage, called the preconventional stage, which is reached during middle childhood, moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding punishment. The second level is called the conventional level and is reached at the end of middle childhood. During this stage, moral reasoning is based on the expectations that the child’s family and significant others have for him or her. The third level of moral reasoning, the postconventional level, is reached during early adulthood at which point individuals are able to go beyond social conventions. That is, they value the laws of the social system. People who do not progress through these stages may become stuck in their moral development and as a result become deviants or criminals.

Learning Theory

Learning theory is based on the principles of behavioral psychology, which hypothesizes that a person’s behavior is learned and maintained by its consequences or rewards. Individuals thus learn deviant and criminal behavior by observing other people and witnessing the rewards or consequences that their behavior receives. For example, an individual who observes a friend shoplifting an item and not getting caught sees that the friend is not being punished for their actions and they are rewarded by getting to keep the item he or she stole. That individual might be more likely to shoplift, then, if they believe he or she will be rewarded with the same outcome. According to this theory, if this is how deviant behavior is developed, then taking away the reward value of the behavior can eliminate deviant behavior.

**streamdragon**

Ahtman wrote:Except of course it didn't, and was more of an exchange of goods/land and/or political ties/power. Traditional marriage is something of a misnomer as there is no singular tradition and they can vary quite a bit from culture to culture.

It is absolutely shocking how many people do not realize this. Marriage, like most legal matters, are all about who has power and who doesn't. Arranged marriages between royalty weren't about love or faith or any of that nonsense. They were about solidifying bloodlines, trading land and property, and basically doing everything in their power to STAY in power. Religious "for love" marriage is a relatively new concept, and one that hasn't even been adopted in all parts of the world at that!

dereksatkinson wrote:The root of the problem is that governments are regulating something they shouldn't be involved in. Marriage isn't a right the government grants you.

Incorrect. There are basically 2 kinds of marriage at this point: legal and ceremonial. Legal marriages bring with them all sorts of benefits and allowances by the state. Visitation rights, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc. etc. etc. These are things that, because they can and usually do involve money, the government should be sure are available to all people without any sort of discrimination. Anything less would be a violation of equal protection. Ceremonial marriages are the religious ones that have no meaning whatsoever. They confer no legal benefits, unless backed up by a legal government marriage license. A good example of this (at least as it pertains to the US) would be those (rare) places where polygamy is still practiced. Those people are married in the eyes of their church, family and friends, but as far as the government is concerned that marriage is nonexistant.

**dereksatkinson**

streamdragon wrote:

Incorrect. There are basically 2 kinds of marriage at this point: legal and ceremonial. Legal marriages bring with them all sorts of benefits and allowances by the state. Visitation rights, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc. etc. etc. These are things that, because they can and usually do involve money, the government should be sure are available to all people without any sort of discrimination. Anything less would be a violation of equal protection.

Which is why I don't think that they should be able to dictate who you grant these rights to. Under the law, there should be no benefit to being married that can not be obtained through other legal channels.

streamdragon wrote:
Ceremonial marriages are the religious ones that have no meaning whatsoever. They confer no legal benefits, unless backed up by a legal government marriage license. A good example of this (at least as it pertains to the US) would be those (rare) places where polygamy is still practiced. Those people are married in the eyes of their church, family and friends, but as far as the government is concerned that marriage is nonexistant.

Since this isn't the part that is regulated by the government, it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

**Portugal Jones**

One of the most amusing recent arguments against gay marriage was Kentucky's attempt to argue how vital it was that marriage had to be between a man or a woman, or else there wouldn't be any babies.

It makes you wonder whether the poor saps who have to draw up these motions know they have a gak job with intelligent way of actually presenting a position and are doing the best they can with it, or actually believe it, and just can't think through the logical conclusion of what they're advocating.

"cause the wording of Kentucky's stance means they also think that old people shouldn't be allowed to (or stay, I suppose) marry. Or couple with fertility problems. Or couples who don't want to have children.

*edit*
And the real point is that the government is perfectly justified in defining the legal aspects of marriage, which should apply equally to everybody. Whatever any religion wants to treat them like is between the adherents and their doctrine, but when marriage effects taxes, and other civil matters, religion should have no roll at all.

**streamdragon**

dereksatkinson wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

Incorrect. There are basically 2 kinds of marriage at this point: legal and ceremonial. Legal marriages bring with them all sorts of benefits and allowances by the state. Visitation rights, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc. etc. etc. These are things that, because they can and usually do involve money, the government should be sure are available to all people without any sort of discrimination. Anything less would be a violation of equal protection.

Which is why I don't think that they should be able to dictate who you grant these rights to. Under the law, there should be no benefit to being married that can not be obtained through other legal channels.

streamdragon wrote:
Ceremonial marriages are the religious ones that have no meaning whatsoever. They confer no legal benefits, unless backed up by a legal government marriage license. A good example of this (at least as it pertains to the US) would be those (rare) places where polygamy is still practiced. Those people are married in the eyes of their church, family and friends, but as far as the government is concerned that marriage is nonexistant.

Since this isn't the part that is regulated by the government, it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

To the first paragraph: Considering those rights play directly into other government functions (taxes, medical power of attorney, etc), the government does have a say. And most (but not all) of those benefits CAN be obtained through other legal channels; marriage simply gives you the entire thing in a package deal of government and legal benefits.

As to the second: That was a direct statement to your "marriage isn't a right the government grants you". An agreement of sorts. You are free to symbolically marry who or whatever you want; it is just meaningless when it comes to legal ramifications and benefits.

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
The OP does bring a good point.

Another is children/adoption and inheritence after that. Male parentage was assumed under the law by the husband, as was inheritence to those children.
Historically also raising said children, and social protection for the mothers.

Currently a lot of that is out the window.
I still contend that an ideal situation for raising kids is father and mother to get both perspectives (and grandparents and extended family). But life is not an ideal situation and there are plenty of great parents of every hue, affiliation, and gender, and yet still not enough to go around for all the kids waiting to be adopted.

Raise them right, raise them proppa, raise them fierce.

My proffessor once responded to a question "What is your Ideal family" He said?
"What gets you through life, what works for you. The leave-it-to-beaver Family rarely ever existed. In the end, if you are not a murderer or a feth up, your family worked"