Secular Arguments Against Same Sex Marriages

Hey y’all, sorry for the absence. So, today, I’m going to bring up secular arguments against same sex marriages because I’m rather tired of some atheists claiming that that there are only religious reasons to be against LGBTQ rights. I in NO way endorse these arguments and find most to be unfounded.

The primary reason is that marriage is for procreation primarily. Nature requires that we reproduce, and since same sex unions are not able to procreate, gay people should not be allowed to marry. This ties into a second reason, the family unit. Supposedly, a monogamous, heterosexual couple is the one best suited for child rearing. Here’s a direct quote from the ‘American Thinker’ (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/ten_non-religious_reasons_to_keep_marriage_traditional.html):

The monogamous, heterosexual union, consummated by the unique sex act between one man and one woman, is optimal for having and rearing children, thus ensuring that society can live another generation. The family thrives by the special relationship between the biological, opposite-sex parents and their children. Consequently, society thrives.

And this quote from the ‘Centennial Institute’ (http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2017/07/secular-argument-traditional-marriage/):

It is almost universally agreed that children should be protected from parental abuse or endangerment. Abortion seems to be a glaring exception to this nearly unanimously accepted principle, but that atrocity must be saved for another article. For example, adoption procedure includes exhaustive vetting of prospective parents; why? Because the state has a vested interest in ensuring that children have a nurturing and instructive home. So, from this standpoint, if it could be (as it already is) well established through science and observation that civil unions are institutions incapable of raising children as well as traditional marriages, and it is accepted that marriage is a partnership primarily formed around the ability to raise children, there is no reason a rational secularist would advocate civil unions being legally equal to traditional marriages.

This ties into studies that show children with involved fathers do better than families without involved fathers. Both the mother and father bring different and complementary things to child rearing, so children also need a mother. Neither two men nor two women can bring the proper combination of nurturing that a heterosexual couple does. Which is, in turn, related to the breakdown of the family. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions would further break down the family. This line of thinking is demonstrated in this quote from Wayne Nall Jr’s blog (http://waynenalljr.blogspot.com/2014/02/five-secular-reasons-to-support.html):

In her article, “Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State,” Jennifer Roback Morse makes the following argument:

“ If you try to do marriage and parenthood by trial and error, you can…wreak a lot of damage. This pretty much has been the story of the past fifty years. Every “increase of freedom” turned out to be another episode of lawlessness. No-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and the early sexualization of children, all seemed like good ideas at the time..but lawlessness turned out to impose constraints of its own…And who generously and kindly steps in to clean up the mess? Why, the state, of course. The government now involves itself in people’s private lives far more than it ever did in the dreaded fifties.”

What is marriage and how is it different from other unions?  The unifying good of procreation and the creation of a stable family life. Marriage is the only way to create the environment for both parents to remain committed to each and raising children. The permanence and fidelity of marriage is vital for the upbringing of children.

Another reason is that traditional marriage is a time honored tradition. There is also the slippery slope argument that polygamists and those who practice polyamory will also want to have their unions made legal. Which will also lead to marriage having less permanence. This leads to the idea that mothers and fathers and interchangeable and disposable.

Children have a right to have biological parents and, in most cases, do better with them. Same sex marriages will also turn children into commodities. This is because same sex couples would have to either acquire children by adoption or by some other third party way. This means same sex couples would have to buy their children. Plus, surrogate motherhood objectifies women. Homosexual people are not fit role models for children. Partly from the increased substance abuse problems, partly from STDs, and partly because it is wrong.

Yet another reason is the least tenable of all the reasons I’ve seen, to preserve religious freedom. Yeah, it’s horrible, but it is secular. I’m not even going to go further into this one because my brain can’t handle that level of stupid. Another one that is similar is that traditional marriage increases civil liberty somehow.

If you want more, check out https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/77_Non-religious_Reasons_to_Support_Man/Woman_Marriage

I’m not sure I could sum all of this up better than this quote from ‘Discuss Marriage .org’ (https://discussingmarriage.org/):

None of these arguments requires a religious belief — all of these arguments are grounded in robust, secular moral reasoning. There’s nothing about these arguments that even requires us to condemn homosexual relationships in any form. There’s certainly nothing about these arguments that prevents us from treating gay persons with respect and dignity, or even from seeking other legal protections and accommodations for gay couples everywhere. The question at hand is about the nature, purpose, and norms of civil marriage, and the consequences of redefining the institution.

And here:

The accusation is simply untrue. People on both sides of the argument have acted in bigoted ways, but the arguments on neither side are rooted solely (or primarily) in bigotry. The arguments listed above do not presume an irrational fear or hatred of those who are different. In fact, people can believe that homosexual sex is good and virtuous, and still embrace every argument made earlier in this article. Nothing about these arguments presumes that same-sex couples are inferior or undeserving of a whole variety of legal accommodations. Rather, they simply assume that whatever legal accommodations same-sex couples seek should be granted through other vehicles than marriage law, because of marriage’s unique connection to procreation.

I feel dirty for doing this research and writing this, yet it must be done. Perhaps a bath in lysol will help. My brain is threatening to leave me if I ever do anything like this again. Many of the premises are wrong, much of the reasoning is poor, and the arguments are terrible. But there you go, secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. I might do one more generally on LGBTQ rights as well, if I can convince my brain that the sacrifice is for the greater good. Next week, questions that atheists can’t answer, or can they?