I am an atheist, and have no religious reasons for denying gays the right to be married; but, I have very secular reasons.
1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children.
2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too.
3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems. Gay Men and Substance Abuse: A Basic Guide for Addicts and Those Who Care for Them - available at Amazon. "Can I blame gay culture for my drug addiction, please?" http://marksking.com/my-fabulous-disease/can-i-blame-gay-culture-for-my-drug-addiction-please/ Lesbians and Substance Abuse http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbians-and-Substance-Abuse/
4. Gay are not the proper role models to raise children. Children need a real female mom and a real male dad, one of each. All recent studies prove that children are best raised by a man and a woman.
New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter
"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 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."
Yes. There are many. But first...
Pick a less one sided image next time. This picture is chosen in the intent to draw bias support, and makes the Pro side seem bad.
Lets list off a few things... One, it's unnatural. Yes, SOME animals do it, but just being found in nature doesn't make it natural. Homosexuality is found almost never, only in very rare cases. Albinism is more common, and that's highly considered unnatural.
-Homosexuality is rarer than Albinism, and therefore not natural.
Incest and Polygamy, however, and so common that if an animal reaches mating age while it's parents or siblings are still with it, there will almost always be incest...
-Being natural or being found in natural doesn't make it "okay." Although it's not natural.
All political correctness aside... A child needs the parenting of a Mother and a Father... A mother cannot be replaced by a second father. Thinking otherwise is simply blindness or lack of experience. There is a reason a children with only a mother, or a child with only a father, never works out as well. Adding another of the same parent won't fix that.
-All political correctness aside... It's bad for the children.
Marriage is, regardless of your wishes, a religious institution. It was founded by religion 1000's of years ago... Regulated by religion, and still is a religious institution. It's religions to claim, not homosexuals. While they can, if they really want, make their own institution, the specific Institution of Marriage is religion's territory. While religion is divided on polygamy (Mormons vs. Christians) and Underage marriage (Muslims vs. Christians,) gay marriage is the one thing most religion is against.
-Marriage is a religious institution. It's has it's own laws based on religion, and most agree against Gay Marriage.
I've listed 4 "Secular" arguments. Even the last one is spoken from a secular point of view, much like a home owner admitting the bush belongs to the neighbor... The last one was admitting marriage belongs to religion.
For one, you need to establish the purpose of marriage, which is to make/raise children. If this wasn't a main purpose of marriage, then children would not be raised and a society would fail to continue on. The ability to continue society makes marriage a state interest. This is an ability that homosexuals do not posses for they cannot reproduce nor can they put adopted kids into a stable home. As concluded by the extensive study by Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, children of homosexual parents:
-Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
-Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
-Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
-Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
-Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
-Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
-Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
-Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
-Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
-Use marijuana more frequently
-Smoke more frequently
-Watch TV for long periods more frequently
-Have more often plead guilty to a non-minor offenses
Since homosexuals cannot fulfill the full purpose of marriage, they should not be allowed to marry.
There is your secular argument against gay marriage.
The original purpose of marriage has been to create a commitment to a relationship so that a child would have a solid foundation for which to be raised. When you throw around the idea that marriage can just be a union that anyone can make with anyone for any reason, you devalue the initial purpose of marriage. Gay marriage is one of the many things that devalue the initial purpose of marriage. Looking at facts, gays are far less likely to even have successful marriages in the first place, never mind the fact that such instability and promiscuity in the gay life is absolutely unsuitable for initial purpose of marriage, that being raising children.
Marriage laws protect properties and more importantly, children. Men and women are not interchangeable due to biological reasons.
A true-born man cannot be a mother since a child cannot come out of his body, making him lack the warmth of a mother, which is important for unconditional love. Only a mother can give that.
A true-born woman cannot produce sperm naturally since she does not produce enough testosterone and her true-born body is too warm to sustain production, whenever it matures.
If they have the same equipment, they will be interchangeable. But the thing is, they don't.
The rights of children prevail over the rights to have children, as stipulated in UN Law. Same-sex marriage and adoption.
One of my sources:
Why shouldnt we allow it? If marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, why not just find a new word and give that to them? E.g. "marriege" (changed the 'a' to 'e'). They shouldn't be denied the chance to be with the one that they love because of religion which defined the word marriage.
Same sex union does not a marriage make. The differences that distinguish are too numerous to note in response. But if you stop to consider them, you'll find more than you may care to acknowledge. Take the role the potential for procreation plays in marriage. It plays a primary role in attraction, love, intimacy and unity. A role impossible between two members of the same sex. These and many, many other differences distinguish marriage from same sex unions. Differences that are worth respecting and are respected in history, tradition, societies, and religion. Differences that define marriage. Differences that betray any "equality" arguments for the inclusion of same sex unions in marriage.
Preoccupations with "equality" are the result of a misinterpretation of the civil rights movement of the 60's. A black person is born black and can do nothing about it, there are no impulses, desires ,choices or actions involved.. A person who is born homosexual, or who has become homosexual (or possibly the combination of the two) , may have no choice in the impulses and desires he or she experiences but nevertheless has a choice in his or her actions based on those desires or impulses. People aren't machines, they have the ability to choose what they do with themselves and others and in this is the key difference between the Civil rights movement and the current LGBT movement.
The LGBT movement champions their interpretation of what actions a person should take when they find that they have certain desired or perceptions about their self, and in doing so created a word "homophobic" which blankets an entire population who for whatever reason holds a different interpretation and using this tactic has shamed a sizable portion of the American population into accepting their interpretation. In fact "Homophobia" is often paralleled with the often violent and hateful "Racism" of the past, but there is a huge difference between people disagreeing with an action a person takes and believing that one human being is inherently inferior to another because of that person's race.
You can have a number of reasons for disagreeing with two members of the same gender having sex or forming a sexual relationship with one another, and at the same time in no way regard those two people as inferior. You can disagree with homosexual impulses being acted upon and at the same time have no "phobia" of homosexual actions.
I will admit that their are some crazy and hateful bigots out there, but you can't lump all religious people as haters. Some religious people are regular human beings who don't look down on homosexuals and their lifestyle, but don't want the idea to be forced down their throats by making it government-approved.
I will stress one point that everyone else has already said- the purpose of marriage is to create and raise children-and adding to that, form a union that will last for a long time. Its not impossible. There may be people who take it for granted and think it has no affect, but it really does. Marriage is a public ritual of unity, promises, and loyalty. Whether people choose to follow its institution is entirely dependent on them. But marriage is not only based on whether or not you love someone.
Next, not every heterosexual whose married can have children, but the people, who are able, will have a higher probability of having children than gay couples. Its just fact.
Also, don't try to raise up the racism stuff. That was a problem about inferiority, or measure of value. Homosexuals are not inferior, they are normal people like anybody else. A person can disagree with their sexual orientation or marriage, and still respect them as equals and for having the ability to believe in whatever, and act however, they choose.
In general, the U.S.A. government is suppose to be a safe zone where we can think for ourselves and is the birthplace of ideas and beliefs. The government isn't suppose to lean towards one belief over another (like forcing bible studies in public schools). Same with marriage. Everyone can think whatever they want about marriage, but traditional marriage is an accepted/or tolerated institution by all people of different backgrounds (and this country has a lot of diversity). People need to respect that.
Gay people lack the traditional support of children and grandchildren during their old age. Because of this they are most likely to rely on state support becoming an additional burden on social welfare. Right now the gay population stands at 3 -4 % and they are counting on the next generation to take care of them, yet they have not invested anything in bringing that generation up.
The definition of marriage between a man and a woman was created with religious subtext involved. Therefore in court cases, there is no real secular argument against gay marriage, and would render Proposition 8 a violation of separation of church and state. There has been little to no evidence that there is a secular argument against gay marriage, as any argument against it is brought up with religious connotations.
Every scholar journal I have read says there is no difference between a kid from a heterosexual couple than a kid from a gay couple. I have read studies from Duke, Syracuse, home town boys from the University of Kansas and from are rivals from Kansas State. May I remind you that KU and KState are both in a conservative state called Kansas.
"Marriage as a Religious Institution"
First of all, it doesn't really matter that marriage is, as you say, a religious institution. Regardless of this fact, gay couples in the US are given less benefits, such as insurance, visiting benefits in hospitals, and other important rights that should be given to devoted partners regardless of sexual orientation. Due to this fact, civil unions between two homosexual partners must be given due to RIGHTS- not due to any kind of religious or biblical reasons.
Marriage as a form of AIDS transmission
People who are married are, in general, less likely to be promiscuous, therefore likely to have fewer partners. Gay marriage could, in fact, reduce the spread of AIDS and other diseases due to increased monogamy among homosexuals.
Marriage as a form of child abuse
Think about your parents having sex. Just think about it. You don't want to, right? That's the same way kids of homosexual people think about their parents. The sex lives of the parents do not affect the development of the child any more than they do in a heterosexual relationship.
Rareness/Unnaturalness of homosexuality
In fact, homosexuality has been seen in almost every species; it's common, it's natural, and whether or not it grosses you out really doesn't matter. Because that's what it boils down to at the end of the day: it's disturbing for people to think about. Whether or not marriage equality comes to fruition in the US, there will still be homosexuals. (As much as some people might like to think otherwise.) They will still have sex, they will go on with your lives, and marriage won't change this.
Have you ever heard the expression, "How do you get a man to stop having sex?"..."Marry him."
Marriage as a form of procreation
If you deny homosexual couples the right to marry due to inability to reproduce, you must then deny all heterosexual couples the right to marry if they do not plan to reproduce, due to old age, infertility, or any other reason that would cause them to not have a child.
And since secular arguments are the only ones that matter under the law, this leaves gay marriage opponents twisting in the wind.
I've never seen a non-religious argument against gay marriage that didn't involve hypocrisy (like the claim that gays can't procreate- well neither can the infertile or the elderly or those who choose not to have children), logical fallacy, deliberate misinterpretation of statistics, or outright bigotry.
Are there any secular arguments against marriage in general? These would be the same both ways. The issue is one of human rights and ethics. Each person will feel differently on the issue. I don't however think it is decent, in light of personal rights to make light of Christian beliefs, especially those who have participated in marriage (something they believe to be sacred). It would be like burning a Quran. Quite insulting to those who hold it holy.
No, there are not any secular arguments against gay marriage, and instead all of the arguments have come from a religious standpoint. I believe that those who would consider themselves "secular" are predominantly in favor of gay marriage and have not produced any evidence against the gay marriage movement. Instead, they want gay marriage.
This was shown on Tuesday, March 26's Supreme Court case. The lawyer defending Proposition 8 was asked by Justice Sonia Sotomayor if he had any non-religious arguments to bring up. He politely stated that he did not. Thus, if the chief lawyers can't come up with secular arguments against gay marriage, I doubt anyone could.
I have read the exact same arguments from both overtly religious / moral proponents and from some who claim to be arguing from a secular perspective. At the core most arguments when unpacked are traceable back to assumptions about what values the issues are being tested by.
Any person who can respect the fundamental humanity of others should be able to at least consider if not understand that, while no one is perfect, anyone who loves and wishes to make a life with one special other person should be treated equally in the law.
As to the arguments about detriment to society from infertility or children created through IVF, please take a moment to consider the value and the gravity of the decision, let alone the emotional and economic commitment that any couple (hetero' or homo') are making when they intentionally decide to become parents. There are no accidental pregnancies for these folk. The instinctive drive to procreate and to love and raise children is universal. It is not exclusive to heterosexuals.
A comment on the myriad of social ills and their study by which are cited as secular arguments against. Please consider that even without fact checking the existence, veracity or reliability of the studies quoted against marriage equality, it seems that many are presented as showing a casual connection e.G., (statistics suggesting) greater levels of mental illness or drug abuse amongst children of same sex couples, implying some inherent evil at work because the parents are same sex. The data may well be accurate but what it might be indicating seems more implied than explained.
I suggest a hypothesis to consider here:
"Young people who are subject to persistent, systemic negative social and cultural messages and bullying that devalues them as people and denies them fair and equal social, educational, economic and legal access and treatment are MORE LIKELY to experience mental illness and engage in substance abuse."
Let's now look again at that data quoted by some of the opponents of marriage equality.
Can you see how well this fits my hypothesis?
I see this thinking in debates on many social and political issues. I suspect it is often unwitting but sometimes it is clearly disingenuous and used to misinform. So I try to look for the hypothesis that quoted studies presumably had. If its not stated or is unclear (as is often the case) I try to apply my 'let's just check that we are not blaming the victim' hypothesis.
So to wrap up, let's all think a little more deeply about who we are talking about in all this, because it's actually all of us we are discussing. It's not a them and us. It's 'us'.
The arguments I tend to see are as follows:
1. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
2. Homosexuality is unnatural.
3. Sexuality is intended for reproduction.
4. Homosexual parents are not as good as heterosexual parents.
Now, here are the flaws (1 will be divided into 1a and 1b):
1a. Marriage has not always been between a man and woman. Current-day marriage has, but Pagans and some Native American tribes had no qualms with same-sex marriage. In certain Native American cultures, those who were different (blind, gay, etc) were considered to be gifts from their gods. Marriage between two men or two women is not a new concept.
1b. If 1a is to be ignored, this is an still appeal to tradition, in addition to a tu quoque fallacy. Not only is this saying "gay marriage is immoral because it's been this way for years" -- not unlike saying "feeding geese bread is moral because I've been doing it for years" (it's not safe; you can Google some safe things for geese to eat) -- but it's saying that we should only be having traditional marriages... You know, where the individuals must be virgins, the men could have concubines, etc. The changes in time and moralities, as presented now with homosexual marriages, have changed traditional marriage into what it is now. This argument is highly flawed, as you can see.
2. As for it being unnatural, one person mentioned in the "yes" side that more people have albinism so therefore homosexuality is unnatural. Not only is this an incorrect statistic (12% of the American population is LGB), but penguins, bats, geese, and flamingos exhibit homosexual behavior. Are they unnatural as well?
3. This calls into the question if an infertile woman or sterile man should be able to marry. If we are excluding those that cannot reproduce with each other from getting married, they would not count. Additionally, some couples don't want to have children; should they be required to have children, since this is now a requirement?
4. This is not proven; see my argument against person one's argument 4 for more information.
(See comments for refutations)
The main argument against homosexuality is religion. You are allowed to believe whatever you want, but you need to understand that there is a separation between religion and law. Christianity did not create, nor does it own, marriage. As for children raised by the lgbtqa, why do you feel like both a mother and a father is nescessary? You don't know how to parent but you vaguely understand gender. Marriage is a union between two people, not just to make children. We don't need every married couple to procreate, there are already seven million people on earth. Stop pretending like you care about the children, you just a bigot.