Secular reasons for and againt same sex marriage

[Dolorian]

What are the secular reasons for and against same sex marriage? I outlined some for both sides below to kick start the thread. I put it in the following format: first, I outline the reasons for a particular side, then I follow it with objections to each reason given. Obviously, this is not exhaustive and I tried to keep it brief, so that it serves more as a springboard for further discussion as opposed to a complete case or argument for each of the points. Of course, if you have any other secular reason or argument for or against same sex marriage, then please present it for discussion.

Clearly due to the audience of this forum the tide is bound to turn more in favour of supporting same sex marriage. That being so, I would be interested in hearing what you all consider the best reasons/arguments in support of same sex marriage.


Reasons for opposing same sex marriage

1. The purpose of marriage is to procreate and bring about the next generation. Same sex couples can’t have children.
2. Same sex marriage offers no benefits which would warrant the state recognising and granting it the benefits pertaining to marriage.
3. Legalising same sex marriage would end up undermining the institution of marriage.
4. Children raised by a mother and a father are better adjusted than those raised by same sex parents.
5. Legalising same sex marriage poses a treat to religious liberty.

Objections
Obj 1. If this were so, then why does the state allows people who can’t or do not intent to procreate to marry and grants them all the benefits that pertain to marriage?
Obj 2. They provide about the same benefits that infertile heterosexual couples provide and they also can and do adopt children and in so doing help bring about the next generation.
Obj 3. There is no evidence that allowing same sex marriage would have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage. So it is not clear how it would do that.
Obj 4. Data suggests that there isn’t much of a difference on this regard compared to children raised by same sex couples.
Obj 5. This is something that doesn’t necessarily follows from allowing same sex marriage and it can actually cut both ways. There are religious institutions that would like to legally marry same sex couples but can’t because it isn’t recognised. While there are cases in which religious institutions opposed to same sex marriage are obliged to marry same sex couples, this is not universal and something a proper separation between church and state would prevent.


Reasons for supporting same sex marriage

1. Homosexuality is a normal variant of adult sexuality; these persons possess the same capacity for sustained loving relationships as heterosexuals.
2. Allowing same sex marriage would be beneficial for the economy.
3. Banning same sex marriage deprives a group of people from the physical and psychological health benefits which marriage provides.
4. Given it’s natural state and the benefits it can bring, the state should recognise same sex marriage and grant it the benefits that pertain to it.
5. Same sex marriage between two consenting adults is harmless, having no negative impact upon society.

Objections
Obj 1. That such persons are born with natural homosexual tendencies does not makes it normal. Indeed, many people are born in ways which we consider unnatural or disordered. The complementary nature of the sexes sets the standard for what behaviour should be considered normal as far as sexuality goes. Homosexuality goes against the complementary nature of the sexes so it should be seen as abnormal.
Obj 2. The benefits that same sex couples bring to the economy would not proceed from marriage itself but from their capacity as citizens.
Obj 3. These health benefits are something they can obtain without the need to marry; they are allowed to enjoy a sustained relationship of their own without having the state recognise it.
Obj 4. Given that the benefits are not due to marriage itself but to the individuals and their commitment to a relationship, there is no need for the state to recognise same sex marriage.
Obj 5. Allowing same sex marriage would lead to schools teaching that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and it would also force taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships despite the fact that they are against it.

[Crossless2.0]

I appreciate the effort put into the OP. However, as far as I'm concerned, same-sex marriage is a question of equality under the law . . . period. Those opposed to it don't have a leg to stand on.

Crossless1: a straight atheist who supported marriage equality years before it was even an issue.

[Minimalist]

1. The purpose of marriage is to procreate and bring about the next generation.

Incorrect. That is the purpose of fucking.

[Crossless2.0]

1. The purpose of marriage is to procreate and bring about the next generation.

Incorrect. That is the purpose of fucking.

Incorrect. That's (now) one of the purposes of fucking. Thank you, birth control!

[Dragonetti]

Hmmm. I could care less what others do in their personal lives. To be against same sex marriage is to intrude into others' personal lives. Why even bother? If the personal life is not directly effecting you personally, then there should be no issue.

[Zidneya]

4. Children raised by a mother and a father are better adjusted than those raised by same sex parents.

Kids With Gay Parents Report Higher Self-Esteem Than Kids With Heterosexual Parents: Study
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/...uality.pdf

5. Legalising same sex marriage poses a treat to religious liberty.

I'm sorry may I ask why is that a bad thing?

I thought this was supposed to mention secular reasons.

Obj 1. That such persons are born with natural homosexual tendencies does not makes it normal.

Actually that makes it more normal since indoctrination of third part influences are discounted.

Indeed, many people are born in ways which we consider unnatural or disordered.

Ohh you're making me blush.

The complementary nature of the sexes sets the standard for what behaviour should be considered normal as far as sexuality goes.

That's both sexists and homophobic.

Homosexuality goes against the complementary nature of the sexes so it should be seen as abnormal.

List of mammals that show homosexual behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mam...l_behavior

Obj 5. Allowing same sex marriage would lead to schools teaching that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and it would also force taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships despite the fact that they are against it.

Okay I'm confused. In objection number three they say that The benefits that same sex couples bring to the economy would not proceed from marriage itself but from their capacity as citizens.. Which makes me think that this study put's marriage above the state, so may I ask why does the taxpayers get to have any kind of voice in this fifth objection that it puts the state above marriage?

[Dolorian]

...as far as I'm concerned, same-sex marriage is a question of equality under the law . . . period. Those opposed to it don't have a leg to stand on.

A person who is against same sex marriage would likely retort that your claim doesn't answers why the state should recognise same sex marriage and grant it benefits and would also say that people with homosexual tendencies are as equal under the law as heterosexual people in that they are as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. So they are not really being discriminated against, they are just not being granted a special right.

---

Hmmm. I could care less what others do in their personal lives. To be against same sex marriage is to intrude into others' personal lives. Why even bother? If the personal life is not directly effecting you personally, then there should be no issue.

Well, I think we can admit that legalising same sex marriage has certain ramifications on society that go beyond what two consenting adults do in their private quarters. I outlined some of the objections people who are against same sex marriage have when it comes to this in the OP.

[CapnAwesome]

I think that it's a excellent well thought out list that pretty much outlines the secular arguments. Two points:

While people will make secular arguments against gay marriage it is exceedingly rare that those people are not religious. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to cover up their bullshit.

Also there is a good argument that it's a matter of individual liberty. Regardless of whether or not something is natural or beneficial or anything people have the right to make their own choices in life and marriage is one of them. I also think there is a camp of people, mostly libertarians, open minded conservatives or Log Cabin Republicans who think that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

[Dolorian]

Kids With Gay Parents Report Higher Self-Esteem Than Kids With Heterosexual Parents: Study
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/...uality.pdf

You can cite a report like that but there are reports that show the opposite, like for example:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-...s-research

I'm sorry may I ask why is that a bad thing?
I thought this was supposed to mention secular reasons.

Well, religious liberty is a right of every citizen so it definitely counts as a secular reason.

That's both sexists and homophobic.

In what manner?

List of mammals that show homosexual behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mam...l_behavior

Some animals also eat their young and do a lot of other crazy things, yet we do not do them just because. So why should homosexuality be seen as a normal and good thing because other mammals do it?

Okay I'm confused. In objection number three they say that The benefits that same sex couples bring to the economy would not proceed from marriage itself but from their capacity as citizens.. Which makes me think that this study put's marriage above the state, so may I ask why does the taxpayers get to have any kind of voice in this fifth objection that it puts the state above marriage?

That's a fair observation/question

[Thumpalumpacus]

The government has no business regulating interrelations between consenting adults.