# Secular arguments against same-sex marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 20, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570 "2012-11-20T01:48:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/41 "2012-11-20T16:14:55Z")
As said upthread, I think most of the arguments you’re going to see against SSM are some derivative of “eww” or unnatural. I have seen two other arguments, and I don’t find them particularly persuasive and the underlying purpose behind them probably goes back to one of those two, but I’ll present them as fairly as I’m able with my thoughts. 1. One was related to the original purpose of marriage was to assist with things like procreation and inheritance, and since a gay couple are unable to procreate with eachother, a marriage doesn’t serve that purpose with them and so it’s not so much that it should be banned but that there’s no reason to codify it since it doesn’t serve a purpose. That some infertile couples or those simply not interested in having kids get to marry too is just sort of a quirk or feature or whatever and, of the same reason it doesn’t make sense to codify in SSM, it doesn’t make sense to explicitly ban that stuff. I don’t find this argument very persuasive because it assumes that that is the only purpose of marriage today, that it’s utility hasn’t changed. It basically seems to boil down to the idea that it’s legislatively expensive to modify these existing laws, but with so much time and effort put into banning gay marriage and changing tax codes, it seems like a pretty small price to pay to make a lot of people happy. And issues like inheritance, should the couple have children, would essentially be equivalent to an actual parent and a step-parent type of situation. If anything, the only real complicating issue I see is when a child is introduced since one of them would necessarily be biological and the other one not, in determining if both should have equal custody and visitation rights and responisbilities or not. But that’s hardly a reason to not legalize SSM. 1. The other argument I’ve seen is related to health risks associated with homosexuality. I’m not willing to look up cites since it’s not my argument, but the idea was that gays, particularly men, have a lower life expectancy, greater risk of disease, and that sort of stuff. Thus by legalizing marrige we’re raising healthcare costs of heterosexuals by legally requiring that both the gay employee and his/her spouse be covered. Even if we assume that there’s greater health risk associated with homosexuality, I just don’t see this as a persuasive argument either. First, we’re talking a pretty small percentage of the population, and we haven’t even established how much additional risk it may have, so I have trouble imagining it’s worse than other behaviors that aren’t controlled for like casual sex of any sort, unsafe driving, drinking, recreational drug use, etc. Second, even if there is a tangible cost associated with it, considering that insurance agencies can control with factors that most industries can’t, like sex and race and marital status, I presume they could also control against that, if they deemed it necessary. In short, it sounds like a whole lot of worry about something that I haven’t seen any proof for. Anyway, those are the only two arguments I’ve seen, and I still don’t find either of them even remotely convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/42 "2012-11-20T16:18:31Z")
Morality is religion. There isn’t any metastandard beyond Religion to which one can appeal any moral cause, so I am not personally swayed by any arguments–religious or otherwise–beyond a general agreement of what’s practical. What would be the argument against eating defective children instead of using society’s resources to raise them? 1. Ewwww… That’s about it. Like a dictionary, religion slows down the rate of change and helps standardize a current convention that stabilizes society. At a biological level, this stabilization may also help increase reproductive success of a species. So far the reproductive success of our species does not seem to have provided a net benefit for all other species, so that argument seems not to carry much weight. And by whose argument should anything be a benefit to anything else anyway? Once you take religion–arbitrary principles–out of the mix, there’s no such thing as morality. There’s just nature, and convention among sentient creatures. Ultimately, as with language, the polloi establish the norm and ultimately that norm is entirely arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/43 "2012-11-20T16:40:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Morality is religion. There isn’t any metastandard beyond Religion to which one can appeal any moral cause, so I am not personally swayed by any arguments–religious or otherwise–beyond a general agreement of what’s practical. > > What would be the argument against eating defective children instead of using society’s resources to raise them? > > 1. Ewwww… > > That’s about it. > > Like a dictionary, religion slows down the rate of change and helps standardize a current convention that stabilizes society. At a biological level, this stabilization may also help increase reproductive success of a species. So far the reproductive success of our species does not seem to have provided a net benefit for all other species, so that argument seems not to carry much weight. And by whose argument should anything be a benefit to anything else anyway? > > Once you take religion–arbitrary principles–out of the mix, there’s no such thing as morality. There’s just nature, and convention among sentient creatures. Ultimately, as with language, the polloi establish the norm and ultimately that norm is entirely arbitrary. Actually, as long as the defective child is dead (I think that’s what you were referring to as defective), I feel like eating it is fine. I would _ **NEVER** _ participate in it personally, but a dead body is a dead body. It won’t harm the child, so eat it!!! I don’t imagine too many people would actually be a part of that, though. Morals are as thin as paper, and logic is like a razor sharp knife to it. Morals are illogical. But, as humans, we are driven by emotion, which dictates what we think, and makes us illogical. Which is fine, really. But, in an argument, logic tells me that ONLY logic should rule. So, eat the babies. Have intercourse with dogs and dead people. Share a bed with your mother, whatever pleases you. As long as it doesn’t affect anybody’s life negatively, go ahead. (Just keep it away from me. EWWWWW!) 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/44 "2012-11-20T16:49:51Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > To get anywhere with a secular argument they need to prove or at least find evidence that strongly indicates a homosexual upbringing is detrimental to the child in some way (are children raised in a same-sex household more likely to commit murder, use drugs, get STDs, cheat on their taxes). _Then_ we can have a discussion on whether or not that should trump two adults rights. But as far as I know they haven’t been able to do even that. [Here is an article about a study](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/the-regnerus-study-social-science-on-new-family-structures-met-with-intolerance) That shows kids were raised with a gay parent have worse outcomes in life. Anyone who has never heard a secular argument against gay “marriage” has not been trying very hard. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to raise children. That is why it is permanent and divorce is difficult. Changing the definition of marriage to include gay relationships would be to change the purpose of marriage from providing a stable environment to the emotional fulfillment of the participants. Since people fall in and out of love all the time, emotional fulfillment can not be a stable base for raising children. If you look at countries where gay “marriage” has passed there are fewer people getting married and more children living in broken families. Since we know people who get married and stayed married are wealthier, happier, healthier, and are better at raising kids, then changing the definition of marriage to make it more volatile is obviously a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/45 "2012-11-20T16:55:42Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > That is why it is permanent and divorce is difficult. Are you living in a country other than the United States of America? Divorce, I’d have to say, is\*\*\*\* easier \*\*\*\*than getting a State I.D. card. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/46 "2012-11-20T17:10:09Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > Are you living in a country other than the United States of America? > > Divorce, I’d have to say, is\*\*\*\* easier \*\*\*\*than getting a State I.D. card. In my state you have to have a year long separation and either hire or lawyer or an arbitrator to divide up your stuff. To get an ID you need a birth certificate and wait in line a couple hours at the DMV. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/47 "2012-11-20T17:24:56Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to raise children. (playing along) So, do you think heterosexual couples that can’t conceive should not be permitted to marry? Conversely, what about a gay couple who’ve adopted children (or one of the couple is actually the parent) and seem to be doing a great job raising them. They shouldn’t be allowed to marry…why? ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/48 "2012-11-20T18:49:55Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to raise children. Says who? The government? Your religion? My husband and I desire no children and yet we were allowed to marry. And people who marry after they are no longer physically capable of reproduction. Defining marriage by the ability to reproduce is nonsense. People don’t generally select their partners solely on the narrow grounds of using each other as a biological tool for procreation. Most people choose their partners based on psychological, emotional and intellectual connection and intimate bonding. Also, your “research” from the heritage foundation is laughable. [Here](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610) is the actual research the heritage foundation wrote their opinion on. Also,[a paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000774) discussing the findings: > [@](#): > > Regnerus (2012) provides convincing evidence that various young adult outcomes are associated with having a parent who had a same-sex relationship. The findings contradict the “no differences” claim of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, and the study is one of the first studies to employ a larger sample and more rigorous analytic techniques. Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences is, however, quite another matter. We lack theory to tell us exactly why gay and lesbian parenting would produce negative child outcomes. For all we know, the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining “normal” marital relationships. > > Moreover, research being done today on young adults who experienced same-sex parenting in childhood cannot speak to what will eventually happen to today’s children in same-sex households. Same-sex parenting relationships are, as Regnerus shows, quite diverse and include many family forms. Today’s children of same-sex parents may be more likely to be planned and deliberate, as social stigma declines and fertility options increase; these children’s outcomes may be more akin to children of married, biological parents. Grouping all children of same-sex relationships into one group provides limited and potentially misleading information on “differences.” > > Policy makers who may feel obligated to act on these findings would do well to note, for example, that some researchers have found a strong negative impact of being raised in very large families on various child outcomes (see Desai, 1995, for a review). But no one has ever suggested (outside of China) that large families should therefore be illegal. Given the sensitive political and cultural environment surrounding same-sex relationships, preliminary findings of “differences” such as those reported by Regnerus should not be used to support punitive legislation aimed at limiting the family formation and fertility choices of gays and lesbians. Advocates who wish to create mischief with these studies will surely do so, no matter how cautious and circumspect their authors have been. Asking everyone to be as careful in their causal conclusions as Marks and Regnerus have been is no doubt wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/49 "2012-11-20T19:04:41Z")
Didja know in Utah, first cousins can’t marry if they can reproduce? The woman has to be beyond a certain age or able to provide medical proof of infertility. Thus, in at least one state and in certain circumstances, the state specifically recognizes that the purpose of marriage is _not_ procreation and allows it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/50 "2012-11-20T19:08:51Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > [Here is an article about a study](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/the-regnerus-study-social-science-on-new-family-structures-met-with-intolerance) > That shows kids were raised with a gay parent have worse outcomes in life. To no one’s great shock, this study was massively flawed: Regnerus compared children raised in stable two parent heterosexual households, with children who had a parent who had ever had a homosexual encounter. Most of these respondents had never lived in a household with a same sex couple. The study didn’t control for factors like divorce, infidelity, or economic status. It’s not science, it’s propaganda; unsurprising, since it was funded in part by the AFA and NOM. [Here’s a good starting point for the dismantling of this particular study.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debra-umberson/texas-professors-gay-research_b_1628988.html) ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/51 "2012-11-20T19:24:56Z")
I am just dumbfounded by why anyone has an issue with it if it doesn’t directly affect them. Pure ignorance, I suppose? I’m a straight, engaged man, but I fully support homosexual marriage, and I don’t even personally know any gays! Well, one, but she has nothing to do with that decision. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/52 "2012-11-20T20:36:46Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > So there may not be a good “rational” secular reason for homophobia, but it would be wrong to say that all homophobia is religiously-motivated, at least worldwide. I’m sure it’s the other way around. We’re innately homophobic (probably just an extension of natural xenophobia), and major religions simply codify it. The Bible doesn’t have any parables that explain why “sodomy” (as the various terms are usually translated, somewhat ambiguously) is evil, it just states that it is. Not in many places, either; usually just including it in long lists of sins or sinners. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Morality is religion. There isn’t any metastandard beyond Religion to which one can appeal any moral cause, so I am not personally swayed by any arguments–religious or otherwise–beyond a general agreement of what’s practical. I disagree with your definition of morality, implied here. I prefer the definition used in Wikipedia: > **[Morality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)** > > Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the categorization of intentions, decisions and actions into those that are proper, or right, and those that are improper, or wrong. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that is understood to be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness", "appropriateness" or "righ Moral... While you’re right that a basis morality doesn’t exist a-priori, that doesn’t mean that it equates to religion. I’m a humanist. I _choose_ to be a humanist. I have values, some of which seem innate and others I’ve thought carefully about and selected. These values inform my ethics and define a moral code. They have nothing to do with any religion. I don’t assert that they’re universal, and I can’t impose them on others without the consent of society. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/53 "2012-11-20T20:41:24Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > I am just dumbfounded by why anyone has an issue with it if it doesn’t directly affect them. Same reason we care about anything else that doesn’t affect us? Because we evolved to care about the mating behavior of other people in our tribe? Because when you grow up with one understanding of The Way The World Works, and somebody tries to come along and change it in some fundamental way, it’s scary and disturbing? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/54 "2012-11-20T20:48:25Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Here’s three that needn’t mention religion. They’re all awful, but people make them. > > 1. Marriage is for procreation. > > 2. Teh gay is Unnatural. (Not sure that this can really done absent religion entirely, but you could do a bad impression of a Deist talking about Natural Law, which isn’t really Abrahamic.) > > 3. Ewwwwwww! > As I say, they’re horrible arguments, and don’t try to convince me that they’re unsound because I agree. But they don’t rely on Deuteronomy. > [@Ethilrist](#): > > 1. It’s never been legal before, aka the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and I say it ain’t broke” argument. 1. So infertile people should not be allowed to get married, and any marriage without children should be declared invalid. 2. Not according to modern psychology. 3. Some people feel the same way about straight sex. 4. Same thing was said about marriage between blacks & whites. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/55 "2012-11-20T21:09:23Z")
Our atheist PM couldn’t come up with much of a reason for her opposition to SSM. She cited the way she was raised, our culture being based on the values of the Bible, and threw in a red herring about her defacto relationship being just as meaningful and real despite her choice not to marry, and that it’s insulting to others in similar relationships to insinuate that their relationship is less valid if they’ve chosen not to marry. So… she’s got nothing, really. I know Joe Hockey from the opposition party went for the “won’t someone think of the children” approach, claiming he opposed SSM on the grounds that children deserved to grow up with a parent of each gender. No word on his opinion of gay adoption or foster parenting already being legal in most states, and of adoption or fostering by single people being legal. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/56 "2012-11-20T21:12:49Z")
I often ask anti-abortion people who scream about “adoption” about “gay adoption.” As you can image, most of them only support adoption to the “right” people. I once talked to a total homophone anti-abortion protestor who claimed that “gay adoption” was “child abuse.” ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/57 "2012-11-20T22:40:50Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > While you’re right that a basis morality doesn’t exist a-priori, that doesn’t mean that it equates to religion. I’m a humanist. I _choose_ to be a humanist. I have values, some of which seem innate and others I’ve thought carefully about and selected. These values inform my ethics and define a moral code. They have nothing to do with any religion. I don’t assert that they’re universal, and I can’t impose them on others without the consent of society. Humanism equates to a religion in the sense that the principles are entirely arbitrary. They don’t exist in the stars. The Universe is uninterested in being good to anybody, and might poke us all with a gamma ray tomorrow. It’s fine to pretend that morality is about “good” and “bad.” But those are simply conventions and there is nowhere to appeal their definitions. Religion (the theistic ones, for example) posit an outside Arbiter. Humanism (usually, anyway) posits some sort of pattern tyically derived against a perception of a greater good. But in the end, the principles are entirely arbitrary, and in the end, equally meaningless from the standpoint of Absolute. It may well be that the greatest good for the earth is to extinguish the human species tomorrow (again, depending on how you define “greatest good”). But if someone made that determination and tried to pull it off, we’d call him a madman. To the issue in the OP: there’s no such thing as a “secular” argument against same-sex marriage that holds any force beyond opinion. A religious argument can posit a higher authority, and hold a course of action accountable for how well it conforms to that higher authority. A secular argument has nothing to appeal to because it has already discarded the proposition that a higher authority exists. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/58 "2012-11-20T22:46:44Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Same reason we care about anything else that doesn’t affect us? > > Because we evolved to care about the mating behavior of other people in our tribe? > > Because when you grow up with one understanding of The Way The World Works, and somebody tries to come along and change it in some fundamental way, it’s scary and disturbing? Plus, it’s _icky_. Seriously, your response here is reasonable. I disagree with your position, but I argue with those who unduly demean it. I challenge you to face the possibility of change being good. If you’re young, you’re likely to lose on this eventually anyway. I changed my own position, and I’m glad I did. ---
**Author:** ![HardlySanguine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HardlySanguine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HardlySanguine)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/59 "2012-11-20T22:47:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The standard argument is the danger of inbreeding. While it’s a questionable argument, it’s far, far better than anything the anti-homosexual crowd has come up with. All I’m saying is that both laws derive from our morals - for some people gay marriage or sex is just as bad or icky as incest or inbreeding. > [@](#): > > No; I’m saying that “do what this holy book/priest/the voices in your head tell you to do” is incompatible with morality. The mindless obedience and equally mindless self indulgence that characterize religion are incompatible with genuine morality. Genuine morality requires that you base your decisions on the effects you have on the real world and actual flesh-and-blood people; not an imaginary god, and imaginary afterlife, and imaginary souls. It requires you make judgements, and don’t just mindlessly obey dogma regardless of the results. And it requires that you don’t just declare every whim and desire you have to be “God’s Will” and trample over everyone else. Well, it sounds like we agree - that our morals and thus our laws are shaped by the world around us. All I’m saying is that part of that world has religion in it. > [@Death\_of\_Rats](#): > > How does a male dog “consent”? How do you clearly and unequivically communicate to the dog what your intentions are? How does he do the same with his consent? > > Or are you under the mistaken notion that any time a male creature gets an erection that he is consenting to sex? > > Even between humans who can clearly communicate intention and consent, that is not enough. Remember, to “consent” you have to do more then just say “Yes”, it has to be a fully informed consent that is clearly understood by both parties in both intents and consequences. That is why most human societies understand that children can’t give consent. How can a dog? I was more picturing the human in a passive role here. I’m sure you’ve seen male dogs humping legs or couches before. > [@Mijin](#): > > Disagree here though, and I’m not sure what conclusion you are drawing from two people having different moral values. Pretty much everything we’re born with shows variation. > > All indications are that humans do have an instinctive “morality” or at least, an instinctive bad or good “feeling” when seeing certain acts. e.g. Pretty much every culture that’s ever existed has considered stealing from a member of one’s own tribe wrong. > And if you give a sweet to a child, then give its sibling two sweets, even very young infants will notice and care intensely about the unfairness of it. We really are wired that way. > These simple feelings however, aren’t a concrete ethical system – they don’t tell us exactly what we should do in many real-world situations – and so society (and yes, religion) can inform that. But they aren’t the source of our morals. If you look at how alike parents and children are in their morals, I think you have to come to come to the conclusion that society _is_ in fact the source of a lot of our morals. Granted, I suppose this could be genetic and I’ve never looked at, say, two kids one raised at home and one sent off for adoption to see how their morals differ but I think it’d be a stretch to say they’d end up the same. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570/60 "2012-11-20T22:55:01Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Humanism equates to a religion in the sense that the principles are entirely arbitrary. They don’t exist in the stars. The Universe is uninterested in being good to anybody, and might poke us all with a gamma ray tomorrow. I disagree now with your definition of religion. > [@](#): > > It’s fine to pretend that morality is about “good” and “bad.” But those are simply conventions and there is nowhere to appeal their definitions. We have to define them ourselves. We have to do this personally, to define our own morals and to decide what to do, and we have to do this as political units, to decide what is legal and what is not. For example, we agree that human life is valuable. Sure, this may be an arbitrary judgement, but it’s one we agree on, and we work from there. > [@](#): > > Religion (the theistic ones, for example) posit an outside Arbiter. Humanism (usually, anyway) posits some sort of pattern tyically derived against a perception of a greater good. But in the end, the principles are entirely arbitrary, and in the end, equally meaningless from the standpoint of Absolute. You can say “arbitrary” but I say “value-based”. There’s a distinction, but not one that really matters here. You still haven’t made your point that Humanism is a religion. Humanism isn’t absolutism. > [@](#): > > To the issue in the OP: there’s no such thing as a “secular” argument against same-sex marriage that holds any force beyond opinion. A religious argument can posit a higher authority, and hold a course of action accountable for how well it conforms to that higher authority. A secular argument has nothing to appeal to because it has already discarded the proposition that a higher authority exists. What you’re saying here is that all value judgements are based on religion. Yet people without religions can have values. By your own sophist argument, there’s no such thing as a secular argument FOR same-sex marriage, because any such argument would be based, in part, on values. Even science depends on the value judgement that truth is better than falsehood. It also depends on a few other assumptions, but we won’t go into that. Your definition of “secular” here is so far out of the norm, that your point loses any value. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/641570.md?page=4)