# What is the secular purpose of DOMA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983 "2012-03-27T21:56:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/201 "2012-03-28T11:49:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Now explain to me in the light of the above… 2 + 2 = 5 Now explain to me in the light of the above why someone can earn two thousand dollars from salary, two thousand dollars from investments, write a check for five thousand dollars, and have it boune. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/202 "2012-03-28T11:51:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > :rolleyes: There is no “micro/macro”, there is only bigoted/not bigoted. The law has nothing whatsoever to do with children or with anything other than persecuting homosexuals out of bigotry and pandering to bigots. And this remains true no matter how fervently you shove off any questions by handwaving about “micro/macro”. It’s very convenient how “micro/macro” translates to “it’s OK if it hurts homosexuals, but bad if it hurts straights”. I am reminded of the attempts to handwave away evidence for evolution by defining cases that are simply too well supported to ignore or deny (e.g. Eohippus –\> Equus) as “microevolution” and insisting that the evidence therefore doesn’t count as support for “macroevolution”. > [@Terr](#): > > You don’t have to go and do all kinds of biological analysis to figure it out. You just have to look. Macro vs. micro. Reiterate above oath about not having seen this message before making the above analogy. It’s like he’s psychic or something. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/203 "2012-03-28T12:01:23Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > if she has reached menopause or had her tubes tied But records of when a woman has reached menopause or had her tubes tied are inaccessibly buried alongside the Area 51 aliens and the plans for the 200mpg carburetor. At least, so I gather from **Terr** ’s claim that it’s just too darn hard for the gummint to identify infertile heterosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/204 "2012-03-28T12:03:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > **shy guy** addressed your concerns in post #68 No he didn’t. The closest he came was > [@](#): > > Taking homosexuality out of the equation for a bit, it would still make sense for a state to recognize heterosexual civil marriage in order to promote various ends (childbirth and rearing, family bonds, etc.), even if a lot of heterosexual couples can’t conceive. but that still doesn’t address the fact that if the government draws the conclusion that heterosexual couple = good homelife for children that they would take further steps such as outlawing divorce or requiring couples to get married if they have a child out of wedlock. There is simply no way that the argument that that marriage is about procreation or having a stable environment for children has any merit because if they did, there would be further laws to implement the government’s policy. For example, California’s family code used to have a specific law that stated that a function of marriage was to have children. OK, fine but it then allowed sterile people to get married if their partner knew they were sterile so the hypocracy is that marriage was a tool for the State to encourage procreation but then it is OK to get married if you can’t procreate and THEN the anti-SSM say gays can’t marry because they can’t procreate with each other. And don’t forget the other side of the coin. DOMA advocates that claim it’s not about religion hold a postion where two committed adults of the same sex cannot provide a stable relationship for a child (through adoption or a previous hetero relationship for one partner) BUT that somehow single parenthood (through non-marriage or divorce/separation) is. Otherwise there would be a movement to at least outlaw divorce and in the extreme require people to get married to have children. So secular DOMA supporters, explain how you can support heteros having kids outside of marriage or divorce when children are involved. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/205 "2012-03-28T12:06:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > … because the Federal government doesn’t find it in its interest to promote or encourage homosexual marriage. So what? When I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, I don’t give a damn if it’s in his interest to inflate the bill. When I hire a government to keep the peace and protect the borders, I don’t give a damn if it’s in its interest to poke into other matters. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/206 "2012-03-28T12:10:31Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > So the state should **require** any marriage to produce children? > [@Terr](#): > > No, your statement doesn’t follow from what I said. Sure it does. 1. You said that children were the state interst. Ergo, extending the privilege to people who do not serve the interest is unwarranted. That’s _your_ argument, mister. 2. You said that the line has do be drawn somewhere other than where your argument says it actually is (fertility) because mapping the line accurately is too much trouble. A breeding requirement elegantly solves that problem – “no kids within X time after marriage” is an easily verified objective fact. > [@hoopified](#): > > this is silly and you know it Of course _we_ know it; we’re not the ones advancing the argument that leads inexorably to that conclusion. You and **Terr** are. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/207 "2012-03-28T12:19:45Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > But would that actually apply to homosexual or lesbian siblings or even their parents? The biological reasons don’t apply. For that matter Oedipus should be allowed to marry Jocasta if she has reached menopause or had her tubes tied. > > If the biological reasons don’t apply, then aren’t these limits arbitrary and capricious. I don’t mind arbitrary and capricious. I do mind inconsistent and discriminatory. If there is a law against eating pigeons, I expect all persons to be prevented from eating pigeons and not just left-handed persons. Likewise, if there is a law against marriage of persons within a certain degree of descent, I expect it to apply to all persons. Now, this discussion is not about incestual marriages (although with modern genetic counselling I do not see a compelling logical reason against it and woud be willing to entertain arguments for or against), but about the rights of two non-related competent adults to enter into a marriage contract. Bringing incestual relationships into the euation is muddying the waters, and greasing the slippery slope that assumes all “perverts” are alike. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/208 "2012-03-28T12:41:58Z")
I saw this on Wiki and had to share. I added the parts in brackets. > [@](#): > > The court argued that it was the duty of the state to protect marriage as a public institution. The state needed to protect married couples “against disturbances from without.” By such “disturbances” the court meant interracial [homosexual] relationships. Intimate relationships between whites and blacks [gays], “elements so heterogeneous that they must naturally cause discord, shame, disruption of family circles , and estrangement,” were incompatible with the white [heterosexual] family life that the state needed to protect, the court argued. Therefore such relationships had to be prohibited, and interracial [homosexual] couples had to be broken up. It is of course a description of _Pace v. Alabama_. DOMA supporters, do you support the above statements without the bracketed words? If not, then how does the substitution of the bracketed words change anything. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/209 "2012-03-28T13:22:11Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No you gave a statement that kids are better in a birth family, I disproved that with evidence, the fact that you restate it does not make it true. Either respond to what I actually write, or stop responding. You’re just parroting the same tired lines from one of your playbooks. This is your last chance. I choose my words carefully. Sometimes I write what I don’t mean, then I will concede my error and backtrack. I’ll let you know when that happens. I did NOT write that children are better off. Obviously, that can not always be the case. I wrote that the instiution of traditional marriage, the state believes, is the best environment to raise children. It is in the state’s interest that as many children as possible are raised in the best environment possible. That’s why we have the divorce laws we have, and many other manifestations of this thinking. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/210 "2012-03-28T13:24:37Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > So saith your religion, on faith. Sorry, you don’t get to **assume** what you’ve been assigned to **prove**. As I’ve written before, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. The state has assumed since the institution itself was created that this is the best environment to raise children. That is the state’s interest. Regardless of whether or not it’s true, that is the reason for its interest. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/211 "2012-03-28T13:27:57Z")
. > [@](#): > > 1. You said that children were the state interst. I don’t understand. > [@](#): > > Ergo, extending the privilege to people who do not serve the interest is unwarranted. That’s _your_ argument, mister. The interest is in preserving the instution that serves the children. I’m not sure how else to put it if you can’t get that. > [@](#): > > 1. You said that the line has do be drawn somewhere other than where your argument says it actually is (fertility) because mapping the line accurately is too much trouble. A breeding requirement elegantly solves that problem – “no kids within X time after marriage” is an easily verified objective fact. The state draws the line at preserving/supporting the institution itself, not its issue. Of course _we_ know it; we’re not the ones advancing the argument that leads inexorably to that conclusion. You and **Terr** are. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/212 "2012-03-28T13:28:45Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > My contention is that the state has determined that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construct to raise children. Therefor, that construct deserves preference. That is a secular argument The term for the argument “I assert position X, and on that basis show that X deserves preference” is spelled “circular”. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/213 "2012-03-28T13:30:33Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I don’t mind arbitrary and capricious. I do mind inconsistent and discriminatory. I call bs on this. Of course you don’t mind inconsistent and discriminatory. People discriminate all the time where you don’t mind. So don’t bother with the pious posturing. > [@](#): > > If there is a law against eating pigeons, I expect all persons to be prevented from eating pigeons and not just left-handed persons. Likewise, if there is a law against marriage of persons within a certain degree of descent, I expect it to apply to all persons. I have to assume you are purposefully being obtuse. The institution itsself is what the state is protecting. Your silly comparisons are… well, silly. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/214 "2012-03-28T13:32:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I saw this on Wiki and had to share. I added the parts in brackets. > It is of course a description of _Pace v. Alabama_. DOMA supporters, do you support the above statements without the bracketed words? If not, then how does the substitution of the bracketed words change anything. Stupid and ridiculous. allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself. Which is why it was eventually allowed. And it is also why your comparison is invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/215 "2012-03-28T13:33:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s nonsense; if it isn’t true, then it by definition isn’t the motivation; it’s a lie to cover the actual motivation. Actually, this isn’t true. For example, if Joe Blow shoots John Doe because he believes Doe to be an advance scout for a race of invading lizard people, the fact that the belief is untrue doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed his honestly asserted motivation. It suffices to conclude that the arguments a DOMA supporter, like the arguments of a murderous paranoid schizophrenic, are based on irrationality. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/216 "2012-03-28T13:34:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Letting _other_ people do what they want isn’t them forcing their beliefs on you. You’ve just done the Christian thing of trying to define freedom as “absolute submission to my personal religious dogma by all of humanity”. Everyone who doesn’t submit to your every whim is “oppressing you”. I don’t address this question from a religious perspective. You are the one who brings it up. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/217 "2012-03-28T13:35:41Z")
> [@shy\_guy](#): > > All that said, hoopified seems deeply confused regarding basic issues of history, law generally, and DOMA specifically. He’s also simply wrong as a matter of fact. As the Justice Department determined by combing through what I imagine must have been a nauseating legislative history, DOMA was in fact motivated by bigotry. The last refuge of a liberal losing an argument. “If only those bumpkins could be as learned and educated as the rest of us enlightened.” ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/218 "2012-03-28T13:37:00Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > II call bs on this. Of course you don’t mind inconsistent and discriminatory. People discriminate all the time where you don’t mind. So don’t bother with the pious posturing. > > I have to assume you are purposefully being obtuse. The institution itsself is what the state is protecting. Your silly comparisons are… well, silly. Not all posts are directed at you. That one was in response to **JoelUpchurch** on whether consanguity laws are logical. the purpose of my somewaht facetious respose was to redirect his attention to the topic at hand and not get distracted by what might seem to be related topics. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/219 "2012-03-28T13:38:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I don’t think the state is required to encourage and promote something that it does not find itself sufficiently interested in promoting or encouraging. Nonsense. For example, states tend to be uninterested in promoting and encouraging humane treatment of prisoners; if your assertion were untrue, all Eighth Amendment lawsuits would be summarily dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/220 "2012-03-28T13:39:32Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Stupid and ridiculous. allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself. Which is why it was eventually allowed. And it is also why your comparison is invalid. But at the time, good, right-thinking Americans believed it would alter the institution itself. They were wrong. That is the parallel **Saint Cad** was making. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=12)