# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/221 "2012-03-28T13:40:26Z")
If I am sterilized, and I want to marry my mother and two sisters, how does that affect your same sex marriage? Why would you be bigoted and deny me that right? After all, the prohibition on incest is for genetic reasons (like all marriages produce children, phew). Can a father marry his son on the grounds that there is truly no legitimate state reason for prohibiting the incest now? ---
**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, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/222 "2012-03-28T13:42:30Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Am I passing laws that force my beliefs on others? > [@hoopified](#): > > If you support gay marriage, you certainly are. People _still_ try this inane argument? [QUOTE=L. Sprague de Camp] “You don’t like the Goths?” “No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!” “Persecution?” Padway raised his eyebrows. “Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.” “I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.” “That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!” \*–Lest Darkness Fall \* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/223 "2012-03-28T13:43:39Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Last I checked, non-human carbon based life forms were not allowed to enter into any contracts, so specifically denying them a marriage contract is a bit of overkill. So not only are you denying them marriage rights, but also contract rights. That’s double discrimination for the animals. My dog is perfectly capable of contracting with me for a marriage. He just tapped his paw twice, meaning “Yes.” To say that he isn’t shows the same type of outdated bigoted thinking that used to hold that blacks couldn’t enter into contracts. ---
**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, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/224 "2012-03-28T13:45:28Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If I am sterilized, and I want to marry my mother and two sisters, how does that affect your same sex marriage? Why would you be bigoted and deny me that right? > > After all, the prohibition on incest is for genetic reasons (like all marriages produce children, phew). Can a father marry his son on the grounds that there is truly no legitimate state reason for prohibiting the incest now? Doesn’t affect me at all. I honestly don’t believe it is in the interest of the state what any two adults do (or don’t do) in private, so long as no abuse is involved. But as there are far more responsible adults who happen to be romantically attracted to members of their own sex than there are adults seeking consensual incestual relations, I think we need to concentrate on the larger constituancy, and smaller interest groups can do their own lobbying. ---
**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, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/225 "2012-03-28T13:47:06Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Linking to a religous site to bolster an argument that a position is not religion-based is certainly a novel approach. 😛 Except the research has no religious perspective. Is your position that religious websites may only reference religious research? ---
**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, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/226 "2012-03-28T13:52:07Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The term for the argument “I assert position X, and on that basis show that X deserves preference” is spelled “circular”. If I were, indeed, asserting that argument. Unfortunately, that’s not my argument. I was asked about the state’s interest in preserving traditional marriage. I’ve given it. I’ve not explained the efficacy of that argument, only that this is the state’s interest. ---
**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, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/227 "2012-03-28T13:52:23Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > 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. You obviously missed the explanation of “_compelling_ state interest” earlier in the thread. The Cliff’s Notes version: showing the existence of a compelling state interest requires actual _facts_, not just lawmakers’ opinions. Laws that restrict rights require a showing of a compelling state interest, not just a garden-variety state interest. This standard is set for the obvious and compelling reason that there would be **no** rights in any meaningful sense if opinion-based “state interest” were sufficient to curtail them. ---
**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, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/228 "2012-03-28T13:53:04Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So not only are you denying them marriage rights, but also contract rights. That’s double discrimination for the animals. My dog is perfectly capable of contracting with me for a marriage. He just tapped his paw twice, meaning “Yes.” > > To say that he isn’t shows the same type of outdated bigoted thinking that used to hold that blacks couldn’t enter into contracts. Oh. Tu quoque. Very well played. For a minute there I thought you were serious. ---
**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, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/229 "2012-03-28T13:53:38Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > 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. Evidence please. ---
**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, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/230 "2012-03-28T13:54:48Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Stupid and ridiculous. allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself. You didn’t need to label the statement “allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself” – we can tell that it’s stupid and ridiculous all by ourselves. Obviously, the change from “two people of the same race and opposite sexes may marry” to “two people of opposite sexes may marry” is an alteration to the institution itself. ---
**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, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/231 "2012-03-28T13:56:09Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > You obviously missed the explanation of “_compelling_ state interest” earlier in the thread. > > The Cliff’s Notes version: showing the existence of a compelling state interest requires actual _facts_, not just lawmakers’ opinions. Laws that restrict rights require a showing of a compelling state interest, not just a garden-variety state interest. This standard is set for the obvious and compelling reason that there would be **no** rights in any meaningful sense if opinion-based “state interest” were sufficient to curtail them. Really. This is not that tough. The state may NOT have a compelling interest. Everyone agrees with that. But the state has ASSUMED that it does have a compelling interest and has acted accordingly. The questions is… “What is the state’s interest?” I’ve given it. Whether or not it has merit. ---
**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, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/232 "2012-03-28T13:57:16Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > You didn’t need to label the statement “allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself” – we can tell that it’s stupid and ridiculous all by ourselves. > > Obviously, the change from “two people of the same race and opposite sexes may marry” to “two people of opposite sexes may marry” is an alteration to the institution itself. Then you get the point. Good for you. ---
**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, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/233 "2012-03-28T13:58:16Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Evidence please. The quote I gave that you dismissed. ---
**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, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/234 "2012-03-28T13:59:24Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Really. This is not that tough. The state may NOT have a compelling interest. Everyone agrees with that. But the state has ASSUMED that it does have a compelling interest and has acted accordingly. Er, you obviously need to read the explanation again. By definition, a “ **compelling** state interest” is distinguished from a generic “state interest” in that the former cannot rest upon mere assumptions. ---
**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, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/235 "2012-03-28T14:00:19Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > It suffices to conclude that the arguments a DOMA supporter, like the arguments of a murderous paranoid schizophrenic, are based on irrationality. 😃 Of course. One cannot be rational and a doma supporter. ---
**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, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/236 "2012-03-28T14:01:19Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Er, you obviously need to read the explanation again. By definition, a “ **compelling** state interest” is distinguished from a generic “state interest” in that the former cannot rest upon mere assumptions. Goodness sakes! REally? Please try to read my responses more closely. ---
**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, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/237 "2012-03-28T14:05:14Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The quote I gave that you dismissed. Provide the source and link of this. I couldn’t get away with plucking a quote from an unnamed/unattributed source and calling it evidence. Evidence must provide the source and context of the quoted portion. but I’ll note that all your compatriots let it slide. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/238 "2012-03-28T14:07:53Z")
> [@](#): > > To say that he isn’t shows the same type of outdated bigoted thinking that used to hold that blacks couldn’t enter into contracts. How about instead of comparing black people to dogs, we stick to the issue at hand, which is the secular purpose of the Defence of Marriage act. You can bring up the issue of informed consent or any other red herrings, slippery slopes and strawmen in another thread if you wish. In return, I promise not to conflate arguments against same-sex marriage with arguments against racial miscegenation. A brief summary of the law is that same sex marriages enacted by one state are not required to be recognised by another state. Someone brought up that the government has decided that: P1: Heterosexual marriage is the best situation in which to raise children. P2: Homosexuals cannot biologically have children. C1: Heterosexual marriages should be encouraged. While the conclusion just about follows from the premises, it is a red herring because it does not address the specific question of this thread: namely, “what is the secular purpose of DOMA”. Not to mention that premise one is demonstrably wrong and premise two is technically wrong (in the technical sense that “gays can get married, just not to each other har har”). As far as I can tell throughout the thread, there has been no demonstration that discouraging homosexuals from marriage (which may be a side effect of DOMA) will have any effect on children whatsoever, other than making it more difficult for homosexual couples to adopt children. The one semi-coherent objection to repealing DOMA is that it would be unfair on incestuous couples whose marriages are also not recognised in other states. However, it would be a two wrongs fallacy to claim that homosexual marriage should not be permitted because other types of marriage are discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/239 "2012-03-28T14:15:07Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > The state has recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children. Whether a particular marriage produces children is also irrelevant. Whether a particular marriage can still produce children is irrelevant. This whole notion that the government has “recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children,” is so much bullshit it makes my head spin. Look around ferchrissakes. There are millions upon millions of people in this country who were raised by a married man and woman who turned out to be completely fucked up individuals. How is that ideal? If the government is that interested in the ideal environment for children, then they should interview each and every prospective parent to sure they’re not complete idiots first. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible. And besides, if it’s irrelevant whether or not a couple has children - even with the sterling stamp of approval from the government - then what effing difference does it make what the the genders of that couple are? I’m with **Der Trish** on this one. This law is bigotry pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/240 "2012-03-28T14:15:25Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > How about instead of comparing black people to dogs, we stick to the issue at hand, which is the secular purpose of the Defence of Marriage act. You can bring up the issue of informed consent or any other red herrings, slippery slopes and strawmen in another thread if you wish. In return, I promise not to conflate arguments against same-sex marriage with arguments against racial miscegenation. > > A brief summary of the law is that same sex marriages enacted by one state are not required to be recognised by another state. Someone brought up that the government has decided that: > > P1: Heterosexual marriage is the best situation in which to raise children. > P2: Homosexuals cannot biologically have children. > C1: Heterosexual marriages should be encouraged. > > While the conclusion just about follows from the premises, it is a red herring because it does not address the specific question of this thread: namely, “what is the secular purpose of DOMA”. Not to mention that premise one is demonstrably wrong and premise two is technically wrong (in the technical sense that “gays can get married, just not to each other har har”). > > As far as I can tell throughout the thread, there has been no demonstration that discouraging homosexuals from marriage (which may be a side effect of DOMA) will have any effect on children whatsoever, other than making it more difficult for homosexual couples to adopt children. The one semi-coherent objection to repealing DOMA is that it would be unfair on incestuous couples whose marriages are also not recognised in other states. However, it would be a two wrongs fallacy to claim that homosexual marriage should not be permitted because other types of marriage are discriminated against. I don’t disagree, but also fail to see how it is distinguishable from any other arbitrary line that the government draws. For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can never own a gun. So, if I slapped my wife 25 years ago, then no gun for me. If I walked up to a complete stranger on the street 2 weeks ago and punched him for no reason, I can still own a gun and get a carry permit. Or why can’t I buy booze at age 20 yrs. 364 days, but only ONE day later, I can? Is there a compelling state interest in this distinctions? You can always look at the line that is drawn and say that it should be here instead of there. But that will hold true for any line. Unless you want to open marriage, gun ownership, and booze over to absolutely everyone and anyone, some line has to be drawn and there will be an argument as to why persons on that side of the line are being discriminated against. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=13)