# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/381 "2012-03-30T21:43:25Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > You seem to be stuck on this even though earlier you were pedantic about the definition of ‘produce’ > > There is no documented evidence in the history of mankind that marriage produces children. Not once ever has signing or receiving a marriage certificate impregnated a women. > > Marriages do not create any biologic function that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Oh, please. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/382 "2012-03-30T21:51:03Z")
> [@](#): > > No. It is the foundation. I was being sarcastic. Open mindedness is not the foundation of virtue. I would offer compassion, empathy, things like that are its foundation. I have little use for anyone who, through their open mindedness, can see good as bad and bad as good. > [@](#): > > At any rate, I’d like to get back to this idea that children are best raised by their biological parents. Can you explain that a bit better? I’m wondering how that works, because I just don’t see any way it makes any sense. sure. > [@](#): > > You take two couples, both of them equally loving, engaged, and capable parents, and have them raise a kid. One couple is raising their own genetic child, and the other is raising an adopted child. All else begin equal, what advantage does the first kid have over the second? no advantage. > [@](#): > > Or is your claim that all else _cannot_ be equal, that the adoptive parents are incapable of being as loving, engaged, and capable as the biological parents, due to the simple fact that they don’t share a genetic connection with their child? it is not. > [@](#): > > As a corollary, I’m not entirely clear what this issue has to do with gay marriage in the first place. It has everything to do with it. Society has an interest in promoting the best possible situation for childdren. That is a child lives with, and is raised by, its biological parents. > [@](#): > > Gay couples will be bearing and raising children regardless of their marriage status. There will still be gay couples with kids from a previous hetero relationship, gay couples with kids from surrogate mothers, gay couples with kids from in vitro fertilization, gay couples with adopted kids, and on and on. Of course. And since that is so, why do we need to permanently alter the instution of marriage to accomodate what is already occuring? > [@](#): > > Those couples will have kids regardless of whether or not they can get married. If the purpose of marriage is to help create stable environments for raising children, and gay people are going to be raising kids regardless of their ability to get married, doesn’t preventing gay people from getting married effectively _harm_ children? NOt as a geneeral rule, no. Why should we retreat from promoting, advocating, and creating the best chance for the best environment? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/383 "2012-03-30T22:00:55Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Oh, please. I see when you make similar arguments they are valid and somehow meaningful but when someone else does they should be brushed off without being addressed. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/384 "2012-03-30T22:02:09Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > How, exactly, does it change it? > > John and Jane get married. Later, same-sex marriage becomes legal. How does SSM change John and Jane’s marriage? > > John and Jane have a child, Fred. Fred grows up. Same sex-marriage becomes legal. Fred marries Ethel. How does SSM cause Fred and Ethel’s marriage to differ from John and Jane’s marriage? Fred and Ethel’s marriage is now markedly and permanently changed from Fred’s parent’s marriage. They are no longer married into the same institution, an institution that we have preserved, protected, and made special accomodation for. In your hypothetical, marriage has been reduced to a legal contract among consenting adults (I would assume) where it’s formation is no longer to produce children and raise them by their biological parents within a family unit consisting of a female and male as parents. Doesn’t that child deserve a mother AND a father? Even you will agree that children should be raised by their biological parents whenever possible? This is a universal, common sense declaration that until recently, was never even an issue. That is to be jettisoned for what reason again? Traditional marriages are more desirable for this reason, that a child will be raised with the involvement of both its biological parents. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/385 "2012-03-30T22:04:08Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I see when you make similar arguments they are valid and somehow meaningful but when someone else does they should be brushed off without being addressed. I think anyone can see that his comment doesn’t rise to the level of deserving comment. I would assume that all of us are operating under the idea that we know what makes a child. I had 9th grade health class. I got a D-, but I took the course and, it would seem, that I paid attention on that day. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/386 "2012-03-30T23:11:34Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > I think anyone can see that his comment doesn’t rise to the level of deserving comment. **I would assume that all of us are operating under the idea that we know what makes a child. I had 9th grade health class. I got a D-, but I took the course and, it would seem, that I paid attention on that day.** If you honestly think that marriage=children then I would suggest that you need to go back and retake that class. While glossing over some of the details, sperm+egg=child. As you are certainly aware, there is zero need for marriage, a license, a ceremony, blessings by any party or any sort, or even the physical meeting of the biological parents, for a child to result. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/387 "2012-03-30T23:21:21Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > If you honestly think that marriage=children then I would suggest that you need to go back and retake that class. > > While glossing over some of the details, sperm+egg=child. As you are certainly aware, there is zero need for marriage, a license, a ceremony, blessings by any party or any sort, or even the physical meeting of the biological parents, for a child to result. Brilliant. Like that’s what we’re talking about. Do you have anything germane to add? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/388 "2012-03-30T23:27:16Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Brilliant. Like that’s what we’re talking about. Do you have anything germane to add? If DOMA supporters aren’t pure bigots, then what bad stuff is it preventing? Canada has had gay marriage for since 2005. Please tell me how it’s hurt Canadians. You can’t because it’s made them stronger. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/389 "2012-03-31T00:08:43Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > If DOMA supporters aren’t pure bigots, then what bad stuff is it preventing? Canada has had gay marriage for since 2005. > > Please tell me how it’s hurt Canadians. Look at the climate! God is _obviously_ punishing them. And of course Canada has always been cold; God can see the future so he made it cold to punish them legalizing same sex marriage in the future! ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/390 "2012-03-31T00:27:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Look at the climate! God is _obviously_ punishing them. > > And of course Canada has always been cold; God can see the future so he made it cold to punish them legalizing same sex marriage in the future! And their football. ---
**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 31, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/391 "2012-03-31T01:00:04Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > In your hypothetical, marriage has been reduced to a legal contract among consenting adults (I would assume) where it’s [sic] formation is no longer to produce children and raise them by their biological parents within a family unit consisting of a female and male as parents. As has been repeatedly explained, no such purpose has ever been required, as conclusively proven by the absence of any infertility bar. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/392 "2012-03-31T01:14:19Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Fred and Ethel’s marriage is now markedly and permanently changed from Fred’s parent’s marriage. They are no longer married into the same institution, an institution that we have preserved, protected, and made special accomodation for. In your hypothetical, marriage has been reduced to a legal contract among consenting adults (I would assume) where it’s formation is no longer to produce children and raise them by their biological parents within a family unit consisting of a female and male as parents. > > Doesn’t that child deserve a mother AND a father? Even you will agree that children should be raised by their biological parents whenever possible? This is a universal, common sense declaration that until recently, was never even an issue. That is to be jettisoned for what reason again? Traditional marriages are more desirable for this reason, that a child will be raised with the involvement of both its biological parents. So show me the cites of the actual bad stuff that happened in Canada. You can’t because this nothing but rationalizing bigotry. Show me actual cites that gay couples don’t make good parents. Not your claims, actual documented scientific studies. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/393 "2012-03-31T01:35:41Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > As has been repeatedly explained, no such purpose has ever been required, as conclusively proven by the absence of any infertility bar. Thanks for correcting my typo. Liberal condescension knows no bounds. Or is it nos neaux bounds? Please, educate me. But on to your point. The requirement does not lie in achieving parenthood. The requirement is in promoting, supporting, and creating the best environment to raise children. Sometimes, most times, most times by a lot, the marriage produces issue (wait, forget that, the man and women through reproduction have a baby) and that’s generally good. Most times, most times by a lot, the child is raised by it’s biological parents. That’s generally good. Try as you might, you can not replace a child’s biological parents - a man and woman who are intimately involved with that child’s life. Because of that, traditional marriage deserves to be protected and it deserves to remain unique. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/394 "2012-03-31T01:54:42Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Try as you might, you can not replace a child’s biological parents - a man and woman who are intimately involved with that child’s life. Because of that, traditional marriage deserves to be protected and it deserves to remain unique. Biological parents are replaced daily. How do you account for divorced parents or step-parents? Are children who’s parent is on a second marriage inherently disadvantaged? If so, what should be done about it? It seems like an unwinnable argument you’re setting up for yourself. If children should only be raised in a home consisting of the biological mother and father, what happens when something beyond anyone’s control causes those circumstances to change? You can’t remove the children from the surviving parent and place them in foster care, because you’re already arguing that is just as bad. Yet you can’t just ignore them, since then you’re tacitly admitting that it’s acceptable for a child to be raised in an enviroment that doesn’t consist of the biological mother and father as a unit. To provide an example, what would you have done with Vice President Biden’s sons following the death of his first wife? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/395 "2012-03-31T01:54:44Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Then you’re not paying attention I stand by my assessment, especially in light of any post of yours that admits there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual parenting, but maintains that the former is better. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/396 "2012-03-31T02:04:40Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Thanks for correcting my typo. Liberal condescension knows no bounds. Or is it nos neaux bounds? Please, educate me. > > But on to your point. > > The requirement does not lie in achieving parenthood. The requirement is in promoting, supporting, and creating the best environment to raise children. Sometimes, most times, most times by a lot, the marriage produces issue (wait, forget that, the man and women through reproduction have a baby) and that’s generally good. Most times, most times by a lot, the child is raised by it’s biological parents. That’s generally good. > > Try as you might, you can not replace a child’s biological parents - a man and woman who are intimately involved with that child’s life. Because of that, traditional marriage deserves to be protected and it deserves to remain unique. Again you haven’t cited documented scientific studies showing gay couples are worse parents. You haven’t cited one example of how Canada is worse off with gay marriage. “traditional marriage deserves to be protected and it deserves to remain unique” means nothing. How does a concept deserve anything? Meanwhile you support DOMA is hurting real live gay couples. If we take your assertion that marriages encourages children then real live children are growing up without loving gay families because of DOMA. Instead they grow up in foster care. All you’re doing is hurting people, including by your own argument innocent children, for your own selfish antigay agenda. Your position is hateful and mean spirited. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/397 "2012-03-31T02:30:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I stand by my assessment, especially in light of any post of yours that admits there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual parenting, but maintains that the former is better. Of course there’s a difference and I’ve stated such. Heterosexual parenting is better because it includes both sexes. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/398 "2012-03-31T02:37:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Biological parents are replaced daily. ? > [@](#): > > How do you account for divorced parents or step-parents? I have no idea what this means. > [@](#): > > Are children who’s parent is on a second marriage inherently disadvantaged? The ideal, as I’ve stated several times, is that both biological parents are intimately involved with raising the child. That is quite often the case. I don’t know where your confusion lies. > [@](#): > > If so, what should be done about it? Done about whay? > [@](#): > > It seems like an unwinnable argument you’re setting up for yourself. Really? All I’ve gotten is a bunch of silly hypotheticals and no counter. The best anyone has come up with is that there’s no studies to show that children are better off with their biological parents. Of course, as I’ve shown earlier, the studies that show there’s no difference between bio parents and gay parents are flawed at best, and fraud at worst. > [@](#): > > If children should only be raised in a home consisting of the biological mother and father, what happens when something beyond anyone’s control causes those circumstances to change? Really. Learn to read. Your bias is showing. > [@](#): > > You can’t remove the children from the surviving parent and place them in foster care, because you’re already arguing that is just as bad. Yet you can’t just ignore them, since then you’re tacitly admitting that it’s acceptable for a child to be raised in an enviroment that doesn’t consist of the biological mother and father as a unit. Same as above. > [@](#): > > To provide an example, what would you have done with Vice President Biden’s sons following the death of his first wife? Obviously, they would have stayed with their father. And, good for him, he remarried. So the sons had a female’s presence in the home. That’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/399 "2012-03-31T02:38:14Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Of course there’s a difference and I’ve stated such. Heterosexual parenting is better because it includes both sexes. Again, you you are making an uncited claim. Please show me the the scientific study showing kids from gay headed homes do worse. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/400 "2012-03-31T03:10:29Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > The requirement does not lie in achieving parenthood. The requirement is in promoting, supporting, and creating the best environment to raise children. Sometimes, most times, most times by a lot, the marriage produces issue (wait, forget that, the man and women through reproduction have a baby) and that’s generally good. Most times, most times by a lot, the child is raised by it’s biological parents. That’s generally good. Frankly, you are just making this up from a preconceived notion that has already been rendered nonsense in law and science. If the “biological parent” bugaboo is such a big deal, why does the state not prohibit adoption? Why does it not prohibit divorce in families with minor children? Why does it not prohibit IVF and surrogate pregnancies, (since, in your extremely odd view, the fact that one of the parents did not contribute a gamete results in the couple not being the “biological parents” even though one of them actually is the biological parent)? Basically, your entire, (and sole) argument is that society must be prohibited from changing (on one, single aspect of one legal relationship) simply because that law has historical precedence in a shrinking number of states. You blithely ignore all changes that have already occurred in society and law and science; you dismiss scientific examination of related issues by citing irrelevant works out of context of their actual text; you insist on counterfactual definitions of actual words. If you wish to persuade others to your position, such deliberate efforts to ignore reality are only going to be counterproductive. > [@hoopified](#): > > Try as you might, you can not replace a child’s biological parents - a man and woman who are intimately involved with that child’s life. Because of that, traditional marriage deserves to be protected and it deserves to remain unique. Once, again, you are simply wrong. The courts used to routinely insist that children be kept with their biological parents and too many children’s service agencies and uninformed judges still attempt to insist on that sort of thing. However, there is a growing body of evidence that many children are much better off when removed from homes in which they are being abused or neglected. In an ideal world, all children would be raised in a loving environment among their biological parents and sibs. There is nothing ideal about the real world and imposing silly rules on the off chance that a child might survive a dangerous situation based on an appeal to a non-existent ideal is loathesome. Permitting marriages among same sex couples means that any children issuing from that union, (even when one of the partners is not a gamete donor), and raised in those homes are more likely to benefit from any support that the state may choose to offer to maintain the security of that home. Denying that government support by appealing to an “ideal” is both mean-spirited and counterproductive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=21)