# 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:** 21
**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, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/401 "2012-03-31T03:12:11Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > 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. Sorry. Your Op Ed piece does not actually rise to the status of a genuine scientific study. ---
**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, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/402 "2012-03-31T03:24:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Sorry. Your Op Ed piece does not actually rise to the status of a genuine scientific study. And it would appear the other studies don’t either. So, all things being equal (which I don’t believe) isn’t it best, generally, that children are raised by their biological parents? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/403 "2012-03-31T03:34:30Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > I’m not a dr. but I’m fairly certain that both members of a gay couple can not be the biological parents of a child. [Science is fucking amazing.](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0421_040421_whoneedsmales.html) ---
**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, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/404 "2012-03-31T03:40:56Z")
> [@](#): > > If the “biological parent” bugaboo is such a big deal, why does the state not prohibit adoption? Of course there are exceptions. To change the institution of marriage into something it was never designed to be based on exceptions to the rule is nonsensical. > [@](#): > > 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)? I accounted for that. You missed it or ignored it. To say that one biological parent is as good as two is mathematically impossible. > [@](#): > > 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. I am answering the question given to me: What secular interest does the state have in preserving traditional marriage. That’s why it’s my sole argument. If there’s another question at hand I would be happy to entertain it. Just because this may be the only secular argument doesn’t make it less profound. In fact, given the nature of this argument, it would seem to trump any other argument that might be proposed. Go with your best pitch, so to speak. > [@](#): > > 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; Your assertions, while certainly well-put and adroitly constructed, are just that: assertions. I’ve cited a researcher who is questioning the entire body of “research” that allegedly supports your position for various reasons. > [@](#): > > you insist on counterfactual definitions of actual words. Example?. > [@](#): > > If you wish to persuade others to your position, such deliberate efforts to ignore reality are only going to be counterproductive. I doubt the audiens here is in much of a mood to be persuaded. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m not sure how you can surmise from anything I’ve written here that I would be against this. > [@](#): > > In an ideal world, all children would be raised in a loving environment among their biological parents and sibs. Then we agree. Wonderful. > [@](#): > > 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. No what is loathsome is that you are willing to cast off children so cavalierly in the vain attempt to be socially hip. Still, that’s your prerogative. I see nothing wrong with setting up parameters that allow for the best chance of realizing the most ideal family structures. > [@](#): > > 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. That’s an entirely different argument and discussion. > [@](#): > > Denying that government support by appealing to an “ideal” is both mean-spirited and counterproductive. Is it really your position that this state sponsored support would be denied a child beause he/she is living in a ssr home?Has that ever occured? ---
**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, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/405 "2012-03-31T03:51:17Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > No what is loathsome is that you are willing to cast off children so cavalierly in the vain attempt to be socially hip. Still, that’s your prerogative. I see nothing wrong with setting up parameters that allow for the best chance of realizing the most ideal family structures. I’ll try making this bold. **Gay marriage has been in Canada for fucking years. If gay marriage harms children then you should have ample Canadian scientific evidence to demonstrate it. You do not. You have only shown unsupported, uncited speculation.** ---
**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, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/406 "2012-03-31T03:53:20Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Is it really your position that this state sponsored support would be denied a child beause he/she is living in a ssr home?Has that ever occured? You’re right - for the benefit of children being raised by same-sex couples, we should make sure those couples have access to the various benefits of legal marriage. Incidentally, which is _more_ important, because I’m confused by your shifting stances: -children raised by heterosexual parents -children raised by their biological parents These are not mutually inclusive groups, after all. ---
**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, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/407 "2012-03-31T03:59:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re right - for the benefit of children being raised by same-sex couples, we should make sure those couples have access to the various benefits of legal marriage. > Incidentally, which is _more_ important, because I’m confused by your shifting stances: > > -children raised by heterosexual parents > -children raised by their biological parents > > These are not mutually inclusive groups, after all. Really, that’s not a shifting stance. I mean biological parents. That’s what I’ve always meant and will continue to mean. I apologize for using the terms interchangeably because clearly they are not. ---
**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, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/408 "2012-03-31T04:00:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re right - for the benefit of children being raised by same-sex couples, we should make sure those couples have access to the various benefits of legal marriage. > . such as? ---
**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, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/409 "2012-03-31T04:12:02Z")
In all honesty your argument sounds like you should be required to produce a child _first_ and then apply for a marriage license. If children are the sole reason for the special status granted to marriage, it seems logical that they should be necessary for the State to recognise one. It would certainly be the most equitable means of determining who is allowed to marry and who isn’t. It removes the complaint that childless heterosexual couples are permitted to marry while childless homosexual couples are not. ---
**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, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/410 "2012-03-31T04:16:03Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > such as? I suggest you google “benefits of marriage”. It varies a bit by state, but makes for interesting reading nonetheless. I trust, for example, that [howstuffworks.com](http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm) is not generally considered complicit in the international gay conspiracy. ---
**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, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/411 "2012-03-31T04:19:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I suggest you google “benefits of marriage”. It varies a bit by state, but makes for interesting reading nonetheless. > > I trust, for example, that [howstuffworks.com](http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm) is not generally considered complicit in the international gay conspiracy. I was hoping you would tell me which example(s) you find most egregious. ---
**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, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/412 "2012-03-31T04:22:25Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Really, that’s not a shifting stance. I mean biological parents. That’s what I’ve always meant and will continue to mean. I apologize for using the terms interchangeably because clearly they are not. Well, let’s assume for the duration of this post that “parent” in the generic sense means “person who will take on the duties of financial responsibility to and socialization of a child”. A. Lesbian couple gets one of the spouses pregnant. The resulting child is biologically related to one of the parents and not the other. B. Heterosexual couple adopts a child, who is not biologically related to either parent. Is _A_ better than _B_? Worse? Why? How? ---
**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, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/413 "2012-03-31T04:23:04Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > In all honesty your argument sounds like you should be required to produce a child _first_ and then apply for a marriage license. If children are the sole reason for the special status granted to marriage, it seems logical that they should be necessary for the State to recognise one. > > It would certainly be the most equitable means of determining who is allowed to marry and who isn’t. It removes the complaint that childless heterosexual couples are permitted to marry while childless homosexual couples are not. No, it sounds like the argument is that the state has seen fit to provide an environment to promote traditional marriage so that if a couple chooses to have children that decision will be made within the institution best suited for it. I think even the most strident ssm advocate will agree that your example is pretty rare. ---
**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, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/414 "2012-03-31T04:24:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, let’s assume for the duration of this post that “parent” in the generic sense means “person who will take on the duties of financial responsibility to and socialization of a child”. > > A. Lesbian couple gets one of the spouses pregnant. The resulting child is biologically related to one of the parents and not the other. > > B. Heterosexual couple adopts a child, who is not biologically related to either parent. > > Is _A_ better than _B_? Worse? Why? How? Generally speaking, a child is best with his/her two biological parents. ---
**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, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/415 "2012-03-31T04:26:03Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > I was hoping you would tell me which example(s) you find most egregious. Pick _any_ denied benefit, and my question will be “why do you want to deny it?” I hadn’t thought to sort them by how ridiculously egregious the denial is. ---
**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, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/416 "2012-03-31T04:28:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Pick _any_ denied benefit, and my question will be “why do you want to deny it?” I hadn’t thought to sort them by how ridiculously egregious the denial is. You pick it. It’s your play. ---
**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, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/417 "2012-03-31T04:28:13Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Generally speaking, a child is best with his/her two biological parents. That wasn’t one of the options presented to you, I cannot help but notice. ---
**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, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/418 "2012-03-31T04:29:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That wasn’t one of the options presented to you, I cannot help but notice. Any option other than that what I’ve described is less. ---
**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, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/419 "2012-03-31T04:35:45Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > You pick it. It’s your play. Okay, veteran’s benefits. Why deny the child raised by a homosexual couple financial help because his or her parents (one of whom _fought for your country!_) can’t get legally married? ---
**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, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/420 "2012-03-31T04:37:14Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > No, it sounds like the argument is that the state has seen fit to provide an environment to promote traditional marriage so that if a couple chooses to have children that decision will be made within the institution best suited for it. I think even the most strident ssm advocate will agree that your example is pretty rare. What example, childless heterosexual couples? :dubious: Or did you mean single parents like Biden was for several years? Cause being a single parent is also a situation that would not be described as “pretty rare.” If marriage is about the children, what is the difference in a childfree heterosexual couple and a homosexual one? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=22)