# 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:** 22
**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, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/421 "2012-03-31T04:37:17Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Any option other than that what I’ve described is less. Which is _more_ less, and why? ---
**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, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/422 "2012-03-31T05:10:39Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > I accounted for that. You did not, and (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you) repeating nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical. ---
**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, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/423 "2012-03-31T05:12:09Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > The requirement does not lie in achieving parenthood. Yes it does. Your argument leads inexorably to that conclusion; therefore, you must either accept it or abandon your argument. ---
**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, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/424 "2012-03-31T05:16:34Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Biological parents are replaced daily. > [@hoopified](#): > > ? Yes; when someone raises a point based on erudite concepts, those concepts should be spelled out. Ergo, a partial listing of facts with which you seem to be admitting unfamiliarity: 1. People die. 1a. Surviving spouses remarry. 2. Marriages break up. 2a. Divorcees remarry. ---
**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, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/425 "2012-03-31T05:19:01Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > So, all things being equal (which I don’t believe) isn’t it best, generally, that children are raised by their biological parents? Ghu, grant me the inspiration to figure out how to argue with someone who states that one situation can be both equal to and better than another, 'cuz I got nothing… ---
**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, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/426 "2012-03-31T05:59:56Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > I accounted for that. You missed it or ignored it. To say that one biological parent is as good as two is mathematically impossible. No. You claimed that if one was not a biological parent, then the child was not being raised with the “biological parents.” To claim otherwise is weaseling. > [@hoopified](#): > > 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. Not really. You have evaded answering why permitting same sex marriages in any way affects opposite sex marriages. Adding to the number of people recognized as married does not take away anything from people who marry in the traditional way. You have persistently ducked answering that question. Your argument is based on nothing more than “_we can never change even when everything connected with the situation changes around it_.” Basically, you simply assert that the _status quo_ must be preserved for all time for no better reason than that it is the _status quo_. > [@hoopified](#): > > Example?. Your odd claim that only couples in which both parties provided gamtes could be considered “biological parents.” > [@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. You are the one proposing that we cast off children. You are denying to various children the benefits of the support of law to their families based on an adherence to an ideal that is already unreached by over 40% of the population (based on the number of families already affected by divorce and remarriage, the number of children adopted, and other situations outside your “ideal.”) If children do best in stable families, then removing barriers to recognition in law to same sex couples is the best way to provide that stability for children of same sex couples. > [@hoopified](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. It is not. It is the heart of this discussion with your insistence that marriage is all about raising the children in your non-existent ideal society. Most proponents of same sex marriage recognize that marriage has far more to do with the couple than with any hypothetical children. Marriage can be an extremely important aspect of child rearing, but you have made child rearing the sole point of that act, ignoring the issues of the actual couple, completely. That you would dodge this point with the wholly wrong claim that it is a different discussion casts the rest of your arguments into question as to whether you are even serious in your position. > [@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? It happens every time a family has to give up tax breaks because the parents cannot jointly file as married. It happens every time a child has to wait on medical care because hospitals do not recognize one parent’s rights because the parents cannot be married and one parent is not recognized as a legal guardian. ---
**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, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/427 "2012-03-31T13:36:15Z")
[quote=“tomndebb, post:426, topic:616983”] No. You claimed that if one was not a biological parent, then the child was not being raised with the “biological parents.” To claim otherwise is weaseling. > [@](#): > > Not really. You have evaded answering why permitting same sex marriages in any way affects opposite sex marriages. Adding to the number of people recognized as married does not take away anything from people who marry in the traditional way. You have persistently ducked answering that question. Your argument is based on nothing more than “_we can never change even when everything connected with the situation changes around it_.” Actually, I addressed this question specifically and pointedly. 1) ssm does not effect those currently in traditional marriages; 2) changing the institution of marriage makes it into something else. > [@](#): > > Basically, you simply assert that the _status quo_ must be preserved for all time for no better reason than that it is the _status quo_. Or until a better alternative is created. This is not one of those because it creates something entirely different. > [@](#): > > Your odd claim that only couples in which both parties provided gamtes could be considered “biological parents.” Well, I’m no biologist, but, yeah, that’s my claim. I can’t quite figure out how that’s odd. > [@](#): > > You are the one proposing that we cast off children. I’d love to see that reference. I won’t hold my breath. > [@](#): > > You are denying to various children the benefits of the support of law to their families based on an adherence to an ideal that is already unreached by over 40% of the population (based on the number of families already affected by divorce and remarriage, the number of children adopted, and other situations outside your “ideal.”) So almost 60% do reach it? Be that as it may… what benefits? > [@](#): > > If children do best in stable families, That’s not my position. Children do best with their biological parents, the best expression of that being within a stable family unit. > [@](#): > > then removing barriers to recognition in law to same sex couples is the best way to provide that stability for children of same sex couples. Why do ss couples need marriage to create a stable environment for children? > [@](#): > > It is not. It is the heart of this discussion with your insistence that marriage is all about raising the children in your non-existent ideal society. From a secular perspective, yes. > [@](#): > > Most proponents of same sex marriage recognize that marriage has far more to do with the couple than with any hypothetical children Exactly. Then why is ssm necessary? > [@](#): > > Marriage can be an extremely important aspect of child rearing, but you have made child rearing the sole point of that act, ignoring the issues of the actual couple, completely. IN this instance, yes I have. Why is that bad? > [@](#): > > That you would dodge this point with the wholly wrong claim that it is a different discussion casts the rest of your arguments into question as to whether you are even serious in your position. No dodging here. Just trying to stay on point. > [@](#): > > It happens every time a family has to give up tax breaks because the parents cannot jointly file as married . Assuming this is true, what is the result? Are gay couples poorer than hetero couples? > [@](#): > > It happens every time a child has to wait on medical care because hospitals do not recognize one parent’s rights because the parents cannot be married and one parent is not recognized as a legal guardian. Explain how this plays out. I’m not gay and I don’t have gay children so I don’t know the mechanics of this. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/428 "2012-03-31T15:28:34Z")
[quote=“hoopified, post:427, topic:616983”] > [@tomndebb](#): > (] replaced with html charactor code to deal with the VB code parser’s confusion) Try the preview function first to see if you’re mangling someone’s quote. ---
**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, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/429 "2012-03-31T15:41:16Z")
:smack: Gaudere’s Law applies to VB code as well. ---
**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, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/430 "2012-03-31T16:07:02Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Explain how this plays out. I’m not gay and I don’t have gay children so I don’t know the mechanics of this. They can’t visit the child undergoing treatment, even if they are the primary caretaker. They are often unable to speak with the doctor to even discuss what treatment options are available. It sometimes plays out as if a complete stranger had found someone bleeding in the street and dropped them off at the emergency room. [Here’s an article with a few examples both with and without children you can read.](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-couples/) ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/431 "2012-03-31T17:52:47Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Or until a better alternative is created. This is not one of those because it creates something entirely different. Er, by now you should have noticed that posting logical contradictions (e.g. a better alternative would be acceptable, but something different from the status quo would not be acceptable) will not make you opponents shoot off sparks and collapse like a hostile computer being subjected to the James T. Kirk Shutdown Procedure. It will, instead, result in your arguments (but not you personally, as we have basic rules of courtesy) being subjected to merciless mockery. > [@hoopified](#): > > I’m not gay and I don’t have gay children so I don’t know the mechanics of this. Admitting that you’re ignorant of anything you haven’t personally experienced is a disqualification from having an opinion that anyone else is bound to respect. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/432 "2012-03-31T18:10:53Z")
Well, hoopified won’t answer my questions, let’s see how well he answers tom’s. > [@hoopified](#): > > Actually, I addressed this question specifically and pointedly. 1) ssm does not effect those currently in traditional marriages; 2) changing the institution of marriage makes it into something else. And can you quantify this “else”? What effects will an American hetero couple married in 2015 (presumably after more states have legalized SSM) experience that an American hetero couple married in 1985 would not? > [@](#): > > Or until a better alternative is created. This is not one of those because it creates something entirely different. _Entirely_ different, you say? How? How are Canadian marriages sealed today different from those sealed in 2000? How are marriages sealed in Vermont or Connecticut today different from those sealed in 2000? If it’s _entirely_ different, it should be _significantly_ different and _demonstrably_ different, no? > [@](#): > > That’s not my position. Children do best with their biological parents, the best expression of that being within a stable family unit. What is more important, if either - stability or biology? And that’s generously assuming your axiom about where children do best is true. In fact, by your claim, a child is better off with a lesbian couple (one of whom is the child’s biological mother) than with a hetero adoptive couple (neither of whom has a biological relationship to the child), no? > [@](#): > > Why do ss couples need marriage to create a stable environment for children? It is a useful legal status that carries numerous benefits that other citizens already enjoy. What purpose is served by denying it to them? I’m frankly baffled by this resistance. Citizens of your country want to exercise a privilege that other citizens already enjoy, and it won’t cost you anything to let them (if it did and you could demonstrate such, that could be your secular reason), so why oppose it? ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/433 "2012-03-31T18:29:45Z")
[quote=“Steve\_MB, post:431, topic:616983”] > [@](#): > > Er, by now you should have noticed that posting logical contradictions (e.g. a better alternative would be acceptable, but something different from the status quo would not be acceptable) will not make you opponents shoot off sparks and collapse like a hostile computer being subjected to the James T. Kirk Shutdown Procedure. It will, instead, result in your arguments (but not you personally, as we have basic rules of courtesy) being subjected to merciless mockery. That’s all liberals have is mockery. But that’s ok. I knew that going in. Nonetheless… what’s your point? > [@](#): > > Admitting that you’re ignorant of anything you haven’t personally experienced is a disqualification from having an opinion that anyone else is bound to respect. See, that’s the problem here. Just because someone does or does not have experience in this arena does not make their arguments worthy of respect. It’s the efficacy of the arguments that demands respect. You don’t thinkmuch of mine. That’s fine. I don’t think much of the counter arguments here either. Wait… one hasn’t been presented yet. Never mind. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/434 "2012-03-31T18:39:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, hoopified won’t answer my questions, let’s see how well he answers tom’s. > > And can you quantify this “else”? What effects will an American hetero couple married in 2015 (presumably after more states have legalized SSM) experience that an American hetero couple married in 1985 would not? Sure. Marriage is no longer between a man and woman. It becomes between consenting adults - number indeterminate. > [@](#): > > _Entirely_ different, you say? How? How are Canadian marriages sealed today different from those sealed in 2000? How are marriages sealed in Vermont or Connecticut today different from those sealed in 2000? If it’s _entirely_ different, it should be _significantly_ different and _demonstrably_ different, no? See above. > [@](#): > > What is more important, if either - stability or biology? And that’s generously assuming your axiom about where children do best is true. > > In fact, by your claim, a child is better off with a lesbian couple (one of whom is the child’s biological mother) than with a hetero adoptive couple (neither of whom has a biological relationship to the child), no? We’re not grading on a scale here. Anything other thanboth biological parents is less. > [@](#): > > It is a useful legal status that carries numerous benefits that other citizens already enjoy. What purpose is served by denying it to them? On the one hand, there is the claim that ssc are already stable, capable, and motivated to provide homes for children, on the other it can’t be done without government interference.Decide which it is? > [@](#): > > I’m frankly baffled by this resistance. Go ahead and be baffled. > [@](#): > > Citizens of your country want to exercise a privilege that other citizens already enjoy Anyone is free to enter into the insitution of marriage ust like the rest of us. > [@](#): > > and it won’t cost you anything to let them (if it did and you could demonstrate such, that could be your secular reason), so why oppose it? It’s not about cost. I havae given you a secular reason. Because it permanently changes the institution of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/435 "2012-03-31T18:44:45Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > It’s not about cost. I havae given you a secular reason. Because it permanently changes the institution of marriage. That’s not a reason, that’s a description. Did interracial marriages permanently change the institution of marriage? Did the banning of polygamy? Why is this change worse? Specifically, please. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/436 "2012-03-31T18:50:31Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Sure. Marriage is no longer between a man and woman. It becomes between consenting adults - number indeterminate. Show me the polygamy in Canada. Oh wait there is none. ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/437 "2012-03-31T18:59:58Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s not a reason, that’s a description. > > Did interracial marriages permanently change the institution of marriage? Did the banning of polygamy? > > Why is this change worse? Specifically, please. That’s a false comparison. The constitution mentions nothing about sexual orientation. The Loving case remedied a terrible wrong so that anyone can enter into marriage with anyone they wish. Gay people have exactly the same marriage options as anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/438 "2012-03-31T19:04:07Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > That’s a false comparison. The constitution mentions nothing about sexual orientation. It says nothing about interracial marriages or polygamy either. The only reason this comparison rings false to you is that you agree with the other changes. > [@](#): > > The Loving case remedied a terrible wrong so that anyone can enter into marriage with anyone they wish. Gay people have exactly the same marriage options as anyone else. That’s just stupid. You know deep down that that argument is just cheap nonsense, don’t you? A hetero person can marry someone of age that they are sexually attracted to. A gay person doesn’t have that right, and the very idea that you’d use that puerile argument shows that you either haven’t thought hard about this issue or have no intention of debating in good faith. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/439 "2012-03-31T19:16:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It says nothing about interracial marriages or polygamy either. The only reason this comparison rings false to you is that you agree with the other changes. > > That’s just stupid. You know deep down that that argument is just cheap nonsense, don’t you? > > A hetero person can marry someone of age that they are sexually attracted to. A gay person doesn’t have that right, and the very idea that you’d use that puerile argument shows that you either haven’t thought hard about this issue or have no intention of debating in good faith. It goes to specifically the discredited idea that Prop 8 (and other similar measures) are denying anybody anything. It clearly does not. Second, the constitution speak to what the Loving case remedied. The constitution never mentions, nor hints at, protections for sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/440 "2012-03-31T19:25:24Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > It goes to specifically the discredited idea that Prop 8 (and other similar measures) are denying anybody anything. It clearly does not. Of course it does, it denies them the right to marry. You are pretending that they have the right because they can marry an opposite-sex person, but that’s moronic on its face. Assuming you are a man, would you consider yourself as having the right to marry if you could only marry men? > [@](#): > > Second, the constitution speak to what the Loving case remedied. The constitution never mentions, nor hints at, protections for sexual orientation. The constitution says nothing of interracial marriages. It also says nothing about banning polygamy. So you’re just clearly wrong there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=23)