# 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:** 3
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/41 "2012-03-28T01:07:39Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Mormons would disagree. And until recently, there were no “working models for homosexual marriages”. > Kinda arbitrary isn’t it? There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage.” There is only marriage. Two adults who enter a contract to support each other, and who are then treated in many legal matters as a single entity. The gender of the participants in any other contract is irrelevant. Why is it such an issue for a marriage contract? ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/42 "2012-03-28T01:07:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Is it bigotry to limit it to two people? Or, in some states, forbidding it to cousins? Maybe, maybe not. The thing the “slippery-slopers” always ignore is that we ought to be evaluating the harm and benefit of each situation based on their individual merits, rather than the fallacious shorthand that says “That thing we’re not used to is bad, therefore this thing that we’re not used to is too.” ---
**Author:** ![StephenG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@StephenG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StephenG)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/43 "2012-03-28T01:09:12Z")
It’s been posted elsewhere here that that changing the definition of a marriage to allow for other than a man and a woman might allow for it to be other than two people. That is, if we allow polygamous unions, laws can become much more complicated, such as divorce laws (does one partner leaving sunder the union(s) of the others?), and the property disbursement and child custody rulings. Disclaimer: I’m not speaking in defense of DOMA, I’m just trying to answer the question in the OP. I can’t recall which thread I’m quoting, but a quick search on “divorce polygamy” shows me relvant posts in these threads: [ul] [li][Rational basis for not recognizing polygamy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=612735)[/li][li][Moral/religious issues aside, what’s illegal about polygamy?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616037)[/li][/ul] It also looks like we’ve done this before (if you want some more reading): [ul] [li][My mom, divorced 3 times, thinks gay marriage will “ruin” marriage.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=614515)[/li][li][What’s behind the “Threat to Traditional Marriage” argument?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=587719)[/li][/ul] ---
**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 28, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/44 "2012-03-28T01:09:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Is it bigotry to limit it to two people? Or, in some states, forbidding it to cousins? Unlike laws against same sex marriage, those two positions have actual arguments for them. Genetics & a general lack of consenting adults in the case of incest, and a combination of the complex new laws required and its common association with the persecution of women in the case of polygamy. Now, one can provide counterarguments in support of allowing incestuous or polygamous marriages, but the point is the people who support laws forbidding them have _actual rational arguments_ to support their positions that need to be addressed. But the laws against same sex marriages are pure bigotry, with no remotely reasonable arguments for why they should exist,. The people who push such laws have been asked to provide such reasons, both here on the SDMB and in court, and have failed miserably. ---
**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, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/45 "2012-03-28T01:09:50Z")
(Have marriages changed in the past twenty-five years? I don’t remember anything in our vows about children, nor in the paperwork we signed for the state.) ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/46 "2012-03-28T01:12:36Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Here was my response: > > "Creating a better environment for bringing up children that are the result of the marriage. Homosexual marriages cannot naturally produce children. " > > I don’t see anything religious in that response. Or Christian (I am not Christian anyway). Or anything about goats… You have not given one iota of evidence on why marriage of natural born children should have additional protections over others. Why should we actively discourage non-reproducing or adoptive families. What is so special about those who can reproduce that the law should allow them to attend to their ill spouse but that it is to the states advantage to deny the ability of a same sex couple. The relationship still happens, the sex still happens. Why limit their ability to combine resources or confer the power of attorney across state lines? ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/47 "2012-03-28T01:15:36Z")
I actually don’t think DOMA is intrinsically a religious-based law, so much as one that most religious folks could easily get behind. Regardless of how religious a person is, there has historically been a discomfort among straights about homosexuality for a variety of reasons — some, but not all of them tied to what their pastor says on Sunday. The idea of interracial marriage used to make people feel weird too (I’m sure it still does for many), but I don’t think we view that marriage restriction as being borne out of religious doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/48 "2012-03-28T01:17:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > "Creating a better environment for bringing up children that are the result of the marriage. Homosexual marriages cannot naturally produce children. " So the purpose is to produce a better environment for children that result form the marriage. And children can not result from a homosexual marriage So the purpose is to create an environment that cannot exist? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/49 "2012-03-28T01:19:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Unlike laws against same sex marriage, those two positions have actual arguments for them. Genetics & a general lack of consenting adults in the case of incest Following the same logic displayed upthread, if the incestual couple is two adults who are proven to be infertile, why is it forbidden? Or what if it is grandmother and granddaughter that get “married”? You can go as micro as you want… ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/50 "2012-03-28T01:21:01Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You have not given one iota of evidence on why marriage of natural born children should have additional protections over others. Because the state needs population to propagate itself. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/51 "2012-03-28T01:21:07Z")
> [@B.Serum](#): > > I actually don’t think DOMA is intrinsically a religious-based law, so much as one that most religious folks could easily get behind. > > Regardless of how religious a person is, there has historically been a discomfort among straights about homosexuality for a variety of reasons — some, but not all of them tied to what their pastor says on Sunday. The idea of interracial marriage used to make people feel weird too (I’m sure it still does for many), but I don’t think we view that marriage restriction as being borne out of religious doctrine. [ > [@](#): > > Gary L. Bauer, who was President Reagan’s domestic affairs adviser and who now heads the Family Research Council in Washington. Same-sex marriage ‘‘would undermine deeply held and broadly accepted ideas of normalcy,’’ Mr. Bauer said. ‘‘We have customs against such things because it has been the consensus of 2,000 years of Western civilization that such arrangements were to be discouraged.’’ ]([http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/05/weekinreview/ideas-trends-small-steps-toward-acceptance-renew-debate-on-gay-marriage.html](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/05/weekinreview/ideas-trends-small-steps-toward-acceptance-renew-debate-on-gay-marriage.html)) That does not fit with the original arguments for the law. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/52 "2012-03-28T01:23:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because the state needs population to propagate itself. And gay couples that are already gay and already living together limits this how? ---
**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, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/53 "2012-03-28T01:26:26Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because the state needs population to propagate itself. Okay. I will join you at the barricades when anyone suggests banning heterosexual marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/54 "2012-03-28T01:26:50Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And gay couples that are already gay and already living together limits this how? They cannot naturally produce children. State’s support for marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual couples to formalize their relationships to, as I said, create a stable environment to bring up children that are the natural result of such a marriage (again, if you start arguing about “what about infertile couples” - micro/macro). Now explain to me in the light of the above why the state should encourage and promote homosexual marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/55 "2012-03-28T01:27:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Following the same logic displayed upthread, if the incestual couple is two adults who are proven to be infertile, why is it forbidden? Or what if it is grandmother and granddaughter that get “married”? Well, do you have an answer to these questions? Since, according to you, the only reason to restrict a marriage is to protect children, and since children can not result from such marriages, then why exactly do you have a problem with them? What is your rational non-religious reason? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/56 "2012-03-28T01:28:58Z")
More cites from the time showing the religious connection [ > [@](#): > > President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions. > > “The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said. > > “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, **religious** and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.” ]([http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-24/politics/elec04.prez.bush.marriage\_1\_single-state-or-city-marriage-rights-marriage-licenses?\_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS](http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-24/politics/elec04.prez.bush.marriage_1_single-state-or-city-marriage-rights-marriage-licenses?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)) Of course Bush would be on the religious side. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/57 "2012-03-28T01:29:45Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Since, according to you, the only reason to restrict a marriage is to protect children, and since children can not result from such marriages, then why exactly do you have a problem with them? 1. If you say “according to you” try to be accurate quoting my opinion. You were not. 2. I don’t. Do you have a problem with incestuous marriages or marriages of more than two people? ---
**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 28, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/58 "2012-03-28T01:31:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > They cannot naturally produce children. State’s support for marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual couples to formalize their relationships to, as I said, create a stable environment to bring up children that are the natural result of such a marriage (again, if you start arguing about “what about infertile couples” - micro/macro). > > Now explain to me in the light of the above why the state should encourage and promote homosexual marriages. :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”. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/59 "2012-03-28T01:34:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > State’s support for marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual couples to formalize their relationships to, as I said, create a stable environment to bring up children that are the natural result of such a marriage (again, if you start arguing about “what about infertile couples” - micro/macro). So infertile straight couples, who make up ~15% of the populace, are allowed to marry because that is a micro consideration. While infertile gay couples who make up ~1% of the population are not allowed to marry because that is a macro consideration. This makes no bloody sense at all. Why is marriage for the largest single infertile coupling demographic permissible, but marriage for the smallest demographic not permissible? > [@](#): > > Now explain to me in the light of the above why the state should encourage and promote homosexual marriages. In the light of the above, explain why the state should encourage and promote heterosexual marriages where the woman is past the age of menopause? If we are seriously about preventing waste of state resources by the marriage of infertile pairings, then wouldn’t it make more sense to start with the biggest segment of that set: infertile heterosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/60 "2012-03-28T01:36:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > They cannot naturally produce children. State’s support for marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual couples to formalize their relationships to, as I said, create a stable environment to bring up children that are the natural result of such a marriage (again, if you start arguing about “what about infertile couples” - micro/macro). > > Now explain to me in the light of the above why the state should encourage and promote homosexual marriages. Because I find it unnecessary to push my beliefs on others through the force of law. Because I see no valid reason to restrict long time lovers from their final moments of life. Because married people tend to be healthier and live longer lives. Because I want retired couples to know that when their spouse dies they are allow to continue living in their home, one that they helped build without forcing them to go through probate. Because I want loved ones to be the ones to make health decisions for those they love, not the state when they can not make them for themselves. Because it hurts them to not be able to commit to one another in a way that is recognized by the rest of society. Because I don’t believe in punishing people for my own beliefs. I could go on, but those should be enough seeing as you have nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=4)