Are there any relevant secular reasons to support gay marriage?

[Severian]

I notice that the thread "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?" as has been reopened but we are forbidden from discussing some arguments because they are "shifting the question" or "beyond the scope of the debate".

 

So, I wanted to ask another question: Are there any relevant secular reasons to support gay marriage?

 

In other words, how would instituting gay marriage benefit our society? How would instituting gay marriage benefit me? Why should I support gay marriage?

 

It seems to me, there needs to be a good reason for changing a law, and presenting that good reason should come before any opposition to change.

[JillSwift]

Equal treatment under the law.

Increased number of couples able to foster and adopt.

Real estate purchases. Married couples are more likely to purchase property, and their combined credit makes it easier to get a loan, plus married couples are considered more stable and more likely to live up to the responsibility of the mortgage.

[Severian]

Equal treatment under the law.

 

Why is equality a good thing in this case? It is quite clear that our society does not treat everyone equally and that is a good thing (since we are not all the same). Why would it be a benefit to our society to treat gay marriage and heterosexual marriage equally?

 

Increased number of couples able to foster and adopt.

 

If you want to increase the number of couples adopting, you should change adoption law, not marriage law. Adoption laws are not under discussion here.

 

Real estate purchases. Married couples are more likely to purchase property, and their combined credit makes it easier to get a loan, plus married couples are considered more stable and more likely to live up to the responsibility of the mortgage.

 

Not true. Couples who have made long term commitments to one another outside of marriage are just as financially viable. If the banks are discriminating, then that is a matter for financial regulators (though I don't believe this is true since it doesn't make business sense). If "married couples are considered more stable and more likely to live up to the responsibility of the mortgage" then you need to tackle the perceptions of marriage in society, not redefine it.

 

I reject all these points as not relevant (unless you can prove the first one).

[padren]

I notice that the thread "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?" as has been reopened but we are forbidden from discussing some arguments because they are "shifting the question" or "beyond the scope of the debate".

 

So, I wanted to ask another question: Are there any relevant secular reasons to support gay marriage?

 

In other words, how would instituting gay marriage benefit our society? How would instituting gay marriage benefit me? Why should I support gay marriage?

 

It seems to me, there needs to be a good reason for changing a law, and presenting that good reason should come before any opposition to change.

 

Same reason we would let someone paint their house blue - they want to, it doesn't harm anyone else, and if you contribute to an open and tolerant society it will foster the very qualities where you won't have to justify why you should get to paint your house the color you want to by qualifying how it will benefit everyone else.*

 

 

Edit: *before any "you can't paint your house like a giant scary clown in some neighborhoods" arguments come up - yes, there are restrictions in the sense of "doesn't do anyone else harm" caveat and arguments of lowering property values are subjective but reasonable. But gay marriage is far more like painting a house isolated in the woods than a condo complex. Just mentioning to head off that potential.

[Severian]

Same reason we would let someone paint their house blue - they want to, it doesn't harm anyone else, and if you contribute to an open and tolerant society it will foster the very qualities where you won't have to justify why you should get to paint your house the color you want to by qualifying how it will benefit everyone else.

 

That's a slippery slope argument. Basically you are saying (or implying) that if we restrict people's abilities to do whatever the hell they want, then we will end up with a totalitarian regime where we are not allowed any freedoms whatsoever.

 

My edit for your edit:

 

But gay marriage is far more like painting a house isolated in the woods than a condo complex.

 

Except that they are asking me to pay for part of the cost of painting their house blue.

[padren]

That's a slippery slope argument. Basically you are saying (or implying) that if we restrict people's abilities to do whatever the hell they want, then we will end up with a totalitarian regime where we are not allowed any freedoms whatsoever.

...no, I am saying there is genuine advantage to promoting a society that recognizes personal freedoms of others because you benefit from having your personal freedoms judged not by whether they make sense to someone else, but by whether they make sense to you.

 

Please also note the caveat "without hurting anyone" which puts "whatever the hell they want" into very different context.

 

Since you seem to take things to the most extreme examples let me point out that "without harming" is also within reason. We do require wheelchair accessibility in certain buildings etc which harms the bottom line of the builders but it's a very minor inconvenience compared to the inconvenience on those that need them.

Except that they are asking me to pay for part of the cost of painting their house blue.

 

Seems fair to me actually - they've been paying for part of the cost of painting our houses since the state got involved in the institution of marriage.

[Pangloss]

Woot! I'm not sure I read that first paragraph right (it's early!), but that sounded like a "golden rule" argument! We haven't had one of those in a while.

 

There are actually some relatively logical counter-arguments to the ethical principle of reciprocity. The most obvious one is that not everyone obeys the rule, which gives non-obeyers a distinct advantage. They might suffer the consequences, but then again they might not. Another argument is that since not everyone has the same values, they can't all be assumed to obey the rule in the same manner, even if they accept its in principle.

 

But I may be straying outside of our scope, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Severian]

...no, I am saying there is genuine advantage to promoting a society that recognizes personal freedoms of others because you benefit from having your personal freedoms judged not by whether they make sense to someone else, but by whether they make sense to you.

 

I happen to agree with you that I prefer a society which recognises as many personal freedoms as possible, but that is just an opinion. Can you demonstrate to me that it leads to a "better" society?

 

Even more significantly, once we have recognised that we do (and must!) restrict personal freedoms in some ways, can you demonstrate to me that recognising this personal freedom makes society better in a measurable way?

 

Taking this further, gay couples can do everything that heterosexual couples do (in terms of rights) so isn't it restricting my personal freedoms to insist that I recognise their relationship as a marriage?

 

Seems fair to me actually - they've been paying for part of the cost of painting our houses since the state got involved in the institution of marriage.

 

Again, I agree that they shouldn't be paying for our (metaphorical) house painting either. But that is not an argument for reciprocating. Look at it from the point of view of a single person - why should they have to pay more taxes to support a gay relationship?

[padren]

Woot! I'm not sure I read that first paragraph right (it's early!), but that sounded like a "golden rule" argument! We haven't had one of those in a while.

 

There are actually some relatively logical counter-arguments to the ethical principle of reciprocity. The most obvious one is that not everyone obeys the rule, which gives non-obeyers a distinct advantage. They might suffer the consequences, but then again they might not. Another argument is that since not everyone has the same values, they can't all be assumed to obey the rule in the same manner, even if they accept its in principle.

 

But I may be straying outside of our scope, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

Actually, you are largely reading that right, if you mean that an individual benefits from treating others as they would like to be treated and not a simple moral imperative. To use an example, there is generally an unspoken understanding if you see someone stealing from your neighbor, you'll call the police - you'll look out for each other.

That runs the risk that someone may benefit by not participating, and decide that if the cops just scare the robbers away, they may still be left "wanting" and target your house next. However, the fallout of that action will erode the trust in that understanding, and people may very well become more concerned with their own security over that of their neighbors, lessening the overall benefit to the abuser.

 

We have people who abuse all manner of social contracts from welfare to tax fraud to all manner conceivable variations - yet we still consider the benefits greater overall and I think the evidence supports that in the success of social efforts from tax supported infrastructure to thoughtful neighbors.

[JillSwift]

Why is equality a good thing in this case? It is quite clear that our society does not treat everyone equally and that is a good thing (since we are not all the same). Why would it be a benefit to our society to treat gay marriage and heterosexual marriage equally?

Equality under the law is not a matter of assuming everyone is equal. It is a matter of preventing the law from becoming a disadvantage to some of the people living under it.

 

This is in recognition of the fact not everyone is actually equal. Government gives the same privileges and the same restrictions to all, and people then go on to function as well as they are able.

 

If you want to increase the number of couples adopting, you should change adoption law, not marriage law. Adoption laws are not under discussion here.

As adoption laws aren't in question here, why did you bring them up? Marriage is a social contract used as a bona-fide of a stable, committed relationship. This is an important factor in fostering and adoption decisions on the psychological level, not just the legal.

 

Not true. Couples who have made long term commitments to one another outside of marriage are just as financially viable. If the banks are discriminating, then that is a matter for financial regulators (though I don't believe this is true since it doesn't make business sense). If "married couples are considered more stable and more likely to live up to the responsibility of the mortgage" then you need to tackle the perceptions of marriage in society, not redefine it.

I am tackling the perceptions of marriage in society. That's the subject here.

[Severian]

Equality under the law is not a matter of assuming everyone is equal. It is a matter of preventing the law from becoming a disadvantage to some of the people living under it.

 

So how are gay couples disadvantaged by not having gay marriage?

 

As adoption laws aren't in question here, why did you bring them up?

 

You said: "Increased number of couples able to foster and adopt," which I perhaps foolishly interpreted as saying that gay marriage increased the number of 'couples able to foster and adopt'. If this is not a legality issue, do you think that couples who are not married are unable to foster and adopt in principle? When you say "on the psychological level", whose psychology are you referring to?

 

I am tackling the perceptions of marriage in society. That's the subject here.

 

No it isn't. The subject is, "Are there any relevant secular reasons to support gay marriage?"

[JillSwift]

So how are gay couples disadvantaged by not having gay marriage?

By having another class of people given a privilege they do not get.

 

You said: "Increased number of couples able to foster and adopt," which I perhaps foolishly interpreted as saying that gay marriage increased the number of 'couples able to foster and adopt'. If this is not a legality issue, do you think that couples who are not married are unable to foster and adopt in principle?

I said it offered a bona-fide. That's all.

 

When you say "on the psychological level", whose psychology are you referring to?

Human.

[padren]

I happen to agree with you that I prefer a society which recognises as many personal freedoms as possible, but that is just an opinion. Can you demonstrate to me that it leads to a "better" society?

 

Even more significantly, once we have recognised that we do (and must!) restrict personal freedoms in some ways, can you demonstrate to me that recognising this personal freedom makes society better in a measurable way?

Does the degree of individual happiness in most societies seem to follow the trend of respecting personal freedoms? If you measure the degree of hardship across the entirety of any society, this trend seems to repeat constantly.

 

The evidence may not be infallible as it is nearly impossible to prove causation over correlation in anything on the scale of whole societies but the trends seem pretty consistent.

Taking this further, gay couples can do everything that heterosexual couples do (in terms of rights) so isn't it restricting my personal freedoms to insist that I recognise their relationship as a marriage?

 

That's actually rather simple. Citizens can, through their elected representatives challenge the laws that exist. They can assert that the law restricts them or someone in some arbitrary manner and petition to have that law revised. We often find archaic laws on the books. (Allegedly it's illegal "If you're a single, divorced, or widowed woman, you can't parachute on Sunday afternoons. " in Florida, and while I found a number of references to that online I cannot claim it's verified - but lets use it as an example.)

 

Should people find this law unwarrantably restrictive, they can petition to have it changed. They would have to make the case that it is arbitrary or prejudicial, and that in fact no harm would be done by repealing it, and the law can be changed.

 

While there is no law stating any such petition must be granted, it is the primary means of relief to change such restrictive laws. It may be subjective on the part of the legislators, but the spirit of the law requires them to do so in good faith.

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Change-a-Law-Through-the-Democratic-Process

 

That said, the same "gold rule" (as Pangloss put it) applies that it is in our own interest that laws that inhibit the freedoms of others (that do not safeguard unreasonable risk or harm) - even if it doesn't apply to us - because it fosters the sort of society open and receptive to our own needs to change laws when it does matter to us.

 

After all, someday you may want to take your daughter skydiving on a Sunday afternoon in Florida.

 

Again, I agree that they shouldn't be paying for our (metaphorical) house painting either. But that is not an argument for reciprocating. Look at it from the point of view of a single person - why should they have to pay more taxes to support a gay relationship?

 

The issue of whether marriage benefits are fair to single people is irrelevant, and we are starting to mix topics. On the one hand - we are taking about the 'title' of marriage and even use the argument "if they have all the same rights, why do they need the title?" and on the other hand "how does affording those benefits help single people?"

 

In the same sense, if those benefits exist to benefit society as a whole they should do so - single people and all - whether the couple is gay or straight.

 

If those benefits do not benefit society as a whole and unfairly extort single individuals (a topic for a different thread) then that is a whole different matter. I am going on the assumption that those benefits do benefit society as a whole - even though I am not versed in the logic supporting it. Perhaps it's a safety net for people who may end up no longer single - I have no idea.

I think that issue is entirely offside though, as we are not talking about the merits of those benefits in general or if there are any relevant secular reasons to support marriage benefits generally.

[Severian]

By having another class of people given a privilege they do not get.

 

What privilege? Calling a relationship 'marriage' is not a privilege - it is a definition, a label. Am I being discriminated against by not being allowed to label myself as English (rather than Scottish) even though it makes no difference to my actual rights?

 

I said it offered a bona-fide. That's all.

A bone-fide in those view? Your own? Would you think more highly of a gay couple because they were 'married'?

 

Human.

That is not what I meant. You said that the labelling is "an important factor in fostering and adoption decisions on the psychological level". I was asking did you mean to imply that the there was some issue with the psychological development of the child, or that it was a psychological factor in the mind of the person making the decision?

 

Does the degree of individual happiness in most societies seem to follow the trend of respecting personal freedoms? If you measure the degree of hardship across the entirety of any society, this trend seems to repeat constantly.

 

Far enough. But you have not demonstrated that a society that recognises gay marriage is more free.

 

This is a completely different situation and not relevant at all. The examples you gave are of laws which prevent people from particular actions. Keeping marriage heterosexual by definition does not restrict the freedoms (to act) of gay people in any way. It is only a labelling distinction.

 

The issue of whether marriage benefits are fair to single people is irrelevant, and we are starting to mix topics.

Ha! If you are going to claim that the gay marriage benefits society as a whole, it is not legitimate to claim that single people are 'irrelevant'.

 

In the same sense, if those benefits exist to benefit society as a whole they should do so - single people and all - whether the couple is gay or straight.

For the record, I don't think they do benefit society as a whole. But even if 'marriage' in the traditional sense did, then you would need to show that the various inherent mechanisms for providing this mechanism arose from 'marriage' (rather than just cohabitation) and were also applicable to gay couples. I would be interested to hear your argument why this is the case.

[JillSwift]

What privilege? Calling a relationship 'marriage' is not a privilege - it is a definition, a label. Am I being discriminated against by not being allowed to label myself as English (rather than Scottish) even though it makes no difference to my actual rights?

The privileges of spousal medical consent, spousal testimony protection, spousal privacy, exemption form promiscuity laws, etc.

 

A bone-fide in those view? Your own? Would you think more highly of a gay couple because they were 'married'?

It's currently a bone-fide currently, in the case of adoption and foster procedure. Its significance is only that the couple has committed, and that suggests stability.

 

That is not what I meant. You said that the labelling is "an important factor in fostering and adoption decisions on the psychological level". I was asking did you mean to imply that the there was some issue with the psychological development of the child, or that it was a psychological factor in the mind of the person making the decision?

As I said above - it suggests stability. As a psychological factor for the rearing of the child, stability of the family unit is considered important.

[Sisyphus]

This argument seems to be more about the state recognition of marriage in general. Would it make sense to assume for the purposes of this discussion that it is beneficial, inasmuch as it is specifically about who to recognize and not whether to recognize?

 

(Personally, I'm leaning towards the state getting out of the marriage business entirely, but I consider that a separate issue.)

[Severian]

The privileges of spousal medical consent, spousal testimony protection, spousal privacy, exemption form promiscuity laws, etc.

 

Why can't these rights be granted to civil unions?

 

It's currently a bone-fide currently, in the case of adoption and foster procedure. Its significance is only that the couple has committed, and that suggests stability.

 

Then this is an issue for adoption, not marriage. It also discriminates again stable heterosexual relationships where the couple is not married.

[JillSwift]

Why can't these rights be granted to civil unions?

What is a marriage if not a civil union? (Speaking secularly)

Why rebuild a whole set of laws when you can just make the current set inclusive?

 

Then this is an issue for adoption, not marriage. It also discriminates again stable heterosexual relationships where the couple is not married.

The question isn't about adoption, it's about marriage. That marriage is used in the manner it is in adoption and foster procedure is how it is, and makes for a reason to make marriage more inclusive. That adoption procedure discriminates against unmarried but committed couples is a separate argument.

[padren]

Far enough. But you have not demonstrated that a society that recognises gay marriage is more free.

More people within that society are free to choose more options - specifically gay people are allowed to partake in marriage. How is that not demonstrated as being more free?

This is a completely different situation and not relevant at all. The examples you gave are of laws which prevent people from particular actions. Keeping marriage heterosexual by definition does not restrict the freedoms (to act) of gay people in any way. It is only a labelling distinction.

It at the very least, prevents them from getting a marriage certificate - even if no benefits were involved. Therefore, that is a restriction on their freedoms. Is that not pretty much evident?

Ha! If you are going to claim that the gay marriage benefits society as a whole, it is not legitimate to claim that single people are 'irrelevant'.

You are mixing terms up - you claimed marriage, including heterosexual marriage incurs costs (ie, legal benefits) to single people that are not benefiting from those costs directly. My point is that we are not discussing whether or not those legal benefits (that incur cost, aside from spousal rights) in general pertaining to all marriages genuinely contribute to single individuals. That is an irrelevant debate. My claim that gay marriage "benefits society" should not be confused with single individuals benefiting from general "marriage benefits." The reasons society does benefit from allowing gay couples the freedom to marry is wholly separate and already described above.

For the record, I don't think they do benefit society as a whole. But even if 'marriage' in the traditional sense did, then you would need to show that the various inherent mechanisms for providing this mechanism arose from 'marriage' (rather than just cohabitation) and were also applicable to gay couples. I would be interested to hear your argument why this is the case.

 

If you believe the burden is on me to demonstrate that gay marriage, being nearly identical to heterosexual marriage defacto provides the same social benefits then would you not argue the same burden would have been required to appeal the laws preventing interracial marriage?

 

If you do believe that to be the case, then do you (a) disagree with interracial marriage, or (b) are aware of some treasure chest of data that demonstrates unilaterally that interracial marriages offer the same benefits to society as a whole?

Since the variances in gay marriage from heterosexual marriages appear to be so few, and at the same time heterosexual marriage variances (span of race, age, nationality, denomination) and come in so many types (mail order brides, vegas shotgun weddings, traditional church weddings) I think it is reasonable to presume the differences in any probable benefits would be equally if not more moot.

 

 

 

By the way - where are we on our points of agreement at this point?

 

Do you agree with the arguments I made regarding archaic laws, the general processes of relief people pursue to change them, and that by setting a standard of "How much does it negatively impact the petitioner to deny, how much does it negatively impact society to accept" scale of weighing the merits, so as to promote a society freely allows you relief if and when you need it?

 

If you find those arguments reasonable, I think that in itself makes the case for a relevant secular reason to support gay marriage.

 

It means a whole lot to them, and doesn't impact us any more than any other marriage would financially. Likewise, in terms of fairness they are also subsidizing heterosexual marriages so to completely lump both the single and coupled gay community into a "barred from access to those benefits" category seems especially egregious. Since they equally pay taxes I don't think the financial factor can be held as a cost of allowing it.

Therefore, short of that factor, we have a situation where the law restricts them in a manner that is exceptionally stressful (to some, marriage is very important to their lives) and not a single "harm" is being used to block their petitions.

 

Is it not rational to support their petitions, since it pertains to the mechanism we all use to alleviate such grievances with the letter of the law? If we do not oppose the arbitrary rejection of their petitions, what can our expectations be of how that mechanism will service us when we need it?

[iNow]

Taking this further, gay couples can do everything that heterosexual couples do (in terms of rights)

This is false. As recently provided by Moo, can't get a green card if you're a gay couple, but you can if you're a hetero couple. That is but one of several counter examples to your assertion.

 

 

 

So how are gay couples disadvantaged by not having gay marriage?

Here in the US, they are disadvantaged in at least 1,138 ways.

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/2004GAO.pdf?docID=1161

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As per the question in the OP, an answer (at least for those of us in the US) is that our Constitution requires that all laws have a relevant secular purpose, and that laws must apply equally to all citizens unless there are relevant reasons for their differential application (example, felons not allowed to carry guns... there is a relevant secular reason for this differential granting of rights/privileges).

 

Since that is given, and since marriage is allowed to heterosexual couples, it must also be allowed to homosexual couples unless some measurable harm can be demonstrated... measurable harm resulting from allowing them to marry (or unless relevant secular reasons for the differential application of benefits and privileges/differential application of laws are provided).

 

Since there is no measurable harm to others by allowing gay marriage, and since zero arguments have been put forth to disallow it (arguments which are themselves relevant and secular), then it must itself be allowed (NOTE: I am open to correction on this point, and if someone has an example of measurable harm or a relevant secular reason to disallow equal protections, then please share it).

 

 

Equality is the answer to your question. We must strive for equal treatments and protections under the law for ALL citizens, and we must have valid reasons if there is differential application of those laws or differential conferment of benefits under them.

 

It's not about all people being equal. It's about all people being given equal protections and equal applications of the law.

Edited September 22, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

Why is equality a good thing in this case?

 

To reiterate my point from the other thread, in almost all cases resulting from physical causes (e.g. disabilities, race, gender, sexual orientation) America has sought equal rights.

 

It falls under the auspices of what Americans at least call "civil rights".

Edited September 22, 2009 by bascule

[Mr Skeptic]

In support of gays having the same rights, a Constitutional requirement for equal treatment, a lower incidence of STDs in the GLBT community (and to a lesser degree the general population) due to having less sexual partners, greater psychological health due to a more stable relationship. But none of these are reasons to specifically call it "marriage" as opposed to any other word.

[Severian]

This is false. As recently provided by Moo, can't get a green card if you're a gay couple, but you can if you're a hetero couple. That is but one of several counter examples to your assertion.

 

Would you be happy with civil unions if they really did offer the same rights? (I must admit, I thought they did in the US, probably because they do in my country.)

[iNow]

Would you be happy with civil unions if they really did offer the same rights? (I must admit, I thought they did in the US, probably because they do in my country.)

 

It would certainly be a step in the right direction, and I would welcome the fact that homosexual citizens had the same rights/opportunities as heterosexual citizens. However, I must say, I have yet to see any good reasons to name them differently. It's a marriage, since a marriage describes the nature of the relationship, and is in no way contingent upon the genitalia or child-rearing capacities of the participants.

 

So, in sum, I'd continue to argue in favor of it being a marriage (since it is in my mind), but I would simultaneously welcome the move you suggest, as it clearly would assist in closing the equality gap which presently exists.

[Mr Skeptic]

However, I must say, I have yet to see any good reasons to name them differently.

 

I'm pretty sure this thread is about reasons to name them the same. Are there any?