Magazine, website & books written by teens since 1989

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Custom User Avatar
More by this author
The public debate surrounding the question of legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a very
controversial and misunderstood debate. When the facts are all taken together, it is most recommended that the state should not legally recognize same-sex couples as married. It would be fit to make the preliminary clarification that the ensuing discussion is not about the morality or immorality of
homosexuality, the question of respecting homosexuals, or religion, but rather whether or not the state should legally recognize same-sex couples as legally married. Thus, no appeals will be made to the Bible, religion, or morality, as people on both sides of the issue have naively done, because the issue at hand is strictly a legal and constitutional one. Looking at it legally, the state should not recognize same-sex marriages. Only traditional marriage is socially beneficial to the state's costly interest and investment in legal marriage, the arguments for legal same-sex marriages are shown to be false through reductio ad absurdum, and the implementation of “gay rights” has demonstrated to be detrimental to social and religious liberties.

Firstly, why does the state have an interest in marriage at all? It is not an unalienable right to
which everyone is entitled, but rather it is a set of benefits (e.g. tax breaks) extended to a certain group of people, namely those legally recognized as “married”. These benefits are not given out lightly, as they are of costly interest to the state (especially in an economic era such as the present), so they are restricted to fulfilling the state's sole invested interest in the business of marriage: societal propagation. The most surefire way to ensure societal propagation is to invest in man-woman marriages, as they are
the only way to produce a family. All others, like homosexual unions, have not been historically
recognized because they do not represent the state's interest in societal propagation, and they prove too costly to the state. Some may ask why infertile heterosexual unions are recognized while homosexuals ones are not, and it is simply because checking each couple's fertility on a case-by-case basis is too costly for the state, so the state simply excludes those unions that are guaranteed not to serve the state's interest (as it is much more efficient to do so). Marriage is heavily regulated in order to, as MIT doctoral student Adam Kolasinski said, “ensure, albeit
imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children”, and this is why only traditional marriage represents the state interest and costly investment in the marriage business.

Secondly, a great deal of the arguments in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriage could also be applied to a number of otherwise fringe positions. Many activists in this area often fight under the banner of equality, however they do not extend this equality to other groups. If the state were to legally recognize same-sex couples as married simply because they deserve equal rights, then do not
polygamist unions deserve the same? How about blood-relative unions? Do they not deserve equal
rights like genetically-unrelated pairs? Indeed, there are activists who are pushing for legal recognition of polygamy, because they desire equal rights. It seems if the state is to be equal, it should extend marital benefits to everyone, including polygamists and even brothers and sisters. However, this
position is usually not taken by gay activists, it simply cannot work due to the state's opportunity cost in the matter as discussed earlier, and marriage is not even a right (it is a package of legal benefits). It should be obvious that arguing for equal rights in this area simply does not work.

Lastly, the implementation of legally recognized same-sex unions has proved destructive for social and religious freedoms. In nearly everywhere it has been implemented, freedom of speech has
been oppressed, freedom of religion has been desecrated, and familial rights have been violated. A Swedish pastor was sentenced to jail in 2003, simply because he preached a sermon in his church
condemning homosexuality. After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage by judicial fiat in 2003, social and political pressure combined with the state's anti-discrimination laws, pushed the government to force Catholic Charities to shut down because they did not wish to serve gay couples. Also in Massachusetts, state schools had begun teaching children homosexuality as an
acceptable lifestyle, and when one parent insistently demanded he be notified when his child was taught such material, he was rejected and promptly thrown in jail. Gay marriage has proven to be an affront to civil liberties, and as a nation founded upon libertarian principles, no American should let this stand. All must work to defend the rights of others (even if their free speech is
“offensive”), and all must work against anything that corrupts these rights, as gay marriage has shown to have done.

It is blatantly manifest that the state should only recognize marriage as between a man and a
woman. Man-woman marriage is the only institution that serves the state's costly interest in
propagating society, arguments for legal marriage could also be used to argue for other impossible
positions, and legally recognizing gay marriage has shown to desecrate persons' social and religious freedoms. Cumulatively, legally recognizing same-sex couples as “married” is an untenable position,
and the only reasonable and practical route is legal recognition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.



Join the Discussion


This article has 4 comments. Post your own!

ShepherdThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. said...
Feb. 25, 2013 at 9:58 pm:
If you didn't have equal rights, you would want them too. Look at this from the other perspective. What if, you couldn't have legal status of your child? Or visit your loved on in the hospital? Or maybe, not even go to their funeral? Tell me, you would want those rights if you didn't have them, wouldn't you.
 
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
 
Person said...
Jul. 2, 2011 at 9:00 am:
You are aware that more of the less populated states are the ones that have legalized gay marriage right? Nevertheless, what does marriage have to do with the population? You dont need to be married to have children, just watch the show 16 and pregnant, not to mention there are other methods for having children such as artificial incemation, or surrogate mothers, so even if you do legalize gay marriage, your population will pretty much stay the same, if not grow, as with the whole surrogate moth... (more »)
 
M.W.M. replied...
Aug. 7, 2011 at 10:20 am :
keep in mind, i wasn't arguing that the gov't invested interest in the business of marriage is a good thing. i just stated why they are interested in getting involved in marriage, not that i endorse that reason. and no u dont need to be married to have children, but it does well to offer marriage benefits to those who can, as an incentive, which is basically what gov't civil marriage is. the whole reason the gov't got involved in marriage and start granting them legal status was to offer couples... (more »)
 
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
 
Thesilentraven This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
Apr. 25, 2011 at 6:15 pm:
My friend, you are far too concerned with the logical aspects of the issue. Logic is useful at times, but if you're writing for the law, then morality is what you should be considering! The only argument I could see the point of is the second. The others are so apathetically stated as to being irrelevant to the cause.
 
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
 
Site Feedback