The Homosexual, Secular, And Religious Case Against Homosexual Marriage

There's a lot of good material posted on a regular basis by Frank Turk, Dan Phillips, and the rest of the team on the Pyromaniacs Twitter feed. I recently read an article linked there by Frank Turk. It's a piece arguing against homosexual marriage, written by a homosexual. The author is Doug Mainwaring. I would add Christian arguments to his more secular arguments, and there are a lot of non-Christian arguments against homosexual marriage that he doesn't address. But the article is a good illustration of how a person doesn't have to be religious, or even heterosexual, to be opposed to homosexual marriage.

For more examples of arguments against homosexual marriage that are of a more secular nature, see Dan McLaughlin's article here. I would add that society has good reason to give preference to the heterosexual relationship even if no children are involved. The heterosexual relationship is distinct from the homosexual relationship, and benefits society in its uniqueness, even if no children result.

Regarding the religious case against homosexual marriage, keep in mind that many modern notions of separation of church and state are just that: modern. Often, they're also illogical and unlivable. Our nation was founded on the religious idea that we're endowed by God with rights. The Declaration of Independence is an explicitly religious document, and the Constitution, though less explicitly religious, also involves some religious precepts. The founders who served in political offices after the Constitution was enacted often used their political positions to engage in explicitly religious activities (proclamations for days of fasting and prayer, etc.). Much of the religious activity of the early American government was somewhat pluralistic, but religious pluralism isn't equivalent to secularism. And even if you think that some sort of separation of church and state prevents Congress and other entities from acting with religious motivation, it can't prevent voters from acting with such motivation. Even when voters have alleged secular reasons for opposing something like murder, those secular reasons are accompanied by religious motivations. People form their ethical views based on a combination of factors, and the idea of disregarding all religious factors when deciding how to vote or what public policy to support is absurd and unlivable. Religious arguments against homosexual marriage can't be dismissed just because they're religious. There is no separation of church and state that prevents our government from acting on religious grounds, and it's untenable to expect voters to remove all religious motivation from their actions.