I do grant that my argument is not exclusively in opposition to gay marriage. (However, it does present certain philosophical difficulties: should I support California's Proposition 8? Which is more important: equality under the law, even bad law, or taking a stand against the further entrenchment of marriage in civil society?)
That said, I have heard some strong arguments against gay marriage which are not grounded in religion.
For instance: consider the fact marriage law is implicitly a guarantee to enter into slavery: signing up for marriage means you agree to everything from alimony to child support to... etc., often times regardless of whether the child is in fact yours. (Women are increasingly being victimized by alimony, so in that respect it's becoming gender neutral; this is not a 'men are oppressed' screed.)
Some heterosexual marriage proponents point to the existence of these draconian laws -- and let's be honest, they are draconian -- as necessary to ensure that children born to the union will have a fair start in life. Therefore, marriage is not to be enshrined in law because it is good, or because it is a heterosexual privilege, but because it is necessary. According to this logic, barren heterosexual couples (vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.) and elderly heterosexual couples should have their marriages ended: the necessity of them is past, so the state should end its interference in the relationships of private citizens. Marriage should also be excluded to homosexual couples on the same grounds, until-and-unless they adopt a child between the two of them, in which case the necessity argument rears its head again.
This is a nuanced view of marriage which I don't agree with, but which I find logically consistent and rather unobjectionable. It, too, argues that gay marriages should be denied; it only admits for unusual circumstances (which are becoming more common) which provide for exceptions to the rule.
no subject
That said, I have heard some strong arguments against gay marriage which are not grounded in religion.
For instance: consider the fact marriage law is implicitly a guarantee to enter into slavery: signing up for marriage means you agree to everything from alimony to child support to... etc., often times regardless of whether the child is in fact yours. (Women are increasingly being victimized by alimony, so in that respect it's becoming gender neutral; this is not a 'men are oppressed' screed.)
Some heterosexual marriage proponents point to the existence of these draconian laws -- and let's be honest, they are draconian -- as necessary to ensure that children born to the union will have a fair start in life. Therefore, marriage is not to be enshrined in law because it is good, or because it is a heterosexual privilege, but because it is necessary. According to this logic, barren heterosexual couples (vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.) and elderly heterosexual couples should have their marriages ended: the necessity of them is past, so the state should end its interference in the relationships of private citizens. Marriage should also be excluded to homosexual couples on the same grounds, until-and-unless they adopt a child between the two of them, in which case the necessity argument rears its head again.
This is a nuanced view of marriage which I don't agree with, but which I find logically consistent and rather unobjectionable. It, too, argues that gay marriages should be denied; it only admits for unusual circumstances (which are becoming more common) which provide for exceptions to the rule.