"A Journey Into the Theater of the Absurd: The Secularist Case Against Same-Sex “Marriage.” Part I by Andre Jenkins

By far the most popular Secular Case against same-sex “marriage” has been Adam Kolasinski’s  2004 article: “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.”   But since 2004 there have been many cases made by secularists that are stronger and more in depth than Kolasinski’s such as:

1) “The Gay Marriage Addendum" by Atheist Rocking Mr.E.  

2) “Agreements Between Men” by Secular writer Jack Donovan

3) My own (Agnostic) “Societal and Institutional Impacts of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. and Abroad.” and "Why Same-Sex Marriage is Like Opening Pandora’s Box."

4) “Mourning Marriage.” by Freethinker William Gairdner  

5) Atheist Brendan O’Neill’s “Why Gay Marriage is a Very Bad Idea" and “A Fight For Equality or War on Difference?”  

In this article I join the best argument’s from all Secularist’s who oppose same-sex “marriage” together into a new case entitled: “A Journey Into the Theater of the Absurd: The Secularist Case Against Same-Sex “Marriage.”

I. Why is Same-Sex Marriage A Theater of the Absurd?

Behold The Theater of the Absurd:

A little girl who has 4 gay fathers but no female caretakers. "Gay Couple to Father Three Babies by Three Surrogate Mothers." A married lesbian three-some expecting a baby. Pregnant transgender “men” having children and getting married. Transsexual couples who both transitioned trying to explain to their children how they became “transitioned.” A woman who transitioned into a “man” within her marriage and while her children were about 7 years old.  Lesbian Couple Fights Gay Couple Over Child Custody.

"Gender neutral’ employee quits, then sues former bosses for $518,000 because they called her ‘lady.' "Men banned from Becoming Queen as 700 years of Law Redrafted Ahead of Gay Marriage." "Three Year Old Becomes 'Youngest Child to Have Sex Change Treatment." Making it lawful for transgenders to use private spaces of members of the opposite sex: rape shelters, prisons, jails, restrooms, be on athletics teams of the opposite sex.

"High Court Judge's Blast for Four GayParents Fighting Over Two Little Sisters." Sex-Changing Treatment For Kids: It's On The Rise." "Gender-neutral pronouns when they don't identify as either male or female." "Canada: Schools axe 'he' and 'she' in favour of 'xe.' "Hen: Sweden's New Gender Neutral Pronoun Causes Controversy." "Transgender 6-Year Old Wins Civil Rights Case to Use Girl's Bathroom."

All of the above exist as ramifications of legalizing same-sex "marriage due to the fact that same-sex “marriage” is the spearhead/battering ram of the LGBTQ Rights Movement (Gay Rights Movement), and it opens the door to degendering policies being forced upon society through issues related with the Trans Rights and Non-Gender Binary Rights movements. 

Gays getting hospital visitation rights, property rights, partner health care coverage, etc. and even the same amount of the benefits as heterosexual married couples is not a problem because marriage and the family law within it, is not defined by those benefits, rights, and protections.

Secondly, one must also understand that not only are gays and lesbians now allowed to be married, but also transgenders, transsexuals, bisexuals, and non-gender binary people as a result of legalizing gay marriage. While LGBTQ people are a small population, when put into the context of a family law institution tailored for the biological family (heterosexuals), their differences between heterosexuals are radically different. Since LGBTQ couples and family formations are radically different, their inclusion into the marital system has had a radical negative effect on family law. 

II. What is Marriage?

Marriage is NOT just a word, marriage is not equivalent to, defined by, or reflected by the protections and benefits supplied as a result of getting married, and marriage is not originated in religious institutions.

Liberal Secularists need to learn that Marriage is “the primordial human biological family formation centered on the male/female union that has arisen as a result of how nature is ordered. There is nothing religious about this. Every species of animals is ordered by nature in such a way that their way of raising offspring has led to the survival of their species for over thousands of years (lions/pride, baboons/troop, wolves/pack).

For humans, the male/female dynamic which gives rise to and is the center of the extended biological family, (whether it be one male and many females or one male/one female) has been the primordial way that has led the human species to survive over 6,000 years.

Marriage has been institutionalized to better support the male/female dynamic in the context of societal changes. The foundational function of marriage both in nature and in law is twofold; which is 1) to capitalize on the “potential” to create children and 2) raise those children by their biological mother and father to be functional, stable adults in society. The government’s main interest in marriage is and has been primordially the children that most of the time result within marriage.

Atheist Jon K explains his understanding of this by writing: “In all the cultures of man, has it ever been even considered 'natural" for a man to marry a man? Of course not! I mean these cultures weren't Christian cultures...even unsophisticated cultures would have deemed it absurd and disgusting. Why is this? They didn't have the OT laws? See, the real reason why Marriage existed (long before Mosaic Law) was for the propagation/procreation of the species. Hence, Opposite Sex marriages fulfilled the needs of maintaining the population index or else the tribe, community, city, and state would dwindle into obscurity.”

Such examples of the earliest marriage law codes include: The Law Codes of Ur-Nammu (ca. 2050 BC) , Law of Eshnunna ca. 1930 BC, Mesopotamia), Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC Sumeria, Mesopotamia), The Code of Hammurabi (1790 BCE Babylon, Mesopotamia), The Law of Manu (1500 BC India),  The Code of the Assura, (c. 1075 BCE, Assyria) .

What is even more interesting about the above law codes is that many of the rulers that made the marital codes were bisexual, yet saw no need to equivocate male/male relationships to male/female relationships. For example the following ancient Kings and law-givers had male lovers: Gilgamesh King of Uruk, Hammurabi (King of Babylon), Zimri-lin (king of Mari).    

Even in Ancient Greece where pederastry and homosexuality were practiced, there was no same-sex “marriage.”  Erwin J. Haeberle noted: "In Ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.” 

Greek statesman Demosthenes defined Greek marriage when he claimed: "For this is what living with a woman as one's wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one's own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households." 

As Atheist Canadian Historian Davis M.J. Aurini said in his video on gay marriage: “Most people nowadays, if you define marriage as a loving union between two people, most of them would nod their heads in agreement. They might add that it’s a contract. But the fundamental modern definition of marriage is a loving union between two people that live together in a house. *(But) That’s NOT what marriage is! That’s such a mutated bastardized version of what marriage is! Let’s go back to what marriage actually is. What marriage is, is the fact that the females in every species (with few exceptions) have an excess of reproductive ability, the males have an excess of productive capability.

Marriage is a woman trading her reproductive ability to the male, and a male trading his productive ability to the female... Marriage is a contract trading two specific things; sex for money (resources/protection) to create a household to raise children. *…How can u have a gay marriage? It’s a contradiction in terms, it’s a square circle, it’s pointless, and yet people are actually debating about this because we've all redefined marriage in our heads as a union of two loving people. Seriously do any gay people “need” a marriage? Can’t they just move in with each other and love one another? There’s no offspring being produced by their coupling. So this is not vital. (Marxists) pervert the terms and this is how they progress the slow destruction of society forward.” 

UK Atheist Brendan O’Neill explains how the gay marriage flood came into being even though it has no historical precursors by writing: “The reason the gay-marriage issue can feel like it came from nowhere, and is now everywhere, is because it is an entirely top-down, elite-driven thing. The true driving force behind it is not any real or publicly manifested hunger amongst homosexual couples to get wed, far less a broader public appetite for the reform of the institution of marriage; rather it is the need of the political and media class for an issue through which to signify its values and advertise its superiority. Gay marriage is not a real issue - it is a cultural signifier, like wearing a pink ribbon to show you care about breast cancer."  

III. Different Legal Institutions for Different Couples because They are all Different From Each Other. (Heterosexual, Gay, Lesbian)

In this section I will let the secularists who are same-sex attracted speak to the fact that male/female relationships are different than male/male, and male/male relationships are different than female/female relationships, and thus should be treated differently from each other under the law.

French Atheist Xavier Bongibault stressed: “But also on behalf of the right to difference. The gay couple is not better. The gay couple is not (less than). It's different! And different situations require a different legislative response. Humanity is humanity that it has differences. Denying the difference is to deny humanity..."I was lucky to have parents, a father, a mother. This is something that all children are entitled. Contrary to what has been said here and there, the marriage contract is not a love or a contract that can be opened in the name of equality contract is a contract to build a family. Now a family is a mother, a father and possibly of children. " 

The Conservative Lesbian who is a secular writer states: “There are many lesbians and gays in America who have no intention of helping to flush our country down the socialist toilet for the sake of gay marriage or the repeal of DADT.  And I’m proud to declare that I am one of them.  Do I care about the civil rights issues that directly touch my life?  Of course I do, but always within the context of the myriad political/social challenges facing our country today.

I have no intention of supporting a gay tribalism that deconstructs lesbian women and gay men into two-dimensional citizen caricatures disconnected from the overall social, political, and economic complexities that shape our daily lives.  And I disavow the lesbian/gay ghetto and its ‘progressive’ leadership that demands lockstep adherence to Left-wing ideology and dares to presume that it speaks for all lesbians and gays in our community.” 

Atheist Justin Raimondo explained: “Which brings us to the central argument against gay marriage, which is that it is based on a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, one that just doesn’t fit the gay lifestyle. The whole idea of getting gays hitched is derivative of the central error of egalitarianism, the counterintuitive conception of human beings as being “equal” and, therefore, interchangeable—and therefore one-size-fits-all. Egalitarianism isn’t really a political ideology: it’s a religion, one quite capable of withstanding a sustained assault of clear evidence to the contrary. Marriage, in the context of male homosexuality, isn’t just a contradiction: the very idea of two males getting “married” evokes such protest precisely because it parodies heterosexual unions. A parody, after all, is a take-off on the original, one that apes the form but denies or mocks its essence. This mockery is what the anti-gay marriage crowd bristles at—and rightly so.

The very phrase “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Homosexuality, after all, is really all about the avoidance of marriage – and the responsibility of raising a family. It is the embrace of sensuality for its own sake, as an instrument of pure pleasure rather than procreation. Do gay guys really want to give up what is most attractive – to males, at any rate – about their recreational activities, the tremendous sense of freedom it implies?"

  

Dr. David Starkey (British Atheist and Historian) : "As an atheist gay who regards marriage as part of the baggage of heterosexual society  which I have come to respect but can never fully share, I am tempted to say a plague on both your houses. As a conservative and a patriot, however, I am aware – and increasingly so – of the value of established institutions and suspicious of the leveling equality which dissolves them and atomizes society." 

Jack Donovan (secular writer) explains: “However, my argument against marriage between men is also an argument based on principle. The various legal pros and cons of civil marriage are besides the point. What really rubs me the wrong way is applying the cultural institution of marriage to a relationship between two men.

...The two relationships are different, because men and women are different. Sexuality is not race. A black man and a white woman are still a man and a woman. They're still likely to have children as a result of sex, and it is in the best interest of society that they from a strong bond and stay together. This is simply not the case with two men.

To me, whether I am legally allowed to marry another man or not isn't an equality issue. I don't care about petty perceived slights against equality. I'm not concerned about making absolutely certain I'm being treated exactly the same as everyone else. I don't just want a bond that makes me feel 'equal.'

I want something better. I want something that makes more sense for two men. I don't think homosexual men, as a group, will benefit from inheriting all of the baggage associated with an anachronistic, embattled institution that was never designed to accommodate the distinctive character of their relationships. I believe they are far better off handling their own affairs and negotiating their own private agreements. And if they adopt a tradition, it should be one that is in harmony with the unique character of bonds between men.

...Many straight couples today get married for love, but for most of them marriage remains the first step in building a family. It still makes a modicum of sense for society to be involved in promoting a stable, long-term, legally binding union for the benefit of any children that a couple may produce, either by design or by accident.

Because two men can't reproduce, the same rationale does not exist for involving the rest of society in ensuring they remain bound together. Because children are not naturally a factor, communal involvement in a sexual relationship between adult men to promote monogamy or stability ‘for their own good’ smacks of nanny-state busybody-ism."

Alain de Benoist  (French Pagan Philosopher) although not gay himself describes why one his friends who is gay opposes same-sex marriage: “As for homosexuals, I’m surprised that those (of them) who oppose same-sex marriage don’t see that this desire to get married is a proof of gentrification (normalization). There used to be a subversive aspect to homosexuality, and all the homosexuals I have known were very proud to NOT be “like everyone else”. It seems that today all they yearn for is kissing in public, shopping together and changing diapers! My friend Guy Hocquenghem would have suffocated with rage. Everywhere one looks, everything is being normalised! That’s another result of the “Single Thought" (political correctness)."

IV. How Same-Sex Marriage Has Already Hurt Society and Heterosexual Marriages Internationally.

A. Totally Restructuring the Family Law within all Marital Institutions

1) Neutering All Words That Denote Kinship and Biological Specificities.

UK Atheist Brendan O’Neill observed: ‘Most notably, the state utterly overhauled the traditional language of the family, airbrushing from official documents terms such as "husband" and "wife" and even "mother" and "father". The Orwellian obliteration of such longstanding identities, which mean a great deal to many people, demonstrates that modern politicians are more than happy to ride roughshod over the majority in their desperate pursuit of some PC political points.

The Lib-Con consultation on gay marriage has hinted that words such as "husband" and "wife" could soon become a thing of the past, to be replaced by the sterile and soulless "spouse". In Canada, they've already done this. Following the passing of the Civil Marriage Act, all official documentation and legislation was amended, erasing "husbands" and "wives". And because same-sex couples primarily use reproductive technology to procreate, some Canadian legislation has been amended to replace the term "natural parent" with "legal parent". As one report describes it: "In short, the adoption exception – that who is a child's parent is established by legal fiat, not biological connection – becomes the norm for all children." Most strikingly, on birth certificates some Canadian provinces have replaced the term "father" and "mother" with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2".

Such tinkering with lingo, the replacement of words that have real depth and meaning for millions of people with bureaucratic terms that no normal person uses, reveals the social-engineering instinct that lies behind the gay-marriage campaign. Because this is not simply about elevating gay relationships, as we are so often told – more importantly, it is about demoting and devaluing traditional relationships, as built on marriage as it was once understood. Who in their right mind introduces their husband or wife as their "spouse"?

What normal woman describes herself as "Parent 1" to her children rather than "mother"? No one does. The emergence of such vapid terminology on the back of the gay-marriage bandwagon shows that traditional identities will be trounced in the name of allowing political elites to look cool by backing gay marriage.” 

In almost all states and countries that have legalized same-sex “marriage” the gendered terminology that reflects biological realities of kinds has been neutered. Here are just a few examples:

Massachusetts (the first state to legalize Same-sex marriage): “Massachusetts rolled out a new marriage license shorn of any reference to bride and groom. Couples getting married were now to be officially identified as ''Party A" and ''Party B." The department of public health proposed a similar rewrite of the state's birth certificate, replacing ''mother" and ''father" with ''Parent A" and ''Parent B." To that, Governor Mitt Romney objected, though it is probably only a matter of time until a court orders him to make the change.”

Ontario, Canada: “Meanwhile, others have gone far beyond Massachusetts in embracing the brave new world of unisex marriage. Last month, lawmakers in Ontario enacted Bill 171, stripping the statute books of all references to gender in connection with marriage. No longer do Ontario's laws use words and phrases like ''husband," ''wife," ''widow," ''widower," or ''persons of the opposite sex." And it is not just family and marriage laws that have been de-sexed. Bill 171 eliminates the traditional language of matrimony from more than 70 provincial statutes, including the Gasoline Tax Act and the Public Libraries Act.”

Spain, Canada, Sweden: "In the move to same sex marriage, opposite sex relationships have to conform to gay norms, rather than vice versa, since matters pertaining to complementary sexes cannot apply to those of the same sex. For example: Spanish birth certificates record ‘progenitor A’. and ‘progenitor B’ rather than ‘mother’ and ‘father’. In Canada, the concept of natural parent has been erased from law - for every child and every couple - with court rulings that children could have three parents. Sweden has also moved to eliminate the words ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ in return for one neutral word." 

UK: The term “widow” will also be removed or replaced with “surviving spouse” or in some instances with the “woman whose deceased spouse was a man”… The Government was warned time and again that its plans would result in legal confusion and do away with the common understanding of historic terms such as ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘widow’”.

California: The terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown. The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it.” 

NY: “The legislature intends that all provisions of law which utilize gender-specific terms in reference to the parties to a marriage, or which in any other way may be inconsistent with this act, be construed in a gender-neutral manner or in any way necessary to effectuate the intent of this act.” 

Maine and Maryland: “50-A. Codification of marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to spouse, family,marriage,immediate family,dependent,next of kin,bride,groom, husband, wife,;;widow; and; widower, must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law." 

   

2) Judicial Innovation by Judges and Lawyers Creating Multiple Equal Legal Parents (3 or more equal/legal parents) as a Result of SSM and Gay Parenting.

Agnostic Mal January comments on this by noting: “And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man. Expect much more of this.” 

The creation of 3 or more legal parenting laws hurts children the most because they will be caught in the middle of 3 or 4 way custody disputes, 4 way disputes over child support, child visitation, the child has to move from house, to house, to house, disputes over court fees etc. The following places have multiple parenting laws:

a) British Columbia, Canada. "In a first for British Columbia, a three-month-old baby girl born in Vancouver has three people, her biological father and a lesbian couple, listed as her parents on her birth certificate. British Columbia’s new Family Law Act, which came into force last year, allowed a child to have three parents listed on the birth certificate. The law requires a prior written agreement between the birth mother, her spouse or partner, and the donor."    

b) Ontario, Canada. "Ontario court ruled in 2006 that a five-year-old boy had three legal parents - his father, mother, and a lesbian partner - which made him the first official three-parent child in Canada."  

c) California. "Gov. Jerry Brown Blows up The Natural Family. Signs Democrats SB 274 permitting 3 or more legal parents." 

d) Massachusetts  (1^st state to legalize same-sex marriage): In the recent case of a lesbian throuple who are in a defacto polyamorous marriage and are expecting their first child “The so-called 'throuple' worked with a specialist family lawyer who drew up the paperwork and drafted the ceremony so that all three of them were obligated and bound to each other…Kitten, Brynn and Doll had to work with the legalities of the state to get married to each other. As being married to more than one person is not currently legal, they had to combine handfasting, legally binding documents and legal marriage. A family lawyer drew up paperwork - in terms of assets, wills and legal rights to children - to bind them all together as much as they could without an actual three way marriage. " 

3) The Creation of New Types of Parents.

  

Family scholar Jane Adolphe addresses the creation of new types of parents by explaining that: "If two parents are better than one, then shouldn't three be better than two? 'Legal parent' becomes an umbrella notion for various subsets of parents, all stakeholders with no preference for one individual or set: natural/biological parents; adoptive parents, step parents, grandparents; social parents; psychological parents; intentional parents, gestational parent, sperm donor parent, egg donor parent and so forth. With the redefinition of marriage and the separation between biology and bond, the trend toward multiple parents is legitimized."

"Adoption laws, previously an exception to the natural family and natural parenthood, now become a discrete set of rules unmoored from their foundation. This translates into the rejection of the general principles that biology and relationship ought to be in the same two persons and that a child ought to have one set of parents. The end result is that natural or biological parents become just one of many stakeholders in a child’s life based on the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. This is a marked departure from the principle that primary care rests with the natural family (including the extended family) which assistance and support from others based on the principle of subsidiarity (eg religious, Communities, neighbors, friends, and State).

These dramatic changes are driven by a rhetoric of adult rights, spearheaded by the needs of same-sex couples, without any serious discussion about whether this is good for children."Why is this so? How is this so? As previously noted, the adoption system has been developed as an exception to the natural family. The underlying assumption is that biological parents are more likely to better care for their own children. Therefore, before adoption is possible, parental consent is required and the prospective new parents must meet requisite standards of fitness. Since, it is better for children to be raised in stable, two parent, married families, preference has been given to placing children in this environment."

4) Erasing the Biological Parent From the Birth Certificate in Place of the Non-Biological Gay Parent.

Although heterosexuals practiced birth-certificate altering first, the inclusion of gay couples practicing this reinforces and exacerbates the problem:

Massachusetts (first state to legalize same-sex “marriage”) : Two men or two women can now be listed as the "parents" on birth certificates. Ohio, California,  Iowa,  Maryland, New York, and Oregon also allow for erasing the name of a biological parent for a non-biologically related same-sex partner. 

B. Reinforces and Exacerbates Alternative Methods of Obtaining Children

1) Reinforces and Exacerbates the use of Surrogacy.

Agnostic Shawn M. writes: “These extremists (especially the feminists) all have in common another thing: they want to have all the rest of the world to be conformed to their own image. They think they have to free women from men, and to have women living without men, as men are their enemies. These people don't understand the fusion between a man and a woman; they don't understand what a child means for his parents.

A child is its parents, it is their love, and it is them. For people who use IVF and Surrogate mothers, a child is only an educational project. These people simply copy "straight people". They think that by “acting” the same, they will be "same". This is the “performance” of the gender concept in application. Marriage is for a man and a woman, not for people who want to “imitate/act” a gender; it is no theater. This is all a big mistake. You don't become a man merely by copying a man and you don’t become a woman merely by copying a woman.

Gay marriage is created and fed by people who want us to leave the world of Male/Female, and to replace it by LGBT norms such as transgender, gender queer, femme, butch, bi-gender, non-binary etc. Yes the extremists who are in power over the gay “marriage” movement want to destroy marriage and families. Only gullible people will explain that it is for "equality". Equality is already there, we are men and women, and we have all the same rights. The world is not divided into "homo/hetero/bi/trans/.etc", there is no such opposition in our society. We shall not use their norms, words, and expressions, as they want us to do.” 

The other ramifications of surrogacy are as follows:

i) Surrogacy uses woman as a commodities who prostitute the use of their bodies. 

ii) Tramples the baby’s right to know and be raised by his/her mother.

iii) Thus deprives the child of a relationship with: a) biological mother or mothers if an anonymous woman donated her eggs to the surrogate b) his/her maternal kinship group, c) half his/her heritage, d) identity e) possibly family health history. f) In the child’s future it would also affect his/her own children. g) the child of the surrogate would not know his/her siblings that were also given away by his/her biological mother

2)  Reinforces and Exacerbates use of Anonymous IVF Banks

i) Which deprives a child of the right to know his biological father and vice-a-versa. ii) Since the father is unknown the child will not know the paternal side of his/her kinship family tree.  iii) Deprives the child of his/her health history on the paternal side. iv) Thus depriving the child of a relationship with: a) biological mother/father b) his/her kinship group, c) heritage, d) identity e) family health history without my consent. f) In the child’s future it would also affect his/her own children.

3) Reinforces and Exacerbates the Targeting of Low-Income Women to Give Up Their Child for Adoption. 

In her article: "The Rich Do Not Relinquish Children to Adoption," Claudia Darcy points out that it is very rare that a woman delivers a child and wants to give the child up. "Most of the time, the mother has no choice because of economic pressures. It remains problematic, therefore, that an adoptive couple will spend over $60,000 to legally transfer guardianship of this child to themselves, when we, as a society, could accomplish much more by devoting our financial and institutional support to stabilizing the situation of the birth mother." In many cases adoption tramples the mother’s right to raise and know her biological child by a) not educating her on the options open to her to keep the child b) pressuring and telling the young mother that she is not prepared and not ready to raise a child; thus giving it up is somehow courageous. 

4) Reinforces and Exacerbates the Prioritization of Non Biological  Adopters Over Members of Child’s Kinship Group.

Prioritizing of usually wealthy adoptive couples over someone on the child’s paternal or maternal part of the family tree. (Grand-parents, uncles, aunts, cousins). Thus depriving the child of a relationship with: a) biological mother/father b) his/her kinship group, c) heritage, d) identity e) family health history without my consent. f) In the child’s future it would also affect his/her own children. 

5) Reinforces and Exacerbates the Prioritization of Gay/Lesbian Adopters over Possible Heterosexual Couples that want to Adopt due to Gay Union's Inherent Inability to Procreate. 

If a child does not have either his mom/dad or kinship group to care for him/her, the next best thing is for a child to still have the combination of a male father and female mother although they are not biologically related.

6) Reinforces and Exacerbates the Prioritization of Gay/Lesbian Adopters over Possible Adoptees from the Same Country, Ethnicity, or Race of the Adopted Child.

There are two main problems with this:

i) It overlooks children in the U.S. that need homes. "In 2012, there were more than 100,000 available-for-adoption children sat in the US foster-care system waiting and ignored. while nearly 9000 international adoptees were imported into the country via privately operated adoption agencies at a median cost of $28,000 per head.. He rightly calls this situation “our great shame as a nation.”

ii) Disconnects the transnational adoptee from his/her natural heritage, culture, and language.

This concludes Part I of Journey Into the Theater of the Absurd: The Secularist Case Against Same-Sex “Marriage.” Part II deals with the ultimate consequences of legalizing same-sex "marriage" through the Transgender Movement and also responds to rebuttals to Part I.

The Secular Case Against Gender Neutral “Marriage” by Atheist Randy Randolph

As an atheist I am opposed to gay marriage because there is no reason for it. The FACT is that gay marriage is NOT a right in the Constitution, unlike Civil Rights for Black Americans, which IS explicitly in the Constitution. Marriage is a legal status granted by the state for its good and welfare. Just like subsidies that are given to some companies for the public good, marriage is a contract granted by the state for its interests and that of the couple. I can see NO benefit to the state for granting gay marriages.

I hardly think that being against gay marriage is an indication of bigotry or lack of progressive outlooks. I am opposed to gay marriage, but I am not for criminalizing homosexual acts nor treating gays differently in most things. Just because I don’t think that we get anything out of gay marriage, hardly means I hate gays. That is like a child complaining that if it doesn’t get what it wants, you hate the child. Grow up! I guess too that we are hating Mormons and Muslims if we don’t let them have more than one wife. 

You could also argue that restricting marriage to one man and woman is an abridgment of their religious freedoms. So if gays may marry, why not polygamy? ALL of the same arguments for polygamy apply just as well for gay marriage. 

Marriage is forbidden to other classes of people not just gays as well. You may not marry your mother or father, brother or other close relatives, except for some states it would appear such as Kentucky. You may not have more than one partner in a marriage. Bigamy is still a crime and should remain so since it is a fraud in the use of marriage. 

For all of human history, we have had an interest in raising children and having them. All children are born out of a sexual union of a man with a woman in some form. Most children are still reared in families and that is the reason that the state benefits from heterosexual marriage.  The function of marriage also is to secure the legal lines of property settlement for the children and establish the responsibility for who is to be the legal parent of the child and who may make legal decisions for it before majority.

Nobody now debates the merits of a two, man/woman parent family. We tried the single mom method and most studies I have seen reports that show it is definitely not the optimum home for the child. That is not to say that all other family arrangements cannot be used successfully. The point is that the optimum is the two parent heterosexual family model, so the state has a definite interest in promoting such an arrangement. Other models while less good are better than some other alternatives.

It is better to have a gay couple raise a child, than to leave the child in an institution. If there is an opportunity to have either a man/woman couple adopt a child or a gay couple, there is no question that the heterosexual will be the better choice. The gay marriage idea would put the gay couple on the same level as the heterosexual one.

I can see no benefit to society for gay marriage. Those who are in favor of it have the burden of proof to show that the state gains from it. If it were possible for two men to have children, then I would think that indeed gay marriage would be called for. So far I have not heard of such a thing.

The other problem that we are running into with gay marriage is with lesbian couples who have a biological child of one of the partners. In the case of divorce, who gets custody? Are there visitation rights and child support payments required? In short we get nothing but headaches and legal problems and a requirement for more judges in family courts if gay marriages are allowed. I don't think the cost justifies the lack of benefit. All the benefits I can see flow only one way.

All heterosexual marriages have the potential to produce children in most of the cases. THAT is why marriage is established for heterosexual unions. When you show me that two men produce a child through their sexual union with one another, then I will be in favor of gay marriage. Until such time we get nothing for it.

Furthermore, marriage is not just a word, it is legal contract granted by the state for its benefits and that of the couple. I agree that consenting acts between adults should be their own business. They can live together and play whatever games they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms, but that is not the question.

You have to prove the benefit to the state for granting this legal status, not that it has to be proven that harm would result. Also, you will have to grant the same status to Muslims who have a religious belief that all men have the right to more than one wife. Most Muslim countries allow for polygamy and they have survived for centuries with it. I know of no culture of a civilized society that has had legal gay marriage though for any period of time. There have been many cultures where homosexuality was almost the norm, but I am not aware of any that gave formal legal status to such liasons.