This is one rational argument. There are many possible ones. Further, it applies only to gay/lesbian marriage as exists in the United States. It is directly applicable nowhere else.

A Rational Argument Against Gay and Lesbian Marriage in the United States

Every marriage costs money.

It is difficult to ascertain exactly how much. Cursory browsing in Google might suggest that marriages make or save money, because there are many personal cost/benefit advantages that married couples enjoy, and people naturally think in terms of the benefit to themselves without factoring in their share of the cost to society as a whole. Therefore it is important to make this distinction: when we say that marriage costs money, we mean that marriage imposes a monetary cost on society, a cost which all of us share.

How many marriage benefits are there, which society must pay for? Over a thousand. The number varies according to source. There are so many federally mandated marriage entitlements that accounting for them is difficult. On an LGBT advocacy site I've seen the number 1,138. The number of entitlements is so large and they are mandated by so many branches of bureaucracy that the actual count varies by year and by season. That is why I round it to approximately a thousand.

Each and every one of those thousand marriage benefits imposes a cost on all of us. Either the benefits are paid for directly via tax revenue, or they are imposed upon businesses, and the businesses either pass them on to consumers through price inflation, or they pass them on to employees through downward salary pressure.

Entitlement systems typically arise to provide incentives that are intended either to encourage societally beneficial behaviors or to compensate for inequities caused by regulatory distortions.

Good examples of compensatory entitlements are personal and corporate tax loopholes and tax funded subsidies. Green energy subsidies, corporate R&D incentives, farm subsidies, and oil field exploration investment incentives are just some of the many examples.

Marriage entitlements for the most part fall into the other category: they are intended to subsidize societally beneficial behaviors.

Marriage is heavily incentivized, and there is a purpose for it. Marriage entitlements have evolved over time to foster and encourage the procreation, nurturing and raising of children in stable nuclear families.

It is true that marriages fail. It is true that not all married couples have children. It is true that unconventional households do have and raise children. But all of these outlying conditions are irrelevant to the fact that marriage has a cost which society imposes upon itself for the sole purpose of raising children in a stable family consisting of a mother and a father.

Society imposes the cost of more than a thousand entitlements upon itself for this reason only. We accept the cost of marriage for this reason and this reason only.

Our taxes do not subsidize love. We do not impose costs on business and depress our salaries to subsidize sex. Those costs have a more practical point. There is a reason why we accept them. We do not accept them because we value orgasms. We accept them because they incentivize the conditions that are most conducive to creation of families and the raising of children.

If we submit to critical review the entitlements conferred on married couples, we can justify those entitlements on the basis their efficacy. We can examine the recipients of those entitlements and categorize them as to whether the entitlements received are appropriate and justifiable.

If the intention for the entitlement system is to foster nuclear families with children, then society can justify and tolerate recipients of that entitlement system because they fit the model that is being incentivized: namely, the recipients form couples who have married for the purpose of starting nuclear families and having children.

Now, not all married couples produce children. What about the exceptions? A comprehensive test of the entitlement system's efficiency would examine every married couple for suitability. But a test down to the level of individuals would be cost-prohibitive. Instead, we assign couples and potential couples according to classes.

Here are some examples of classes that are appropriately prohibited from marriage, due to the unsuitability of the couples for the rearing of children:

1. Couples involving young adolescents, due to the likelihood of complications in childbirth.

2. Incestuous unions, due the likelihood of recessive gene defects in progeny.

3. Prohibition of certain blood type combinations which would result in inviable offspring.

Class #3 has been changing lately, and such rules are less strenuously enforced, because steadily improving therapies now exist, such as bone marrow replacement, which can mitigate the dangers to offspring. However, Classes #1 and #2 are still forbidden by society, with good reason.

Notice that in each of these three cases, one could make the argument that specific couples in each Class might not intend to produce children. But such appeals are baseless. In each case, the possibility of procreation exists, and it is this potential which must be considered. The imposition of rules based on category are made not for the benefit of the couples, but for the benefit of the potential offspring. Again we appeal to the ultimate reason for the exercise: the justification of the entitlement system, i.e., the cost of marriage to society. The entitlement system exists not to benefit the couples. It exists to benefit the potential children.

In consideration of the three class categories listed above, could we make exceptions for individuals? Yes, we could, in principle, but close examination reveals that the costs of doing so are prohibitive.

Consider #1, couples involving early adolescents. Western sensibilities consider such unions a variation on pedophilia, and they are considered taboo. But in Muslim societies, arranged unions between adult men and young girls are commonplace. Should exceptions be made for such unions? Should we require agreement that the young wives in such unions wait to produce children, perhaps until the age of thirteen or fourteen? In principle this could work, but Western society has no such regulatory structures in place to support and enforce such a system of rules, and the application of those rules would be cost prohibitive. It is easier and more efficient to simply prohibit the entire class category from marrying.

Similar arguments can be made for #2, incestuous unions, and #3, blood type incompatibilities. One could impose contractual requirements on incestuous couples, compelling them to attest that their unions are purely platonic and mercantile. One could insist that congenitally incompatible couples (#3) attest as a condition for marriage that they will not attempt to have children. But the costs of such enforcement are prohibitive, and the contracts are impossible to enforce in practice. If a brother and sister promise that they will not produce a child, and a pregnancy results, what is the answer? Abort the child? What if the child comes to term and suffers severe birth defects? What then? Euthanize the child? That would be a high moral, ethical and societal price, imposed for the sole interest of fairness to a brother and sister who profess to be in love.

Now we come to gay and lesbian marriage.

Let us treat gay couples and lesbian couples as class categories. Our task is to justify the participation of those class categories in the statutory entitlement system that exists to incentivize the creation of nuclear families.

How do we justify the participation of those class categories?

Homosexual couples cannot produce children.

Lesbian couples cannot produce children.

These two class categories have a quantifiable value, in terms of their potential for fulfilling the conditions for which the entitlement systems exist. That value is exactly zero.

Here is an important distinction: we are not saying that such people have zero value. What we are saying is that they have zero chance of meeting the criteria for which the entitlement systems have been developed.

Now, it is true that some homosexual couples adopt. It is true that some lesbian couples adopt. It is also true that individuals in homosexual couples may father children from outside of the union and assume custody. It is also true that some individuals in lesbian couples produce children from outside of the union and assume custody.

Children are born under all sorts of conditions. Millions of children do not know their fathers. It is a tragedy.

But all of these ancillary conditions pertaining to individuals and their misfortunes are irrelevant to the original intent behind the entitlement systems. The purpose of those systems-- the reason that they exist-- is to encourage nuclear families and to discourage all of the tragedies.

Objectives are also raised in the converse. It is pointed out that some heterosexual couples cannot procreate, due to health conditions. This is true, and it is a shame, but examinations of viability down to the individual level are cost-prohibitive, and that is why class categories are applied. Heterosexual couples as a class have the potential to procreate. Gay and lesbian couples as a class category do not.

In conclusion, society imposes upon itself the cost of marriage with a purpose. If we are to tolerate that cost, accept that cost, and willingly impose it upon ourselves, we must rationally justify it. The considerable cost of marriage entitlements can be rationally justified for a narrow set of class categories. The class category of heterosexual couples meets the criteria for justification, because children produced by this class category have the potential to thrive and contribute to society. The class categories of adolescent and incestuous couples are not justifiable by these criteria, because children produced by such couples are not likely to thrive. Finally, the class categories of gay and lesbian couples are not justifiable, because for these class categories the possibility for the procreation of children does not exist at all.

 

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is rational and not bigoted

 

Sorry, Clarise; your dog won't hunt.
If ................ IF ............. tax loopholes were the only reason to encourage behavior you might have something. The reality is, tax loopholes are written to appease voting blocks and offset taxes.

Marriage, whether straight, gay, lesbian or mixed, doesn't "cost" society anything. Stupid decisions made by couples do; the battered wife, the abandoned kids, and so on.
Straight couples don't have a corner on good decision making. Gay, Lesbian etc. couples will make stupid decisions that cost society, just as straight couples have.

Social Security will likely take a hit over the change, but I haven't seen any figures, yet. Until I do, I can only say, then adjust the law or the tax or the benefits.

The reality is that the only "valid" objection to gay marriage is religious based. And it's not a settled issue.

 

Most marriage benefits are not tax loopholes. Most marriage benefits are mandated entitlements. Every entitlement must be paid for. You help to pay for it.

 

Bigoted how?

Right and wrong are never mentioned. Good and Evil are never mentioed. Sin is never mentioned. No judgment is made.

All it says is that marriage costs you, me, and everyone money. That money is either well spent, or it is not.

 

You are drawing parallels between pedophilia and incest and comparing it to gay and lesbians this is the most bigoted load of rubbish and I'm just going to sit back and watch it blow up in your face

 

No I'm not.

I oppose them for completely different reasons.

I oppose marriages based on pedophilia and incest because they result in inviable births.

I oppose marriages for gay and lesbian couples because no births are created at all.

Try reading the essay again. Put your thinking cap on.

 

Notice I am not judging anything.

I am not saying gay and lesbian lifestyles are bad.

Nor am I saying incest and pedophilia are bad.

For that matter, couples who happen to have incompatible blood types are not bad. There is no sin. Just luck of the draw. Yet we should prohibit marriage licenses in those cases, on rational grounds. And we DO.

Sin doesn't enter into the argument at all. Good and bad have no relevance. Right and wrong have no relevance.

 

So it's all about breeding and money to you what about equal rights what about freedom and don't be an idiot and bring incest and all that shit into it remember your heading rational argument . Of course brother and sister shouldn't marry of course underage children shouldn't marry ! We are talking about consenting adults it's 2015 take your nuclear family phrase and shove it your ass honestly who says that ! You want a rational argument I'll give you one who the fuck are you to disagree with anyone getting married based on their sexual preference or wether or not the couple can have children ? And as far as monetary effect on society in which you couldn't produce any concrete facts give it up marriages are good for the economy there is a marriage season for Christ sake retail depends in it . It also helps local government you pay licensing fees . when and if you get divorced you pay court fees there isn't any loop holes marriage is expensive sure there are tax breaks you need all you can get these days what's wrong with that ?

 

Do you oppose MY marriage? My wife is unable to have kids. There will be no children from my marriage

 

I'll stipulate to that. Especially since I said something similar about a year ago, but took a different path to get there.

Moving right along.

Instead of looking at it that way, let's go back to the original intent. "The nuclear family" with the key factor being more than just a husband and wife.

Since the key factor is in procreation/population, etc, then instead of having any government-related benefits kick in at the time of marriage, put the incentive further down the line. The kick in when they've either had a kid, adopted a kid, etc to meet the minimum standard of what constitutes a family. And verifying can be done easily enough. Birth certificates and adoption papers are two examples. And nowadays, most people file for a Social Security number for a kid as soon as he/she is born. Now, even if SS should ever cease to exist, the numbering system won't, as it'll just be called our "Tax ID".

Because, if you think about it, if marriage truly is a cost, then why not remove the incentive for the freeloaders to marry just for the benefits?

 

I do not see how homosexual marriage harms me. I do not see how it cheapens heterosexual marriage.

The problem with American society is not that some homosexuals want to get married. It is that many heterosexuals do not want to get married or to stay married to the biological parents of their children. Children raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to do much better in life than children who grow up under other circumstances.

Nevertheless, I wish the Supreme Court had stayed out of this issue. I dislike the Supreme Court as an institution. I dislike the power of courts in American politics.

Finally, I do not want the Democratic Party to be harmed by this. Homosexual marriage is the kind of issue that has harmed the Democrats since the 1960's. If homosexual marriage is a good idea I think we should leave that up to the voters.

 

Clarise,
I have no doubt that arguments like yours were used after the Supreme Court found bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
Back in the 60's.

If my gay brothers and sisters wish to buy a bitch they hate a house and pay a bitch they hate alimony after they get divorced, I sure as hell won't stop them.
Why would any heterosexual male want to have sole ownership of such a privilege?
The only thing worse that wanting something is getting it.
Let them have it.
All of it.

 

The same voters who thought Jim Crow laws were a good idea?
Pretty naive, DL.
Even for you.

 

You want people on the Discussion Board to back up their assertions with verifiable facts?
New here, aren't you?

 

After reading another tirade about how only heterosexual marriages are beneficial to society I can and will say but this. Bullshit.
More same-sex couples adopt the unwanted children that the heterosexual couples abandon.
More same-sex couples are self sustaining in income than so called heterosexuals giving the number of non-gays on welfare.
Same sex marriages do not get any benefit that a heterosexual couple does not, in fact by the fact that they are more likely to have a disposable income they pay more in sales and state taxes.
If you fear that the population will decline to a point where we cannot sustain nation you need to look around to see that right now there are more people here than we can realistically provide for. Clairise, your argument is all based on an irrational fear that allowing same sex marriages will somehow destroy the basis of marriage as a whole. You are afraid that just maybe what you believe might all be a lie.

 

People don't have to be married to have children.

A lot of unmarried people have children.

If the purpose of marriage was procreation, we'd all be wearing chastity devices till our wedding nights.

 

This gets closer to the intent of the essay than most of the other posts.

If marriage itself did not confer remunerative advantage that triggers economic distortion, there would be no debate.

I am all for love in whatever form it takes.

Let marriage be about love and only love.

 

Covered in the essay.

 

So your solution is to choose the lesser evil?

Why not fix them both?

Notice I said in the very first sentence that my argument pertains only to marriage in the United States, and you've just touched on the vast scope of the distortions as they exist here.

Only in America.