It’s probably a given that most people who support traditional marriage do so for religious reasons. That, of course, is never a bad thing, as those are probably the highest and best reasons to support traditional marriage. They won’t however, fly with non-religious people.
There are good reasons to be for traditional marriage that don’t involve religion. If you find yourself in a discussion with a non-religious person who is in favor of same sex marriage, you might want to stay away from using reasons based on faith or the Bible and use some of these. It always helps to have “reason” to combat the unreasonable!
First reason, natural reproduction. In order for the human race to continue, we have to reproduce. But wait, they say, we can reproduce too! There is IVF and surrogacy or even adoption! Not so fast. I said “natural” reproduction. If a pack of wolves needs to survive, they have to procreate. If there is a “gay” wolf in the pack that shows no interest in females even when they are in heat, his line and the pack die out. Nature won’t give that pack any special treatment or find another “third party” to stand in for him. IVF, surrogacy or adoption is sometimes a necessary way for some male/female couples to reproduce, but 100% of same sex couples have to use those methods to reproduce. Nature isn’t on their side, and honestly, society doesn’t have to be either.
Second, nature also teaches us the differences between male and female are complementary and necessary in raising a family. We each have specific and unique skills that are necessary to raise boys and girls. The best and most thorough studies on child rearing have shown that heterosexual, monogamous, biological parents are optimal for raising their children. Both sexes of children need something from the same sex and differing sex parents. Two same sex parents can’t, for obvious reasons, provide that. The straw man argument that there are “plenty” of abusive traditional parents is not an adequate argument to redefine marriage. Depriving children of something they need to grow and mature into healthy adults is also abusive.
Third, traditional marriage is more than a “love” union. Marriage is more than love. There are many types of love. Best friends or siblings can love each other, in a deep and emotional way, but they are not married.
Fourth, marriage is more than child rearing, though that is an important facet of it. Regardless of whether a traditionally married couple chooses not to have children, or can’t have them, the fact is that they can still consummate it in nature’s design for “coupling.” See “third” above.
Fifth, the divorce rate doesn’t justify redefining marriage. The supposed 50% divorce rate isn’t actually a true percentage. The 2010 census showed that an average of 9.0% of males and 11.7% of females in all age categories and ethnic groups are reported to be divorced. Regardless of the percentage, those who do it imperfectly (which would be all of us, since no one on earth is perfect) still don’t prove that the institution is broken and needs “fixing” by redefinition.
Sixth, saying that marriage is a cultural thing is not justification for fundamentally transforming it. Marriage has existed in its current form (man/woman) for several millennia. Not only in religious societies, but non-religious ones as well. Progressives may say that marriage has no real importance, no essence or importance, but if that were the case, why is it still happening? Gay activists seek to redefine marriage in order to make society adjust to them. The current percentage of gay or lesbians in America, per the CDC is 1.6%, so why should the other 98.4% bend to their will and lose the importance of the tradition, stability and reason for man/woman marriage?
Seventh, the will of the majority should matter. Most people believe that traditional marriage is important and deserves protection for reasons like the ones above and religious ones. Protecting traditional marriage isn’t bigoted or homophobic. Those who throw around those slurs don’t want discussion, they want to shut it down.
An interesting tool of those who want to redefine marriage is to tell people to substitute another “class” of people for gay. So let’s try that, shall we? Change “homosexual” to “Latino” and the “hateful bigotry” is quite clear. However, heterosexual Latinos who marry don’t redefine marriage. They confirm it. If they marry outside their race, they redefine race relations, but not marriage.
It is not usually acknowledged that sometimes discrimination has a reason. Before the screaming starts, let’s look at an example. Our Constitution discriminates. If you want to run for President, you must be at least 35 years old. In today’s vernacular that is “ageism” but it is widely accepted that someone younger than 50 isn’t experienced enough to lead our country. How many times has it been thrown around that a candidate is too old? Same thing. Ageism? Absolutely, but allowed and maybe even necessary.
After gays get to redefine marriage what’s next? If you give into the premise that 1.6% of the population should be allowed to do so, what about the less than 1% of relationships like polygamy, incest or pedophilia? Society has determined that these relationships are more often than not destructive to participants. Should their demands to be recognized also be allowed? “
But that will never happen!” they holler back. Well, not so fast. 30 years ago, the very idea that marriage should be redefined to include same sex marriage wasn’t even entertained. Now it is. Polygamists are already making noises to be recognized. Once the redefinition begins, you can’t stop it.
Lastly, civil unions are a reasonable compromise. The argument is always that gays want the same legal benefits that heterosexuals have. Ok, fine, these can easily be bestowed upon civil unions. Don’t like the name? Fine, call it “special” or “sacred” but not “marriage.” Leave that to traditional marriage.
But let’s face it, compromise isn’t what they want. They want to force their will upon the rest of society, plain and simple.