The people making the case for a secular reason to forbid gay marriage seem to be putting a lot of their eggs in the basket of "protecting child-bearing within procreative marriage". They claim that the only reason to have the institution of marriage is to foster male-female unions that will take care of biological children. So gay marriages are not legal because they produce no children or adopted children that are not supported by a procreative marriage.
Here is the list of other things that this group should logically be against:
- Marriages of convenience between people that aren't sleeping together (no children)
- Marriages where one of the participants is infertile (no children)
- Marriages between people that don't want to have children (no children)
- Marriages that aren't annulled after menopause and children's majority (no children)
- Celebrity-length marriages lasting a matter of weeks or months (children not properly supported by a procreative marriage)
- Divorce (children not properly supported by a procreative marriage)
- Single parents (children not properly supported by a procreative marriage)
- Adopted parents (children not properly supported by a procreative marriage)
The other side of their argument seems to be historical. Historically, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Why change things?
Of course, historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman of the same ethnic background, professing the same religious beliefs. Well, wait... that's not quite right. Historically, marriage has been an exchange of property (one woman) between one man (father) and one man (husband). I sure am glad the religious are protecting us all from the depravity of two people making a lifelong commitment to one another (sometimes with the intent of providing a stable and nurturing family environment for children). Maybe next they can take us back to the days of miscegenation laws.