Same sex Marriage

I want to preface this answer by pointing out that I do not accept the following
argument.Nevertheless, I believe that political disagreements should be approached with an
attitude of fundamental respect. The fact that I disagree with opponents of same-sex marriage
does not prevent me from understanding their viewpoint as one that is distinct from religion.
My disagreement fits more widely into my rejection of social conservatism. I am not here to
convince you of the following argument, especially since I am not convinced by it. I am here to
convince you that it is a fundamentally rational and secular argument that just so happens to
coincide with most religious positions on marriage.
The logical, secular, rational argument against same-sex marriage is a social conservative one.
To simplify a rather complex political position in a sentence, a social conservative believes that
one of the responsibilities of government is to ensure a stable and moral society. The
institution of marriage is seen to be a fundamental aspect of such a society, because marriage
has proven to be a stable system for raising children.
I want to make it clear that this is the basis for the real issue of concern. Same-sex marriage is
only one aspect of the fundamental disagreement between social conservatives and social
progressives. Again simplifying a complex position down to one sentence, a social progressive
believes that government should respond to societal shifts by promoting positive change and
curbing negative change. The real argument about marriage comes down to the fact that a
social conservative believes that marriage is an institution for ensuring a stable home life for
children, and a social progressive believes that marriage is an institution for promoting the
happiness of the married couple (or other natural number greater than one). To give away my
position, I take the social progressive view. I'm assuming that most people on Reddit share
this view, so I'm not really going to explain it. I'm here to explain the social conservative view.
This social conservative view on marriage doesn't seem to work very well at explaining "love-
marriage", as a non-westerner might call it. In India, for example, there is a distinction
between love-marriage and the more usual marriage based on family choice, as opposed to
individual choice. The social conservatives views the family as more important than any one
individual, and marriage exists to promote the interests of the family. This is why Jacob
married Leah before Rachel in Genesis. This is why royal marriage was and is a political affair
in Europe. This is why arranged marriages are still common in India. It's important to realize
that these are not bad marriages. They simply embody a different definition of marriage than the
one most secular westerners accept today.
Now why should this social conservative definition of marriage embody a rejection of same-
sex marriage? Because the purpose of marriage is, in this view, to continue the family in a stable
way. That means, amongst other things, that one of the tasks of a married couple is to
produce children. The reason this is important in the social conservative view is that it ensures
that the children belong to a family, so the children have a tight network of people looking
after their interests. It also ensures that the family is not simply a collection of people with
potentially divergent interests. These people have a common interest in ensuring the
propagation of their genetic material. In this view, there is literally no point to same-sex
marriage. To call that particular kind of a union "marriage" is to violate the definition of
marriage that a social conservative accepts.
I want to conclude by explaining why I don't agree with this. To me, the idea that family must
be based on genetic relation is a dangerous fallacy. A family is and must remain a consensual
relationship between all individuals involved. The rights of the individual must take
precedence, because abuse can and does occur within families and often cannot come to light
because it would harm the family. For this reason, we cannot prescribe a reason for marriage.
A marriage is nothing more than a consensual contract between two (or more) individuals. It is
up to the married parties to decide what marriage means for them. I therefore disagree
strongly with opponents of same-sex marriage for roughly the reasons you'd expect. But I
respect the other side enough to at least try to understand their argument. I think I have it
right, but I welcome criticism.