Arguments against gay marriage

Homophobia - RationalWiki
Same-sex marriage - RationalWiki

 

The argument that "if gay marriage is okay because of it's composed of two consenting adults, then what's wrong with consensual incest and consensual polygamy?"

This argument sort of stumps me

 

I've actually not heard anything that is even close to a good argument against gay marriage. :l. I think they're all just bullsquirt.

---------- Post added 1st Jun 2013 at 08:24 PM ----------

Sorry for the double post.

That's sort of a slippery slope. If we allow just opposite-sex marriage, does polygamy and incestuous marriage follow? No. The only thing that happens when we allow same-sex marriage is allow same-sex couples to marry legally and get all the benefits an opposite-sex couple has.

 

Nothing. Thats the thing about informed consent.

It should be noted that I am not talking about marriages which consist of a man "owning" multiple wives, who consented not because of love but cultural programming and/or pressure, or because of coercion. That is the bad side of polygamy, but the same can be said for any other type of marriage.

Also, before anyone throws genetics at me, I'm well aware of the issues surrounding reproduction with close family. Responsibility should be used.

My point is, consensual sex, and by extension, marriage is never inherently wrong. It can be abused, of course, but that doesn't mean it should be prevented. Kitchen knives can be abused.

To get back on to topic, though, the only secular arguments I've heard have to do with economics or nature. The nature ones aren't even remotely convincing, and are just attempts to use "science" to justify prejudice. As for the economical ones, I suspect they are also used to justify prejudice, but they are worth closer analysis.

The basic argument is that since gay couples can't reproduce (a slightly faulty premise, given that adoption, IVF and surrogacy are possible, and technology to allow biological reproduction of people of the same sex is being developed, and has been successful in smaller mammals), producing the "building blocks" of the next generation, that they aren't worth giving the economic benefits of marriage.

Firstly, not all countries have tax benefits for marriage anyway. The UK doesn't, and its probably better that way. But even if it were better to give the tax cuts, I don't believe that any economic argument should outweigh freedom. The principal purpose of a society should never be the acquisition of wealth. I've yet to figure out what the purpose should be, but thats a different matter.

In a more on-topic response to the "slippery slope" argument, regardless of the possible consequences of same sex marriage in terms of what kinds of marriage it may lead to, it should be judged on the morality of the event occurring: in no way is it unethical for two adults to marry, assuming they both freely and informedly consent. And so it shouldn't be prevented.

 

All the arguments against marriage equality:

• Wah wah wah I'm a big crybaby

That's all of them.

 

Interesting. I want to look more into this technology for biological reproduction of the same-sex...that just sounds astoundingly cool.

 

screw any nature arguments.
birds and reptiles use reverse XX/XY systems mammals, which is also called as ZW system
there are many types of reproductive methods and signs in nature, and since there are more bugs and plants than humans, should we use those too?
(some bugs, I think roaches, determines sex by having a sex chromosome or not)

 

Conservatives actually have a really strong argument. You guys ready for this?

Lesbian don't exist, because in my fantasy land, which totally represents reality, women who get sexual with each other will actually let me have a threesome with them, so it can be... totally like... double the patriarchy. Also, gay guys should just get murdered, because they shouldn't be fucking each other in the ass. Therefore, gay marriage is bad.

Sick propositional logic.

 

The only argument I could imagine would be that marriage was an institution built to rear children and federal/state/local tax benefits would only be given to couples who had children (i.e. you could have a civil union for inheritance and legal rights, but all the financial goodies would only be bestowed to those who raised children). Once the last child turned 18, your marriage reverted to a civil union :lol:. Let's see how many conservatives vote for this.

 

Actually, this subject hit me pretty hard today. Being a closeted bisexual I know one day I will want to either marry a woman, or a man. So when my friend said his SAT essay topic was "How life isn't fair to all people" and he said he did his on gay marriage I was happy and congratulated him on picking such a modern and arguable subject. I asked him what he wrote and he literally said "They just need to learn that it isn't fair and they can just accept it or move." .....:bang:...... I almost beat the shit out of him right then and there. But my better judgement told me to argue. I asked him why he thinks that. His answer? Because it's just wrong. I knew he was a super religious Christian but damn... I went on about how it shouldn't matter if people think it's wrong and if two people love each other who is society to intervene? I almost started laughing when he said "So what if a guy loved you, would you be ok with that?" I was about to respond Why, Yes I would! :icon_bigg but after hearing all that I didn't think he'd take it well. But ya, it's astonishing how real the subject of same sex marriage gets when you actually think about it. In the end, I told him I hope his grader is gay and he fails. :eusa_danc

 

LOL Who wants to get married these days anyways?
Even straight people don't want to get married anymore.
There is almost as much divorces/adultery as there are marriages. (^_^)

Just saying, don't rip my heart out please.

 

Wouldn't dream of it. I just want to say that "almost" is a bit generous. I suspect that there are WAY more affairs that marriages.

 

I heard a great one today on Facebook

"today at subway a guy ahead of me ordered a different sandwich than I did. Even though it didn't effect me at all I was furious"

Foxface

 

:roflmao:

 

but us non-hetero still dont get the benefits lolz

 

Im sure most couples gay or straight dont really care they dont need to have a piece of paper to define their love, but its the beneifits they get from marriage is what they want,which is why it would be nice if civil unions gave all those benefits.

 

On a lighter note, the argument quagmire makes here is pretty convincing :rolle:

[YOUTUBE]N0lLTF7pyJs[/YOUTUBE]

 

The only argument I've got is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Which means they can't really do much of anything to churches. If religious organizations say no gay marriage, they have to be allowed to exercise that opinion and not perform those marriages.

On the flip-side, that means churches can't officially influence government decisions. So a secular government must govern with secular logic, and one would be hard-pressed to find an atheist who is homophobic enough to vote his beliefs into law. Hence why I believe gay marriages should be absolutely legal for the legal benefits (aka married in a courtroom), and left up to the churches' opinions if marriages are conducted there.