], am starting to get annoyed with people who do not believe in gay marriage. They do not present very good arguments to support their ideals. I will try to address several of them and explain why each is not a very good point upon which to argue. Thank god! An appeal to reason
actually manages to present a logical argument against homosexuality! An argument against it is listed below.
top 10 reasons against gay marriage
Also does a reasonably good job of explaining it's stance with logic. Arguments against every point are listed below.
Firstly it seems as if a great many of the people want to drag religion into the debate. Apparently Christianity is the one true religion and it seems as if the first couple was heterosexual. Not only that but the Bible does not like homosexuality, calling it a sin. All those would be valid points if religion really mattered in the issue. The fact of the matter is that this is a GOVERNMENT issue. There are SEVERAL religions and each has their own marriage ceremonies and priest who can legally marry people. There are also religions that are not so strict as to the people they are marrying. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have the government butt its head in on religious matters. So the government as no right to say “you cannot do this because it is against God’s will.” That would be religion having some part in the government and the government in religion. The government CANNOT be partial when it comes to matters like this. I know that you can’t please everyone but there are several different religions and each has their own beliefs. Should the government allow polygamy because the Mormons believe it is their sacred right? Should the Native Americans be allowed to chew hallucinogenic plants because it is part of their religious ceremonies? Because we cannot please every religion that exists in America we have to stay away from associating with a specific religion. So religion is out of the question.
Now of course someone will say “but this country was founded on Christianity.” That may be true, it may say “in God we trust” on our coins, some may swear on the bible at court, but those are historical things. The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom! Freedom to believe whatever they wanted! Even though this country was founded by Christians it was founded by tolerant Christians. They where tolerant at the time because they where experiencing religious persecution and they knew what it was like. Apparently that feeling has been lost over the years. In any case, we are back once again to the fact that religion should have no say in the government. It says so right in the constitution.
You must also read into it a little and realize that the writers of the constitution where, in fact, agnostic. The constant use of the term "Creator" is a clear indicator of that fact. If anything the writers where making the constitution appear agnostic: recognizing the existence of something greater than themselves as the basis for morality but not limiting that force as anything specific, but rather a vague concept of devinity. History has also shown that many things such as "in God we trust" being on our currency and "One nation, under God..." in our pledge of allegiance as being little more than "pieces of meat" thrown to the religious lions to calm them and keep them from making outrageous demands.
If you are still intent on making this about religion, I urge you to read the following two essays:
Now all that needs to be done is come up with an argument that does not involve religion. Oddly enough most people’s arguments fall short just after comments about “Adam and Steve.” Not only is that just plain pitiful, but in my opinion it shows great ignorance. I will attempt to move right along and come up with reasons against homosexuality and their marrying and prove just how silly the logic is.
Firstly, homosexuality is against biology. It is simply not natural. Men are meant to be with women for reproductive purposes. This would imply that “Mates” are those that come together to “mate”. Since homosexuals cannot produce offspring they are not “Mates” and therefore cannot be considered a couple worthy of marriage. This is a reasonable argument at first glance but it does not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly many couples are on birth control or are incapable of having children. Should heterosexual couples be disallowed marriage just because they cannot reproduce? Then there are the sexual behaviors to consider. There are several heterosexual couples who engage in sexual practices that deviate from what biology intended. Should heterosexual couples be disallowed from being married because they have deviant sexual practices? Should the government be able to tell us how we can express our love for one another?
The next argument is thus: homosexual relationships are based purely off of sexual pleasure, not love. Some might not be able to see that two people of the same gender can actually love each other, but first let’s assume that it is impossible, that they are in it purely for the sex. Well, the fact of the matter is that a healthy marriage usually has a healthy sex life. and there are a great many people who marry because they mistake sex for love. Although these people have no business getting married in the first place it implies that any couple who wishes to be married would be required to have their relationship evaluated by the government to decide whether or not their relationship warrants marriage. Do you want the government to be able to say “no, you cannot get married because we do not think you are serious”?
The next argument is a silly one but it should be addressed. Some people are just plain disgusted by homosexuality. The idea of anal sex does not particularly appeal to me either but there are several other sexual practices that some other people may find disgusting. I could list a few of them, but I prefer to keep this dignified and I would rather not gross out my readers and lose their interest. The fact of the matter is that what I may think is “FREAKING HOT!” may be “GAG ME WITH A SPOON!” gross to others. I myself have more than a few fetishes and I would be VERY displeased if they meant that I could never marry should I wish to practice them. Not to mention, girls, that us guys would have a new excuse to not marry you: “Sorry hun, the government won’t allow me to get married, I have a foot fetish.” Certainly we do not need any more reasons to leave you hanging. ~_^
Now you might say “but they’re straight, they don’t count.” But the fact of the matter is that this is a country of tolerance and homosexuality is not illegal (even though sodomy is illegal in some places). The fact that homosexuality is not illegal suggest that the government holds the view that “gay is ok.” Not only that but the government and even a great number of those against gay marriage will say the same thing. In other words, heterosexuals are equal to homosexuals as far as rights go. So the same standards that are applied to one group must be applied to them all. And the real questions are: “Would you be willing to give up your rights for this? Do you want the government to be able to deny you a marriage license just because you deviated from the missionary position? Do you want the government to say you cannot be married just because you enjoy sex?”
On a side note I was asked to list a few people/groups who are not opposed to gay marriage and also are able to marry people (join two people in marriage). Firstly there are Pagans. The Pagan world is very lose and ecclectic, each facet of Paganism is different, some of them are pro gay marriage. There is also the fact that there are people who are given the power to marry people (join two people in marriage) by the state, meaning that they have NO religious affiliation. Depending on the views of this individual they may or may not be pro gay marriage. Furthermore there are also people like ship's captains and other people of certain rank who are afforded the power to marry people (join two people in marriage), and again their willingness or unwillingness to join any two people is entirely their own. Right now the only thing that prohibits gay marriage is their inability to obtain a marriage liscense. That too is not a religious matter, but rather a matter of the state.
To counter An appeal to reason:
Firstly They suggest that sex is simply for reproduction. This is obvious in animals, surely they only have sex for reproduction! Of course that is entirely incorrect. Sexual reproduction is meant to be between a male and a female, but that does not mean that the act itself is for reproductive purposes only. Firstly most animals would have little to no concept of the survival of their genes. They would not be having sex to have offspring. They do it because they are wired to, it is instinct. There are also animals that do it for sheer dominance, such as dogs. Male dogs will hump other male dogs as a show of dominance, as will female dogs hump other female dogs or even males as a show of dominance. There is also an ape called the Bonobo, in their “society” they substitute aggression for sex. Sex is not limited to just male-female interactions and appears to be a strong influence in their social behavior. See: http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
Also male elephants engage in long lasting homosexual relationships that are actually more caring than their heterosexual relationships. See:
So it seems as if even biology has developed several different reasons for sexual contact than simple reproduction.
Another example of why sex is not purely for reproduction can be found under your own clothing. The average penis size for a chimp is about 3 inches, and the time it takes to ejaculate is about 15-20 seconds. The average penis size for humans is 5-7 inches and I believe the average time it takes to ejaculate is around 2-5 minuets with some people possibly lasting for hours at a time. This is inefficient for reproduction. The length of the human penis and the time it takes to reach climax (for both genders) is a clear indicator that sex is for pleasure first and for reproduction second. In biology we have a saying "Form dictates function" and our form obviously shows that we're built for the pleasure and not for reproductive efficiency.
The next argument is a simple statement that homosexual behavior is against the way that we are meant to function and can be unhygienic. There are obviously several illness that can be caused by certain forms of sexual interaction. The fact of the matter is that to say this should not be allowed because it is bad for their health is absurd for more than a few reasons. Firstly, we allow people to drink and smoke, corroding their livers and searing their lungs. We cannot deny them these things. They do it because they enjoy it, or because they’re addicted to it. There is also the fact that just about everything in today’s world causes or leads to some disease. And in the end we are all mortal, we will ALL die. Who are we to deny a group of people the right to pursue happiness just because we think it’s unhygienic? With proper precautions and regular checkups the involved parties can also avoid any serious issues.
There is also the issue of tattoos. In many cultures tattoos are ritualized and cover a large portion of the body. This is an uneeded practice that has no basis in biology. It can result in sever infections that can cause fatal fevers. Still such things are done. They are not banned because a few people become ill. I would like to see the percentages that any of the diseases mentioned actually manefest themselves in homosexual and heterosexual couples. In any case, to make the issue about health is really a non-issue. People do things every day that are unhealthy. And as I said before it all leads to the same place, death. We are all equally mortal.
Some will bring up AIDS in the fight. I won’t in the least. The fact is that AIDS is not caused by homosexuality nor is it limited to homosexuals. It’s an issue for ALL people who engage in sexual relations. If anything allowing gay marriage would cut down on the number of partners (assuming that gays just have sex with everybody, which of course is false) and therefore would decrease the spread of disease. (I realize that was very biased sounding, it was meant to).
An appeal to reason
also brings up the notion that homosexuality will somehow lead to a dangerous decrease in our population. Although I am disappointed that homosexuals are (from a biological standpoint) a waste of perfectly good genetic material our species is far from endangered. If anything we are severely overpopulated. We could easily produce enough food to support our numbers but the world would not run horribly efficiently. If anything we could use a good plague to wipe out a portion of our number to give this planet a bit of a break.
To counter top 10 reasons against gay marriage
10) All the homosexuals I've known are pro gay marriage. "homosexuals see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society."
Do they have secret gay meetings to plot world domination?
9) "Especially after last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling which overturned Texas’ law against sodomy"
Er... that bit pretty much shows that the Supreme Court does not think homosexuality is immoral enough to be illegal. America has decided that it's "OK to be gay."
8) Until recently no one knew that homosexuality was, in fact, a sexuality. Human sexuality was not even studied until very recently. What history knew of homosexuality was nothing. I would like to think that we can benifit from education, science, and psycology. Not blatently ignore it.
7) Language? You've got to be kidding me. I'm supprised they used this one, I certinaly wouldn't have. Not to mention that the term "Homosexual" is a VERY new term. It did not exist in language for quite some time. So you really can't compare the two. They being based on concepts concieved at two very different time periods.
6) "homosexuals who now lobby for same-sex “marriage” will not stop at mere governmental endorsement of their immoral activity; one day they will insist that all society -– including evangelical churches -– condone, protect and even bless these “marriages.”"
That's rediculous. Why would someone want to force someone to marry them? That is to join them in marriage. You cannot force a priest to do that. You simply must find someone willing to do it. Such is the case for any couple. A priest may decline to marry a person for whatever reason they want. Perhaps they will want the religous to be nice to them and not tell them they're going to hell. But that's common curtesy... not to mention that you convert no one by condeming them.
5) The "Slippery Slope" argument was used when people apposed interratial marriages as well. I see how this is no different. Not to mention that I argue the same slippery slope. If we start pandering to one religion all the others will begin to DEMAND that their religious views be honored, no matter what they are. Be they polygamy, insest, animal sacrifice, drug use, etc...
Let me also give an excerpt from my critical thinking class:Silppery Slope (black-and-white fallacy). A line of reasoning in which there is not gray area or middle ground. It argues for (or against) the first step because if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last (which is usually quite horrible...).
They flat out use the term "Slippery Slope" when by doing so they are using the name of a form of fallacy. Basically they are arguing that if gay marriage is allowed it will "open a can of worms" when it's absolutely possible that it may go no further. Let me give another example: Kids who smoke pot will start on other drugs. They will slowly graduate from pot to harder and harder substances as they are introduced to that particular vein of society. This will lead to homelessness then imprissionment. In prison they will be raped and murdered.
So... kids shouldn't smoke pot. Although the statement is probably true (prehaps they should if they have certain diseases or are told to take a drag or get shot in the head)... but the argument isn't based on fact. And I would urge anyone who beleives that allowing Gay Marriage is the first step on a "Slippery Slope" to back up that claim with real world examples and not shakey fallacy.
4) That is true, but not entirely. There are several examples in the animal kingdom, that i have allready mentioned, where such things are completely natural.
3) "“Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child’s best interest,”"
What of single parents? Should they give the child up so they can have a mother and father? I would think that two loving parents are better than one, any day. And we have nothing against single parents.
2) How will same-sex marriage make the current marriage situation worse? Marriage is what you make it, you reap what you sow. If a marriage fails it is their fault, and the blame can lie no where else.
1) It's a government issue. Not everything is about Christianity. To them it may be the one truth, but it's not everyone's truth. Nor are all marriages of a spiritual nature.
Now why would gays want to get married? Why do they disserve the right?
Marriage doesn’t even seem to be about love anymore with more than half of marriages resulting in divorce. People simply do not think of marriage the same way they used to. In any case there are SEVERAL issues that need to be addressed.
There are many benefits to being married that homosexual couples should be allowed to enjoy. If they are devoted to each other and are life partners then they should be afforded the same treatment as any other couple that is so devoted. If one of the people gets a new job somewhere else (say they are promoted) the company usually pays to move them out there, including their family (their spouse and their children if they have any). If the couple was gay (and thusly not married) then they only pay for one to move and if they have children and they are listed under the other partner then they are not paid for either. This is simply unfair. Just because of their sexual preference they are not allowed to seek happiness in a more lucrative job? Must they be forced to choose between love and money? That’s just plain sick!
There are several other issues, most of which are listed here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
The fact of the matter is that they DISSERVE to be happy and to enjoy the same benefits of marriage.
Gay Marriage and the Restriction of Religious Freedom
I've recently discovered that in many places in Canada gay marriage is legal. However, and this may even be a trend among countries that allow gay marriage, religious freedom is restricted. New Canadian legislation may make the Christian Holy Bible illegal as it might be labled "hate literature". Firstly this is wholy false. The message therein has nothing to do with hate. It's insane to think that people could be so ignorant and intollerant. Hate literature is perfectly legal. It's a freedom of speech/the press thing. I know not all countries are as lenient about such things as the US is but that is a basic undeniable human right. I want to make it known that although I do support gay marriage I do not support anything that restricts religious freedom in such a manner. I urge all who support gay marriage to be more tollerant. Even if it may seem as if the majority of Christians are intollerant towards your beliefs/lifestlyes, that does not give you the right to hipocritically be intollerant in return.
Feel free to suggest other arguments as to why gay marriage is something the government should disallow. Keep in mind that I will be trying to discredit them. Also do not try to tell me religious reasons why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong. You can, however, suggest reasons why religion does have a say in things (expect all such comments to be shot down quickly.) I welcome you to try and prove me wrong, I welcome you to try and provide other arguments. Put them in the comments below, do not message me about it.