Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Ugolino]

Is there a single one that doesn't have more holes than a cheese grinder?

This isn't a joke post; I actually can't think of one that has any evidence or reasoning beyond "homosexual is bad", "sanctity of marriage", and the like.

I was curious, because surely not everyone opposing it is an idiot. There has to be a reason, however distorted, that it can summon so much opposition. Right?

[Soontir C'boath]

It usually boils down to being disgusting or [add synonyms here].

[Samuel]

Small business owners have to pay for the new spouses health care. Yeah the head of the Republican party offered that one up.

All of the objections break down, especially the ones that attempt to be more sensible because you quickly realize how hypocritical and wrong they are. Like we shouldn't encourage gays because they have higher rates of suicide and depression... and the reason is because society looks down on them.

Welcome to the realization that some people really are complete idiots. SUcks, doesn't it?

[PaperJack]

"It's tradition"

[Ugolino]

That's actually somewhat depressing.

Are you sure there isn't anything? How about the allegedly "sensible" ones?

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's actually somewhat depressing.

Are you sure there isn't anything? How about the allegedly "sensible" ones?

Absolutely nothing...

[Morilore]

Ross Douthat of the NYT gave a college try last week:

The Marriage Ideal
By ROSS DOUTHAT

Here are some commonplace arguments against gay marriage: Marriage is an ancient institution that has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman, and we meddle with that definition at our peril. Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is natural; gay relationships are not. The nuclear family is the universal, time-tested path to forming families and raising children.
Susan Etheridge for The New York Times

These have been losing arguments for decades now, as the cause of gay marriage has moved from an eccentric- seeming notion to an idea that roughly half the country supports. And they were losing arguments again last week, when California’s Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that laws defining marriage as a heterosexual union are unconstitutional, irrational and unjust.

These arguments have lost because they’re wrong. What we think of as “traditional marriage” is not universal. The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy. The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children.

Nor is lifelong heterosexual monogamy obviously natural in the way that most Americans understand the term. If “natural” is defined to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available. Hence the historic prevalence of polygamy. And hence many societies’ tolerance for more flexible alternatives, from concubinage and prostitution to temporary arrangements like the “traveler’s marriages” sanctioned in some parts of the Islamic world.

So what are gay marriage’s opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? It’s a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.

This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.

The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.

Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.

Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.

In this landscape, gay-marriage critics who fret about a slippery slope to polygamy miss the point. Americans already have a kind of postmodern polygamy available to them. It’s just spread over the course of a lifetime, rather than concentrated in a “Big Love”-style menage.

If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary. The lifelong commitment of a gay couple is more impressive than the serial monogamy of straights. And a culture in which weddings are optional celebrations of romantic love, only tangentially connected to procreation, has no business discriminating against the love of homosexuals.

But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.

But based on Judge Walker’s logic — which suggests that any such distinction is bigoted and un-American — I don’t think a society that declares gay marriage to be a fundamental right will be capable of even entertaining this idea.

It still boils down to "straight marriage is better because I say so, therefore fuck the homos." Today, I read a letter to the editor regarding this article that contained what I think is a pretty beautiful statement wrapping up the problem with this guy:

Re “The Marriage Ideal” (column, Aug. 9), Ross Douthat’s defense of heterosexual marriage:

Ideals may be hard to argue with, but they have real-world consequences, and even a beautiful vision of marriage as an abstract ideal becomes ugly when it excludes actual human beings and damages their well-being. Ideas don’t ache, institutions don’t suffer and symbols don’t sob, but real people do.

By Mr. Douthat’s logic, the love, commitment and sacrifice that my partner and I share and practice (13 years so far) count for nothing compared with a particular ideal about what should be true. For that matter, our rights don’t count either. That’s not an ideal that we, or many people in this country, can get behind.

Amanda Udis-Kessler

[Morilore]

It makes sense that no one can construct an argument against gay marriage that isn't full of shit. Marriage is alot about social approval. It's people getting up on stage and (to be crass and overly simplistic) going "HEY GUYS WE ARE HAVING SEX" and society collectively goes "cool have fun ." It's more than that to most people, but it almost always is at least that. So when people oppose marriage equality they are saying that they believe that a gay relationship does not deserve social acknowledgment, and when they timidly propose "civil unions" they are saying that a gay relationship deserves to be regarded as inferior to a straight relationship. No one can come up with a good reason for that, because there is nothing inherently inferior or harmful to society about such relationships, so there is no reason to deny them the same ceremonial and official recognition that straight couples receive.

[Broomstick]

The only reason I can see to hold heterosexual marriage above homosexual marriage is if you believe one of the primary reasons for marriage is reproduction - but to be consistent such a person would also have to oppose the infertile marrying, and women past menopause marrying. In addition, modern reproductive medicine can get around a lot of the "infertility" of homosexuals (the typical homosexual, of course, being typically fertile, it's just that left to their inclinations they don't' engage in sex likely to lead to conception.)

NOTE: Not my personal opinion.

[Singular Intellect]

Is there a single one that doesn't have more holes than a cheese grinder?

This isn't a joke post; I actually can't think of one that has any evidence or reasoning beyond "homosexual is bad", "sanctity of marriage", and the like.

I was curious, because surely not everyone opposing it is an idiot. There has to be a reason, however distorted, that it can summon so much opposition. Right?

I remember in my naive youth I objected to homosexuality on the basis of it being a quirk of nature (like bad eyesight becoming more and more prevalent) and correctly pointing out 'evidence' like anal sex being a behavior that didn't exactly agree with evolutionary aspects of our physiology.

Obviously that's still a position full of holes and I let my personal bias blind me to that. Now even trying to find an argument against it is futile (for me) since the subject simply cannot circumvent my two criteria of "who does it hurt?" and "none of my fucking business".

That said, I simply cannot lie and claim I do not find the idea of two guys getting it on rather disgusting, but that's personal taste and hardly subject to debate. But I still tenaciously defend gay rights, crack down on irrational opinions about them and 100% support their continued fight to be fully accepted in society.

[Sinanju]

When they want to try and paint themselves as 'reasonable', I've often seen same-sex marriage opponents throw out the idea that gays should just get civil unions and be satisfied. This of course ignores two things:

1) civil unions aren't equal to marriage, legally.
2) even if, in an ideal world, they were...why does that argument sound so familiar?

Maybe it's just my imagination.

Sometimes they'll hem and haw about how the government doesn't have any business regulating marriages anyway, as if they really have any intention of campaigning against the very idea of marriage licenses. Yeah, that's pretty much as good as it gets. It really will pretty much boil down to 'guys screwing guys makes me uncomfortable, so I want them to stop that'.

[LionElJonson]

Children are better off when raised with a father and a mother. Being raised by a same sex couple is sub-optimum as a result, just like being raised by a single parent is. Therefore, we should discourage gay people from having children, and discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that.

[Simon_Jester]

Children are better off when raised with a father and a mother.

Citation needed.

Being raised by a same sex couple is sub-optimum as a result, just like being raised by a single parent is.

Citation needed.

Therefore, we should discourage gay people from having children, and discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that.

If so, then should we also have child protective services automatically confiscate children of single parents, to hand them over to heterosexual couples? Should gay couples be banned from adopting? What if that means that an increased number of children go to families that are abusive or unprepared to care for them? Or if they grow up in orphanages with NO parents, not being adopted at all?

[LionElJonson]

Children are better off when raised with a father and a mother.

Citation needed.

Being raised by a same sex couple is sub-optimum as a result, just like being raised by a single parent is.

Citation needed.

Google turned up these. Good enough?

Therefore, we should discourage gay people from having children, and discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that.

If so, then should we also have child protective services automatically confiscate children of single parents, to hand them over to heterosexual couples? Should gay couples be banned from adopting? What if that means that an increased number of children go to families that are abusive or unprepared to care for them? Or if they grow up in orphanages with NO parents, not being adopted at all?

Of course not. I didn't say it was the worst option, merely a sub-optimal one.

[Shroom Man 777]

How is a single parent anything like a same-sex couple? The principal problem of a single parent is that, by balancing work and child-rearing activities, the single lone parent simply does not have enough time to be there with the child/ren while earning a living. Since same-sex couples are not single parents, since there are two of them, then this would not be a problem. It would be nothing like a single parent as a same-sex couple has TWO parents (not a single one).

Suicide rate? Maybe that has something to do with same-sex couples being homosexuals, and homosexuals being discriminated against by fucks like you and other homophobic little shitpieces who think same-sex couples should be discouraged from having children?

It's like saying children of mixed-race marriages have certain XYZ-negative attributes, without realizing that these negative things are caused by racist pieces of shit discriminating against the children of mixed-race marriages (or same-sex couples).

It's not good enough. Your articles are the following:

How Are the Children of Single Mothers Faring? Evidence From the Fragile Families Study - unless same-sex couples have uteruses, they are nothing like single mothers. Unless same-sex couples become single (instead of a COUPLE), they are nothing like SINGLE mothers. SINGLE. COUPLE. SINGLE. COUPLE. SINGLE =/= COUPLE. Jesus. In fact, if a homosexual couple both have penises instead of ovaries, and their milkbags don't make milks, then even if they end up divorcing none of them are becoming single mothers anyway.

Children in Single-Parent Families Living in Poverty Have Fewer Supports after Welfare Reform - What does this have to do with same-sex couples? Are COUPLES single-parent families? Jewsus. The article is about the problem of POVERTY and SUPPORT/WELFARE REFORM, not about a lesbian couple licking each other's vaginas.

Children with same-sex parents prone to suicide, study reveals - Here is where you've got something that's actually on-topic. Let's quote:

A study presented at the symposium in Mexico, “Homosexual Adoption: What Science Has Discovered,” revealed that most children adopted by same-sex couples display “greater levels of stress,” and suffer from “suicidal tendencies and attempts.”

The symposium was organized by the Mexican Institute on Sexual Orientation, “Renacer,” in order to provide scientific information about homosexuality, homosexual adoptions and their impact on child development.

During a presentation on research conducted by George A. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, the presenters noted that “boys and girls adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples show a greater level of stress than that which is already generated by their status as orphans or children abandoned by their biological parents.” They added that this situation “produces diverse trauma and behavioral disorders that can even lead to suicidal tendencies or attempts.”

“According to various studies containing testimonies from children of homosexual parents, most them of admit to suffering strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension, shame and anger in trying to hide from their friends and relatives the homosexuality of their father or mother,” they continued.

This is not because of any inherent problem with same-sex couples. This is a problem brought about by HOMOPHOBIC FUCKSTAINS AND SHITPIECES who say shit like "we should discourage gay people from having children" and "discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that".

Saying that gay people shouldn't have kids because HOMOPHOBIC PIECES OF SHIT (like you) end up causing these kids to be suicidal is pretty fucking low of you, LionElDickface.

[Serafina]

Children are better off when raised with a father and a mother. Being raised by a same sex couple is sub-optimum as a result, just like being raised by a single parent is. Therefore, we should discourage gay people from having children, and discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that.

In other words, you should also discourage single parents.
This argument simply fails due to the fact that we do not do that. And that we generally do not handle things like that - we do not discourage a whole "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) because it is statistically slightly worse then another one.

To give another example of your logic, smokers are much more likely to raise smoking children. Smoking is proven to be very bad for ones health. Hence, we should discourage smokers from marrying and having children.
Dozens of other examples could be made, such as for poor or undereducated parents.
But we do not do that. And no one suggests that we do it. Only in the case of homosexual couples, this is suggested.
Why?
Simple: People who make these suggestions are homophobic bigots. Such as you, hatfucker.

And your basic premise fails as well.
Your first two links were about single parents and their children. But the main problem with single parents is that they do not have enough time for their kids. This is absolutely not the case with a homosexual couple. Since the major factor for problems with single parents is not present in homosexual parents, any comparision is simply invalid.
The last link is by a catholic news agency, which is suspicious enough. But even if the results of the study were correct, it is likely that the resulsts are simply because the peers of these children treat them badly due to their parents. The mentioned stress consists of stuff like
-their parents are not legally recognized. Thus, they can not take both parents to school events etc.
-Other parents see "the homos" as a bad or dangerous influence and thus discourage their children from playing with the kids of these parents.
-These children are constantly exposed to attacks on their parents - campaigns against homosexuality, homosexual marriage and so on.

This is quite comparable to children of interracial marriage. There is no inherent problem with it, but in an intolerant society these problems will be created. By people like you, shitstain.

[ray245]

One argument that is often thrown around in the WUDC debate circuit was that allowing same-sex marriage now would essentially result in some sort of backlash and undermine the gay rights movement.

Either that, or they would essentially go back to arguing about the sanctity of marriage. It is annyoing when a sizable portion of debaters still think that is a valid argument.

[LionElJonson]

Children are better off when raised with a father and a mother. Being raised by a same sex couple is sub-optimum as a result, just like being raised by a single parent is. Therefore, we should discourage gay people from having children, and discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that.

In other words, you should also discourage single parents.
This argument simply fails due to the fact that we do not do that. And that we generally do not handle things like that - we do not discourage a whole "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) because it is statistically slightly worse then another one.

The world would probably be a better place if we did, though.

To give another example of your logic, smokers are much more likely to raise smoking children. Smoking is proven to be very bad for ones health. Hence, we should discourage smokers from marrying and having children.

We should do more to discourage smoking, period; if we could ban it and actually make it stick (rather than just creating another Prohibition), I'd be whooping with joy.

Dozens of other examples could be made, such as for poor or undereducated parents.

Yeah, we should discourage poor and undereducated people from breeding as well. It's a pity simply being poor isn't disincentive enough.

Simply put, in a perfect world, every child would be born in a middle-class or higher nuclear family with two loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, but just because we can't make the world perfect doesn't mean we can't make the world better.

[Serafina]

The world would probably be a better place if we did, though.

Oh, really?
So you want to forcibly remove childrens from their families and put them under the care of entirely foreign people?
Great plan. I hope you never have children.

We should do more to discourage smoking, period; if we could ban it and actually make it stick (rather than just creating another Prohibition), I'd be whooping with joy.

Red herring.

Yeah, we should discourage poor and undereducated people from breeding as well. It's a pity simply being poor isn't disincentive enough.

Fuck off, you police-state nazi.

Simply put, in a perfect world, every child would be born in a middle-class or higher nuclear family with two loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, but just because we can't make the world perfect doesn't mean we can't make the world better.

You still have not shown that same-sex parents are any worse at parenting than opposite-sex parents.

And no, children do NOT "need a mommy and a daddy". Because most gender behavior is learned from their peers, not from their parents. We know that from single-parent children (who only have a parent of a single gender), who do just that. If there is no male parent (or no female parent), they do just as well in regard to gender behavior as those who have both.
The reason why children of single parents are more troubled is simply because their parents have less time for their kids.

[Shroom Man 777]

One argument that is often thrown around in the WUDC debate circuit was that allowing same-sex marriage now would essentially result in some sort of backlash and undermine the gay rights movement.

Just like how integrated schools and same-sex marriages undermine the civil rights movement? Jesus Christ. Or, like, how allowing women to vote undermines the universal suffrage or women's rights movement? Jewsus. That's shit logic.

Either that, or they would essentially go back to arguing about the sanctity of marriage. It is annyoing when a sizable portion of debaters still think that is a valid argument.

Then a sizable portion of debaters are shitheads.

Simply put, in a perfect world, every child would be born in a middle-class or higher nuclear family with two loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, but just because we can't make the world perfect doesn't mean we can't make the world better.

Aside from your distorted personal preferences and preconceptions, what is exactly "wrong" with homosexuals or same-sex couples, that requires you to make them "better"?

Also, you have not answered my previous response to you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Children are better off when raised with a father and a mother. Being raised by a same sex couple is sub-optimum as a result, just like being raised by a single parent is. Therefore, we should discourage gay people from having children, and discouraging gay marriage is one way to do that.

There is not a single study which supports your conclusions, I will address the ones you posted in a second.

Google turned up these. Good enough?

No. First off, married or cohabitating homosexual parents do not equate to single parents. And the fear and anxiety for the children of gay parents in mexico is caused by the shitstains around the children in a third world catholic country who persecute them and their parents. It has nothing to do with the ability of the gay people to be effective parents. In more accepting cultures, almost every study done finds no difference in psychological adjustment and adult success between the children of heterosexual couples and the children of homosexual couples. Some studies (basically the ones left out of the first category) actually find that gay couples do better as parents. More than likely this is because there is almost no such thing as an accidental pregnancy for gay couples and every child they have is planned for.

Simply put, in a perfect world, every child would be born in a middle-class or higher nuclear family with two loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, but just because we can't make the world perfect doesn't mean we can't make the world better.

And how does harming gay couples and reducing the chance of orphans and cast offs being adopted--particularly older children who tend to be adopted by gay couples because no one else wants them--going to make the world better? For what? For a non-difference in the ability of gay couples to raise children?

[ray245]

One argument that is often thrown around in the WUDC debate circuit was that allowing same-sex marriage now would essentially result in some sort of backlash and undermine the gay rights movement.

Just like how integrated schools and same-sex marriages undermine the civil rights movement? Jesus Christ. Or, like, how allowing women to vote undermines the universal suffrage or women's rights movement? Jewsus. That's shit logic.

Either that, or they would essentially go back to arguing about the sanctity of marriage. It is annyoing when a sizable portion of debaters still think that is a valid argument.

Then a sizable portion of debaters are shitheads.

Well, you don't have an option of choosing sides in a debate. And the need to have more than one argument in debate don't really leave people with much of a choice.

[Twoyboy]

Of course not. I didn't say it was the worst option, merely a sub-optimal one.

Even if we assumed that same sex couples raising children was sub-optimal, if you're in favour of massive restrictions on human rights to ensure "optimal" conditions to raise children, I would suggest culling the poor, the stupid, the crippled, those genetically prone to disease and indeed about another 90% of the population.

Or do you admit that a balance between what is "optimal" and what is right is being struck constantly in all walks of society?

Back to the original question, a little pet peeve of mine in the Australian election is how many times I've heard the argument that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman... Yes, we know it is, that's why we'd like it changed you fucking retards. They act as if this is some kind of trump card which means they don't have to worry about it anymore. I swear to christ I'd love someone to embarrass them with this revelation.

[Simon_Jester]

In other words, you should also discourage single parents.
This argument simply fails due to the fact that we do not do that. And that we generally do not handle things like that - we do not discourage a whole "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) because it is statistically slightly worse then another one.

The world would probably be a better place if we did, though.

Citation needed.

Dozens of other examples could be made, such as for poor or undereducated parents.

Yeah, we should discourage poor and undereducated people from breeding as well. It's a pity simply being poor isn't disincentive enough.

Simply put, in a perfect world, every child would be born in a middle-class or higher nuclear family with two loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, but just because we can't make the world perfect doesn't mean we can't make the world better.

...And your idea of making the world "better" is to compound all our problems of poverty and ignorance with a population crash? Or do you honestly not get the part where the fact that children raised under condition X have a 2% higher risk of suffering effect Y doesn't automatically mean "parents living in condition X are unfit to have children?"

This is basic logic. You cannot go from "X works better" (even if you could prove that on the subject of parenting, and I don't think you can) to "only X should be allowed." You have to prove that X causes harm, real harm, harm over and above the kind of harm that sheer blind luck can cause.

Otherwise, you're just being a malicious bastard whose indifference to both basic logic and the suffering of real people causes you to advocate hideous nightmare policy that it's just as well you lack the political ability to get implemented.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think you guys are being trolled here, this guy can't be for real.