Anti-gay marriage arguments

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Sorry to bring up the topic of gay marriage again but I'm actually in the process of making a personal website and adding a series of pages towards arguing for gay marriage as well as a whole lot of rebuttals of anti-gay marriage arguments.

Besides the overly done appeal to tradition and the right-wing's insanely arrogant slippery slope accusations, what are the other silly arguments am I missing here? If a few of you guys can help me compile the list, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Personally although i find the subject unpleasant,
I think that no one has the right to tell people if they can or cannot marry, especially if theyre born to that orientation.

In other words- who the hell gave other people the right to ban a human being's right to happiness.

[mr friendly guy]

If you search the board, Darth Wong made some good points in some prior thread. However I can repost arguments I made on another message board.

I suppose someone can dig up the old thread so mono can have a look at the arguments. However I can summarise some of the arguments here, which usually take the form of unsupported claims, various logical fallacies, downright lying (hey its the oldest trick in the book) or just plain stupidity which crosses all sorts of logical boundaries.

1. Its unnatural.

Presumably their definition of 'unnatural' is something that won't happen without human influence. Several problems are apparent with this type of arguments.

a) homosexuality is no more unnatural than heterosexual. One only has to look at homosexual behaviour in animals to see through this claim

b) in sending that argument the homophobe has presumably used a pen or a computer to type such a message. This already belies hypocrisy among the homophobe plus an unwillingness to justify WHY this particular 'unnatural' act is wrong while another isn't. There MAY be some other justification against gay marriage, but in claiming that its because its unnatural, they just shot themselves in the foot.

c) In my state newspaper (which granted isn't exactly known for intellectuals in who writes letters to the editor) someone made the claim that marriage is natural (naturally only heterosexual ones), which made me want to laugh out loud because marriage is a human construct, thus is not 'natural' using that typical definition. I don't really see dogs going to church and marrying before mating. If they do what religion are they, hm?

2) If we allow gay marriage, it will lead to 'other' immoral acts like paedophilia, adultery (yes these dummies don't realise adultery already exists), bestiality, <insert whatever you hate here>

This type of argument is a slipper slope fallacy, where one thing (even if a small effect) automatically leads to another (usually one very large effect). These people have not shown HOW gay marriages would lead to the others.

These people fail to grasp the difference between CONSENT among mentally capable adults and NO CONSENT among an adult and a child or animal (who are unable to give consent). Moreover they still haven't explain why these acts are immoral (of which being gay isn't immoral). Of course they seem to think if you say its immoral enough times it magically becomes that. That's right, these people when ask to show how is homosexuality related to that will respond because they are both immoral. The best response I have seen is by an idiot who felt homosexuality was similar to paedophilia and adultery because, ...wait for it, because they USE THE SAME ' CATCH PHRASES'. Yep, takes stupidity to whole new level.

3) Its immoral

PROVE IT.

4) God said it is wrong

Oh boy, even before I knew this was called appeal to authority fallacy, I instinctively knew this type of arugment is irrational. You cannot hope to win a RATIONAL debate by quoting someones name to 'back' you up. Or else I can just say, my best friend is a genius. My best friend said so. Thus I win the argument.

We could point out (to nicer posters) the flaws with this type of reasoning

a) God still has to explain WHY.
b) People can easily quote God to support something else (In fact Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, who is gay quotes God as supporting it)
c) ask them to show God exists first because you aren't going to take the word of someones imaginary friend

Flippant response
a) And God told me gay marriages were fine with him. And God works in mysterious ways.

b) if God is all powerful, why does he need people wearing funny robes to tell us? Why doesn't he tell us himself with the usual fire and brimstone stunt he pulled in Sodom and Gomorra.

I also have a few rude responses, but I generally save them for really really dumbasses. This type of response can deviate somewhat from the original topic and tends to end up being an attack on God (but that's another debate).

5) Kids of gay couples would get bullied and subjected to social stigma

This is quite a warped argument in that it switches the responsibility of the perpetrator and victim. Instead of blaming the people who are unfairly stigmatising gays and their family members, it is the gays and their family members who at fault.

Reversing this argument, people shouldn't fly in aeroplanes because terrorists could hi jack the plane. Or replacing kids of gay couples, with kids of interracial marriages. Chances are there are people who have no trouble defending the argument in regards to interracial marriages, yet can't rationally explain why this magically doesn't apply to gay couples.

6) Kids of gay couples don't do as well <insert method here> as kids with a mother and a father.

Does the concept of UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS mean anything to these people. Obviously not. I mean who needs facts and reason when we can have hearsay and buzzwords?

The fact that kids can make a life for themselves with single parents just shows what BS this claim is.

What children need is LOVING PARENTS, regardless of what gender they are.

7) Marriage is a religious concept (only) thus the state would be forcing their views on religions

This is a bald faced lie. Secular marriages exist. Even in high school I knew from legal studies you did not need a priest to marry, heck a captain of a ship is legally allowed to perform marriages. The state is recognising marriage for its legal and civil dynamics. As for the religious dynamics, I leave that to which ever religion that wants to recognise it. And if anything the previous debate taught me is that there are some churches who will recognise it.

its against tradition

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

Please explain why your traditional method is better.

I could of course also point out lots of traditional ideas which have fallen out of favour, ie doing things without the aid of technology, not working on a Sunday etc. Why are these traditionalists fixated on this particular tradition but not others. There MAY be another reason why this tradition is superior, but it certainly isn't because of its nature of being a tradition.

9) more people disagree with it

Remember our friend slavery. Most people thought that was ok as well, but it didn't make it ok. Remember Hitler's pogroms against the Jews. Most Germans didn't have a problem with that either. Remember when most people thought the Sun orbited the Earth. Did the Earth magically change to orbitting the Sun when most people acknowledged it was so? Or did the Earth always orbit the Sun?

Right and wrong is not dependent on popularity. The cornerstone of democracy allows ALL people inalienable rights (as long as one does not violate someone elses rights) to protect the minority from the majority.

Lets assume we ask this question to the 'appeal to popularity' person before any polls were done.

Me : what do you think of gay marriage

Them : against it.

Me : why?

Them : because most people disagree with it

Me : Ok, but what happens if you don't know what the majority feels about this subject. Are you suddenly going to be indecisive and just follow what the rest does.

Them : of course not. Its still wrong.

Me : but if your argument revolves around 'most people disagree with it', and if most people's argument also revolves around that, how the hell do you even reach a conclusion one way or the other. You won't even get off first base because you would be trying to work out what 'most people want' before you even make a decision.

Them : hypocrisy is a great thing isn't it.

10) its an attack on marriage.

One wonders why they bring this argument when there is such a thing as divorce. Perhaps they can explain how 2 men or 2 women marrying will affect their marriage. Maybe one heterosexual partner would get so distressed by it that it put a strain on their marriage and they would divorce? Again this is a BS unsupported claim.

11) a) what type of message is this sending our kids? b) its teaching or kids to be gay

a) that we are a tolerant society and that bigoty is sent back to the dark ages where it belongs

b) Funny. Despite all gay voices crying out for marriage, all the reports of the Sydney mardi gras, it never once occurred to me to become gay. But it seems from your account that YOU PERSONALLY must have been tempted to become gay, (or else why are you afraid your kids would become gay). THAT'S VERY INTERESTING.

Once against another unsupported claim sprouted by homophobes.

12) the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman

Again this is an appeal to tradition. Secondly one wonders why they are trying to ban something which by definition is impossible. Are they not giving gay marriages the recognition that it is possible (even if not desirable to them)?

[Dalton]

I believe that there are no justifiable arguments against gay marriage.

[sparrowtm]

I believe that there are no justifiable arguments against gay marriage.

How about this one: "Married gay couples would enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples, but aren't able to contribute to society by producing future tax payers a.k.a. children."

A former friend of mine used that quote. While still invalid, it is at least more creative than the american fundie-blahshit.

[mr friendly guy]

That argument while somewhat better than the fundie bullshit still suffers from a) not all heterosexual couples produce kids b) invitro fertilisation is available to gay couples who can afford it c) adoption, and d) couples marry not solely because they want to contribute to society by having kids (but then fundies live in their little dream world).

[The Grim Squeaker]

How about this one: "Married gay couples would enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples, but aren't able to contribute to society by producing future tax payers a.k.a. children."

A former friend of mine used that quote. While still invalid, it is at least more creative than the american fundie-blahs

Same thing my grandad say's they dont bother him but he think's that a marriage should be able to produce children

[Keevan_Colton]

How about this one: "Married gay couples would enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples, but aren't able to contribute to society by producing future tax payers a.k.a. children."

A former friend of mine used that quote. While still invalid, it is at least more creative than the american fundie-blahs

Same thing my grandad say's they dont bother him but he think's that a marriage should be able to produce children

So he opposes marriage for infertile couples?

[The Grim Squeaker]

So he opposes marriage for infertile couples?

,
He think's that the biological purpose of human is to produce children (Quality not quantity if youre thinking fundie style) and homosexual couples cant do that naturally

Infertile couples can reproduce in most cases with enough therapy, alsough he simply doesnt like having a parade with bikini dressed men kissing each other on his front lawn. quite simply "do whatever you want just leave me out of it".

[Plekhanov]

I believe that there are no justifiable arguments against gay marriage.

How about this one: "Married gay couples would enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples, but aren't able to contribute to society by producing future tax payers a.k.a. children."

A former friend of mine used that quote. While still invalid, it is at least more creative than the american fundie-blahshit.

The "gays can't reproduce therefore they have no right to marry" argument is comprehensively demolished in this thread I'm sure given time you can find better sources than those I used but they're ok to be going on with.

This excellent article in Slate link looks at the effects of gay marriage in countries that have already adopted it, as you'd expect (but of course contrary to predictions by opponents of gay marriage) heterosexual marriage was unaffected.

Here’s a previous thread with a similar intention to this one link

This thread has a bunch of good links.

[General Zod]

So he opposes marriage for infertile couples?

,
He think's that the biological purpose of human is to produce children (Quality not quantity if youre thinking fundie style) and homosexual couples cant do that naturally

Infertile couples can reproduce in most cases with enough therapy, alsough he simply doesnt like having a parade with bikini dressed men kissing each other on his front lawn. quite simply "do whatever you want just leave me out of it".

that's mostly baseless fear mongering on his part. most homosexual couples won't act any different from most heterosexual couples, so unless they're complete assholes they won't be hitting on/harassing him 24/7. hell, i've been hit on by a few gay men before, and i have yet to meet one that won't stop after i simply tell 'em i don't swing that way.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I didnt say that he discriminates\hates\dislikes them, he just doesnt like having stuff like a parade in front of his house, he's not a fearmonger and is the polar opposite of a fundie in terms of religous perspective.
however i'm hardly a impartial observer.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
sparrowtm wrote:
Dalton wrote:
I believe that there are no justifiable arguments against gay marriage.


How about this one: "Married gay couples would enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples, but aren't able to contribute to society by producing future tax payers a.k.a. children."

A former friend of mine used that quote. While still invalid, it is at least more creative than the american fundie-blahshit. Laughing

The "gays can't reproduce therefore they have no right to marry" argument is comprehensively demolished in this thread I'm sure given time you can find better sources than those I used but they're ok to be going on with.

This excellent article in Slate link looks at the effects of gay marriage in countries that have already adopted it, as you'd expect (but of course contrary to predictions by opponents of gay marriage) heterosexual marriage was unaffected.

Here’s a previous thread with a similar intention to this one link

This thread has a bunch of good links.

Thanks, always interesting to have something to debate about.

[Zero]

If somebody ever says that God told them it was wrong, a simple, easy, mocking reply could be, "And my invisible best freind Jerry says it's fine. I don't see why we should trust your invisible incorporeal best friend over mine."

[Darth Wong]

I've been thinking that if I ever hold a contest to win something on this board again, it should be for the person who can cram all of the common anti-gay marriage arguments into the most elegant and compact single paragraph.

[General Zod]

I've been thinking that if I ever hold a contest to win something on this board again, it should be for the person who can cram all of the common anti-gay marriage arguments into the most elegant and compact single paragraph.

not much of a challenge there. almost all of them can be boiled down to either "it's bad cause god says it's evil, or because it's unnatural."

[Zero]

Or maybe "I'm too neurotic and stupid to ever admit that lifestyles that aren't mine could be alright, so nobody should be allowed to be gay!"

[Darth Wong]

I've been thinking that if I ever hold a contest to win something on this board again, it should be for the person who can cram all of the common anti-gay marriage arguments into the most elegant and compact single paragraph.

not much of a challenge there. almost all of them can be boiled down to either "it's bad cause god says it's evil, or because it's unnatural."

That bears no resemblance to the typical fundie anti-gay marriage diatribe. The trick is to do it in such a manner that it would actually present what most normal people would regard as a reasonable summation of the anti-gay marriage arguments. You can pretty much condense all anti-gay marriage arguments into "God says so" and "I hate fags", but if you try to tell the average person this, he will retort that you're being unfair and creating caricatures.

[The Grim Squeaker]

How about "If G-d wanted slot A to go into slot B then it should, but it doesnt so it's wrong", good enough?

[General Zod]

That bears no resemblance to the typical fundie anti-gay marriage diatribe. The trick is to do it in such a manner that it would actually present what most normal people would regard as a reasonable summation of the anti-gay marriage arguments. You can pretty much condense all anti-gay marriage arguments into "God says so" and "I hate fags", but if you try to tell the average person this, he will retort that you're being unfair and creating caricatures.

depends on the fundie, from what i've seen. a good number of them will actually use the arguments 'because god says so', or 'because it's unnatural' without prettying it up at all. though these are usually the ones that don't have much experience bullshitting.

[Zero]

"Homosexual actions are stated in the bible directly to be an abomination, and homosexual behaviors in men can actually cut off 10 years of their lives, simply because our bodies aren't designed to be used in such ways. Homosexual marriage is wrong also because it directly contradicts the nature of marriage. The purpose of marriage is essentially to create a union between two people so they may start making a family. The family unit is required to teach the children how to function in society, but there are no offspring in a homosexual marriage. Also, marriage is a sacred institution, and corrupting it with homosexual marriages will only serve to weaken the moral fiber of this country. With this could come increased pedophilia and beastiality. Other minority sexual orientations could push for their desires to be legalized. Organizations such as NAMBLA need our country to become more open to minority sexual orientations to fulfill their sick desires."

How's this?

[wolveraptor]

I don't really see dogs going to church and marrying before mating

Oh for the love of Jebus people, MANY CANIDS ARE NATURALLY MONOGAMOUS! It has been bred out of dogs, because breeders often use 1 good male to breed many litters, to pass on his genes. People've been doing this for an incredibly long time, and dogs, as a result, are no longer so attached. It is also true that solitary species are often polygamous, because they try to spread their genes around.

BUT
1. An alpha male and female wolf mate for life. In fact, it is more likely for the female to cheat than the male.
2. This is because wolf packs are formed largely of family members, and incest in generally not a good idea. The only two unrelated members in a pack are the alphas. Wolf packs evolved not to take down prey (an alpha pair can take down the largest prey with ease), but to stop scavengers from getting to it. A pair of wolves can't possibly eat a moose before crows, foxes, coyotes, and wolverines get to it. So, in order to make sure the energy of killing the moose is actually used, they use it to feed their offspring: the pack. These extra members rarely help in killing the prey; it's usually just the alpha pair, and even a lone wolf can take down musk ox, moose and othe large fauna. [/rant]

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Thanks guys. This helps tremendously.

[Plekhanov]

One last thing the APA’s FAQ on sexual orientation link gives very brief but comprehensive rebuttals to claims that gay parents either make bad parents or are more likely to raise gay children. No doubt you can find something better if you search but it’s a good starting point.

I know that marriage and parenting are separate issues but they are often linked by opponents of gay marriage so you’d do well to deal with it on your site.

[Ender]

Argument: Allowing gay marriage unfairly hurts business owners as they must now pay for much more expensive insurance rates to cover the other partner. This hurts the economy and thus is detrimental to all of society.

Counterargument: You know, I've never been able to come up with one that didn't involve a wifflebat and their face.

And yes, Ive seen that argument tossed out there.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Argument: Allowing gay marriage unfairly hurts business owners as they must now pay for much more expensive insurance rates to cover the other partner. This hurts the economy and thus is detrimental to all of society.

Counterargument: You know, I've never been able to come up with one that didn't involve a wifflebat and their face.

And yes, Ive seen that argument tossed out there.

This simply puts the economy in front of human rights. By that standard, we should abolish unions or minimum wages since the economy would surely do better without them.