Is there really any valid argument against gay marriage?

Question

What gets me the most about the gay marriage issue is that I have yet to see a valid argument against it. Everyone who speaks out against it presents arguments that have no solid merit to them. The religious arguments against it don't necessarily count as the United States is not a theocracy and Christianity must sit in the back seat with all the other religions (Such as Islam, Wicca, etc)...nevertheless these arguments wouldn't have much merit anyway as banning gay marriage is contradictory to the message of acceptance Christianity is supposed to promote. The Procreation argument is invalid because sterile people can get married. The "homosexuality isn't natural, it's a choice" argument has been based on hatred to begin with (The ex-gay movement derives most their disproven pseudo-science from a quack named Paul Cameron, who also advocates the mass homicide of the LGBT community). It also seems to me that the largest force driving the entire anti-gay movement is in fact hate.

Answer 1

There are plenty of valid arguments against gay marriage. However, all of them are religion-based. Thus, while they are valid as far as not requiring any particular church to recognize them. But laws in this country are not supposed to be based solely on religious dogma, and there are are no valid non-religious arguments against state recognition of monogamy between any two unrelated consenting adults.

As a side note, Friar Chuck is wrong again.

Same-Sex Marriage is legal Massachusetts, through court order based on the state constitution. So the statement that it is not legal anywhere if just wrong. Court-made law (aka common law) is valid law, and has been since the Middle Ages. So, saying that binding precedent established by the courts is not enacted law is just plain wrong.

Also, the California legislature did vote on gay marriage, and APPROVED it. However, the law was vetoed by the governor because he said that the issue should be decided by the Courts, not by the legislature. How's that for a twist. People keep complaining about the Courts handing down unpopular decisions and wanting the legislature to be the one who decides. But when the legislature does pass a law allowing same-sex marriage, we're told it's up to the courts to decide.

Also, the argument that it is not wanted by the majority of the population is completely unsupported by polling data. All of the neutral polls that have come down show somewhere between 30 and 40 percent actually opposed to gay marriage. Last I checked, that's not a majority, except possible in terms of shouting volume.

Yes, a majority of legislators in 43 states have passed laws banning gay marriage. But basing anything on that assumes the elected officials are actually voting what the majority of people want, as opposed to voting what the outspoken fundraisers want.

Finally, the issue that marriage is a religious issue ignores one fundamental important fact. Marriage conveys actual legal benefits in society, more so than any other legal status, and marriage is recognized as a specific legal status that cannot be duplicated by any legal equivalent. So, if the government is going to recognize marriage as having secular legal effects, it cannot base that status on any one religion's views.

And for those who actually haven't bothered to check, there are quite a few religions -- including many Christian denominations -- who approve of same-sex relationships. There's even support in the Bible for same-sex relations. If you don't believe me, read the story of the Covenant between Ruth and Naomi again.

So no, the only legal arguments discriminating against who can and who cannot be married are based on specific religious dogma, and that's based on prejudiced interpretations to justify the discrimination.

So, yes, the biggest argument against is that certain groups just don't like gay people, and want to see their prejudice enacted as law. Just like prejudice based on race and against interracial marriage used to be enacted as law.

Answer 2

There is no valid argument against "gay" marriage. The religous brainwashing machine which George Bush panders too feeds this too illiterate, gullible American people and they buy into it. I could care less who gets married because "marriage" is between 2 people who may choose to instill a religous or other ceremony into the joining of 2 people. The issue is gay "citizens" of this country we call America should have the same rights as every other "citizen" regarding property ownership, medical, etc. etc. etc. How many members of Congress have walked all over the sanctimonious revered "marriage" they went into 1-2-3-4 times, divorce after divorce and affair after affair. I know many gay couples, men and woman who have entered into unions without the approval of the "church" or "governement". I pray for the day when all the bigots and haters on this planet and especially the USA are taking a dirt nap!

Answer 3

The argument against gay marriage comes down to whether or not people think that being gay is or is not an immutable characteristic. If you look at loving v. Virginia, where a white man and black women were subjected to criminal sanctions for being married to each other, the court held the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Being black is an immutible characteristic so if being gay is immutable, then the argument is that the 14th A. EPC would apply here too.

Answer 4

I agree with almost all, but not all, of trinitytough's answer. At least for now, I won't explain what part I disagree with. But first I want to point out that talking about a "valid" argument for or against gay marriage is to analyze the issue in a way that does not resemble legal arguments.

When one is talking about legal arguments, then the question isn't about which argument is "valid" or not, instead it is about two other modes of analysis: "compelling" or "rational." And this sort of discussion causes me to disagree with coragryph's implicit support for what the Massachusetts Court did.

Under the Massachusetts Constitution, discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, and sex is presumptively irrational and when the state courts look at cases involving those discriminations they adopt a very critical mood and ask themselves whether or not the government has a "compelling" reason for those discriminations. Hence, in regards to laws banning interracial marriage, there was no compelling reason to deny racially mixed couples the right to marry.

However, the Masachusetts Constitution does not refer to "sexual orientation." The reason it does NOT refer to sexual orientation is because the people of that state never took the view, as demonstrated by a statewide referendum amending the state constitution, that sexual orientation is "like race" or "like religion." And given the fact that it does not refer to sexual orientation, then the courts were not SUPPOSED to analyze the case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Health as if the state government has to come up with a "compelling" reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Because government discrimination against gays is NOT PRESUMPTIVELY IRRATIONAL, the legal standard that the state courts were supposed to apply was the "rational basis test."

The "rational basis" standard is virtually the opposite of the "compelling" standard. The "rational basis" standard does not presume that government discrimination against -- say, left-handed people -- is irrational. It presumes that government has legitimate reasons for why it engages in unequal treatment of persons. "Rational basis" does not presume that government is irrational. It does not presume that government is being run by hateful people. "Rational basis" is a standard that allows government to impose inequality upon people any time there is a rational explanation as to why.

This is where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court got it wrong. The procreation argument -- which is not even based on religion at all -- is a perfectly RATIONAL argument for why the state gives marriage licenses to only opposite-sex couples. There is a perfectly LOGICAL and RATIONAL correlation between the concept of opposite-sex couples getting married and the fact that they will, most of the time, procreate.

So, coragryph, the Massachusetts court is indeed authoritative -- they did indeed "make law" in the common law sense -- but their decision was not LEGALLY CORRECT.

But, in closing, coragryph, I will add that I agree with you that Gov. Schwarzeneggar's explanation for why he vetoed the bill in CA was bogus.

Answer 5

The only thing threatened by gay marriage is TRADITION, so no, there is *no* valid argument against gay marriage. If opponents have a problem with the *supposed* potential for multiple partners, then they should also vote to ban Hollywood stars from getting married:

Answer 6

it is not gays that will destroy the earth or their children.. about that.. so some would rather have children in foster homes where they feel nobody wants them because some idiot straight couple didnt give a ****.. or because some man raped a woman and she gave it up then give a kid a chance to be spoiled rotten by two people that really love them?... nice logic... it is religion that will kill the masses.. look around ppl... did the twin towers get abolished killing thousands because some guy takes it in the pooper.. has anyone ever tried that?... do not knock it till you try it.. NO.. millions of humans are killed because a religion they were born into is different than another .. someone that is gay does not choose to be gay .. they just are.. religion is a choice ... only some bad people with a bit of a brain and manipulation ability took all the blinded by these scriptures and forced them to agree because u cannot question religion and still go to heaven.. oh yes i would much rather have osama bin laden leading .. with his ignorant ***... than ellen degeneres... oh man.. nooooo.

Answer 7

Christianity is not the only Religion forbidden Homosexual Marriages, several others do as well and Gays have always gotten away with Fake Weddings.

The only reason they want Legal Marriage is to Blaspheme against every single Religion that opposes Homosexuality such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and many other Religions.

Not to mention they wanna force Religions that oppose their Lifestyle to conduct their Weddings.

Answer 8

People who are against Gay Marriage are against Gay Rights. They consider Gay people to be a second class and not worthy of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness like the constituion promises all of us.

Whether the arguement is social, religious, or economical (insurance company benefits) it still preys on an unfair bias.

if we had politicians with a backbone who are willing to fight for the constitution instead of their own agenda. Gay Marriage wouldnt even be an issue. It would be as legal as any other marriage, In fact we wouldn't even refer to it as Gay Marriage, we'd just refer to it as marriage. Marriage in my mind is the joining of two people who intend on spending the rest of their lives taking care of each other.

The US has a long way to go for equality in a lot of ways. It proves how much religiion really does infiltrate the government when people are still shunned for being themselves.

Another example, Sgt Patrick Stewart who died in Afganistan. His family has tried to have his wished carried out to be buried in the Nevada Veteran's Cemetary under the symbol of his faith.

Sgt Stewart was a Wiccan and the symbol is a pentagram. So far they have changed the rules on them and blocked them at every turn.

Answer 9

If you are looking for a valid argument amongst men, you will never come to a conclusion. Those who support sinful and unnatural lifestyles have been turned over to a "reprobate mind". In the New Testament book of Romans 1:24 says ..wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves..26 -27, for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense(ie consequential reward) of their error which was meet(ie proper). 28..And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;..
So Mr. smarty pants, if you don't learn from history, all of the arguing in the world won't make a difference for those who are trying to justify what God has said is wrong. That includes those who claim to be atheist. If there was no God, then what are they fighting against?

Answer 10

No, but that's an answer from somebody living in a country where gay marriage is legal. No law should ever forbid love between (adult) people whatever sex or gender. Every law should promote love between two persons by making marriage as statement of that love legal.

Answer 11

Marriage is a state issue, and basicly no state has ever passed a law allowingit. It would have to be voted on, and on any and every state where it is voted on, it fails big time.

So a good argument, it has never passed any vote, and has proven it is not wanted by the majority of the population.