Can anyone give me rational arguments for why gay marriage should be banned?

Question

Can anyone give me any arguments why gay marriage should be banned, excluding religious ones?

Answer 1

There are no "rational arguments" for the ban of Gay Marriage.

Every argument boils down to religious prejudice that infiltrate all of the laws of the United States.

Truthfully it is a first amendment problem and how it has been misintereperted over the last two hundred years.

Answer 2

Hated minorities are always discriminated against, one way or another. Banning state recognition of gay relationships is a convenient and politically palatable way to discriminate against gay people. I'm not saying it's just, but it is rational. That is Hansel's argument--the majority is rational because it says so. That makes Jim Crow laws rational because in at least some states the majority of the population supported them, even if you count the disenfranchised victims.

If you accept the premise that it's better for society for people with gay tendencies to stay in the closet, then it's rational that society should put some costs on coming out.

Answer 3

Since you asked for a "rational argument," I'll begin by quoting from a widely-read book about constitutional law published in 1980. The book was called "Democracy and Distrust," and it was written by John Hart Ely, who was, at the time, teaching at Harvard Law School, and who went on to become dean at Stanford Law School.

Ely was talking about the Equal Protection Clause, which reads that "No state shall, ... deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." He then said,

"Obviously all unequal treatment by the state cannot be forbidden. Legislation characteristically classifies, distributing certain benefits to, or requiring certain behavior of, some but not others. What's more, such classification typically proceeds on the basis of generalizations that are known to be imperfect. We all order our lives on the basis of such generalizations: without them life would be impossible. Thus a storekeeper may [decide to] not accept certain checks drawn on out-of-town banks, even though he or she knows most of them are good, just as an airline may [decide to] not hire overweight pilots, though it knows most of them will never suffer heart attacks. And so the legislature may [decide to] allow optometrists but not opticians to replace eyeglass lenses, even though it is aware that many opticians are entirely capable of doing so [Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 1955]. Thus unless all legislation that classifies, which is to say virtually all legislation, is to fall, the baseline equal protection requirement must be close to that the Court in fact has developed, the so-called 'rational-basis' test. The meaning of these words is not as clear as we sometimes pretend, but the meaning of the test that is important at the moment is that counterexamples, even a large number of counterexamples, do not void a classification so long as a reasonable person could find some correlation between the evil combated and the trait used as the basis of classification."

That is, of course, the commonly used definition of "the rational-basis test." This legal standard is not one in which courts presume that the legislature is IRrational and prejudiced. On the contrary, this standard presumes that the laws which legislatures make are unbiased and rational.

Now, what is one rational argument for why gay marriage should be banned? Because opposite-sex couples primarily get married for the sake of reproducing. Most children are born to married, opposite-sex couples; most opposite-sex couples will have children (if they've gotten married at a young age -- say, under 40). Marriage is limited to only opposite-sex couples because they are far more likely to reproduce.

That is all that the rational-basis test requires. If you don't believe me, see again what Prof. Ely said: "counterexamples, even a large number of counterexamples, do not void a classification so long as a reasonable person could find some correlation between the evil combated and the trait used as the basis of classification."

And I give thumbs up to Houyhnhnm, too.

Answer 4

HANSEL SAID," If the majority of the population find it morally wrong, it should be banned. The same with having sex with animals, children etc. Society defines what is normal and acceptable. Sometimes it is influenced by religious reasons, but whatever it is, if the majority agrees, that is what becomes law. It is the way democracy works."
I REPOSTED WHAT HANSEL SAID BECAUSE HE SUMMED IT UP EXACTLY. IF THE MAJORITY of SOCIETY SAYS IT IS UNACCEPTABLE, THEN THE MORES of the country makes it abnormal behavior.

I WAS GLAD TO SEE HIM TOUCH ON the issues of ANIMALS AND CHILDREN, which gays hate for people to bring up. It is NOT that we are comparing people who like animals and little children to gays liking the same sex, IT IS THAT WE/I am saying IF we accept TWO MEN COHABITATING AND RAISING A FAMILY AS the NORM THEN WHY wouldn't people who are involved in beastality say they were BORN TO BE IN LOVE WITH ANIMALS AND THEY JUST DO NOT HAVE FEELINGS FOR PEOPLE. Then GAYS usually respond by saying sex should be for two CONSENTING PARTNERS....o.k, but it DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE people who really ONLY want to sleep with animals. THE TWO CONSENTING PARTNERS RULE IS ALSO A RULE MADE BY SOCIETY because it has NOT BEEN THAT LONG AGO where women HAD TO SUBMIT TO HER HUSBAND WHETHER SHE WANTED TO OR NOT so in that case, it was NOT 2 consenting partners.

A year ago, on the news, this man said he did not see why he could not marry his dog because his dog did everything he would want a wife to do. BEASTALITY MAY BE REPULSIVE TO GAYS but, what if people become accustom to it and decide man and animal have as much right to their sexual habits and partner as does the heterosexuals and as does the homosexuals. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY CANNOT GET SATISFACTION FROM AN ADULT HENCE THE HUGH MARKET FOR CHILD PORN. Repulsive? OF COURSE IT IS TO US, the gay and straight community, but there are places where it is common for children to be sex partners. I THINK I'M DOING A GOOD JOB OF KEEPING RELIGION OUT OF MY EXPLAINATIONS tho I have been tempted several times.

FACT...once we diviate from what was always considered to be the norm, then when we OPEN PANDORA'S BOX, we know not what's coming out AND IF WE ACCEPT ONE TYPE OF DEVIANT PRACTICE, THEN we'll have people coming out the closet asking, "Can anyone give me rational arguments for why marriages between man and animal,or man and children should be banned? "

Answer 5

As you can see from the opposition there is no rational reason to oppose gay marriage, the opposition talks about animlas yet there's many straights who do that so why don't they oppose straights? they talk about sex with young kids but that's another evil act where straights are the main instigators but they don't oppose straights. they talk about sex for kids but there are many straight couples who can't reproduce for many varied reasons and yet they don't oppose straights. there' sthe thing about morals but how do you apply morals to love and sex when it's consensual? people talk about discriminating against the minority but if you do that does that mean racism and sexism is ok? marriage is about love

Answer 6

I always wondered how gay marriage could threaten my happy committed marriage. Will society really break down if people commit MORE to each other?

Answer 7

Nope! Can't think of any . . .

And Hansel FYI, sex with animals and children is banned not only because society is against it but also because it's not very good for the animal or the child . . . whereas two people who want to get married aren't actually hurting anyone.

Answer 8

"Marriage" I believe was invented or was accomodated to keep possessions "in place" . Too many children came from different men; It came to a stage that "successful" men wanted only to pass their belongings to their own children only.

So, gays marriages will not born any child of their own any way so why bother to get married at all.

Their sex life which I heard or I can imagine actually, will be through their bump, which I think that is a hole for rubbish to get out, stinky ones too; maybe because of this homosexual was classed as sin in OT which carried through to this days. So if homosexual is forbidden then, in any country where Religion (which regards homosexual as sin) is being one of strong institution, will ban the marriage.

I am curious actually, I wonder why some people becoming gays? I heard because their ***** are small, is that true? Under todays technology, cant it be operated or with medicines make it bigger and then stop being gay? So you can get married to females. Or gays operated being females if they feel being females more suitable and get married .
(It is the voice that troublesome isn't it?)

Answer 9

am not against gay marriage coz everyone has the right 2 be happy..But here are some reasons given by my mom.
1) It is baiscly unnatural.
2) Many kids today experiment with homosexuality because they are going through a age of curiosity and end up becoming gays despite not being born one. Due to this parents try and prevent it by nameing it a tabbo
3)beacause people don't understand people who are different. (tha's my point)

Answer 10

First, to use the term "gay marriage" you must redefine the word "marriage." Here are some of versions of the definition for "marriage" that have been used for hundreds of years.

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
(American Heritage Dictionary)

'"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
(Dictionary.com)

": the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" (Merriam Webster)

When you start playing loose and fancy with the definition of words, you should start seeing the ghost of 1984. Look at Bill Clinton and how he tried to avoid lying by redefining the word sex.

You can use the term "gay union" all you want without redefining words. But "gay marriage" is a counter-diction in terms. I support gay unions. I do not support gay marriage because of the definitions.