Arguments Against Gay Marriage
last updated Wed, Sep 13 2006, 6:22 PM (EDT)
I’ve slowly been compiling standard arguments against gay marriage over the last few years, and have identified six basic problems that such arguments tend to have. These problems tend to be one of the six listed here:
| INCORRECT | The argument is incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise not wholly true. |
| SUBJECTIVE | The argument erroneously projects personal morals and opinions on other people. |
| DISCRIMINATORY | The argument discriminates against a minority and is openly bigotted. |
| FALLACIOUS | The argument is logically flawed and/or falls into well known fallacy. |
| NONARGUMENT | For any number of reasons, the argument is rendered irrelevant and may even be a better argument for gay marriage than against. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | The argument presents a position that the arguer would refuse to accept if the situation were reversed. |
Below is a table of the sorts of arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage, and what I think about each argument. I have yet to hear a good argument. So far I’ve listed 25 arguments. Are there any you’ve heard that aren’t here? I’d love to hear about them. Feel free to post a comment on my blog if you have something to add.
#1. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. |
|
| INCORRECT | No. The American Psychological Association clearly states that it is not a mental disorder. |
| SUBJECTIVE | It may well be your opinion that it is a mental disorder, but that doesn’t make it one. |
#2. Homosexuality is unnatural. |
|
| INCORRECT | No. Same-sex pair bonding has been observed throughout nature in many different species. Refer to Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance. |
| SUBJECTIVE | It may well be your opinion that it is unnatural, but that doesn’t make it so. |
#3. Homosexuality against laws of God. |
|
| SUBJECTIVE | There are many different religions in the world, and even people who’s moral code includes no religion whatsoever. Your personal religious beliefs with regard to homosexuality only apply to you, and people who feel as you do. |
| NONARGUMENT | Gay couples are seeking civil marriage, marriage in the eyes of the State, not marriage in your church. So your religious beliefs do not apply either way. |
#4. Marriage is religious. It’s not for the State to say who can marry. |
|
| INCORRECT | No. With respect to civil marriage, the State can and does decide who may marry. There are already legal forms of marriage (common-law marriage for example) which are completely civil in nature. |
| NONARGUMENT | Gay couples are seeking civil marriage, marriage in the eyes of the State, not marriage in your church. So your religious beliefs do not apply either way. |
#5. I have a right to vote to ban gay marriage. |
|
| DISCRIMINATORY | Of course this is true, but historically the majority votes for the majority. If slave owners had been allowed to “vote to keep slaves”, they would have done so, despite the fact that it was categorically immoral to do so. Not all things in our society can be decided by vote, which leaves only a few options: legislative intervention, judicial intervention, and civil unrest. Historically the courts have intervened on the behalf of repressed minorities. |
#6. Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench. |
|
| INCORRECT | Wrong. Historically the courts have intervened on the behalf of repressed minorities because given a vote, the majority always votes for the majority. There is precedent for this. Labelling it “judicial activism” is simply political rhetoric. |
| DISCRIMINATORY | Seeking to prevent the judiciary from defending minorities is inherently bigotted. |
#7. Adoptive kids of gay couples will grow up in an unhealthy environment. |
|
| INCORRECT | No. The American Psychological Association clearly states that children that grow up in households with homosexual parents do not suffer psychological damage. |
| NONARGUMENT | We don’t deny people the right to marry based on their worthiness as parents. We allow convicted felons to marry, we allow the mentally ill to marry. Therefore even if it were true that gay parenting were harmful to children, it would be irrelevant to the question of whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. This is further rendered irrelevant by the fact that many gay couples already have children. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you allow someone to annull or prevent your marriage based on their opinion of your worthiness as a parent? |
#8. Children need role models of both genders in the home. |
|
| DISCRIMINATORY | This argument discriminates against gay and lesbian parents, single parents (including divorcees, widows, and widowers), and parents where one spouse is out of the home for an extended period (such as military spouses.) To deny all of these people their marriage would be an act of unparalelled bigotry. |
| NONARGUMENT | We don’t deny people the right to marry based on whether or not their home will include both a male and female role model for future children. We allow people to marry who may have children and then become divorced. One spouse could die and leave the other widowed. We even allow single people to adopt children. There are any number of legally and socially accepted venues in which a child may grow up with only one gender represented by the adults in the household, whether or not the adults in the household are gay. This is irrelevant. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you allow someone to annull or prevent your marriage based on what genders of role models would be present in your house? |
#9. Gay marriage can’t produce kids, so it is meaningless. |
|
| NONARGUMENT | We don’t deny people the right to marry based on whether or not they will have children. Many ordinary heterosexual marriages produce no children by choice or by physical impediment. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you allow someone to annull or prevent your marriage based on whether or not you intended to, or were phsyically able to have children? |
#10. Kids will grow up thinking being gay and gay marriage are okay. |
|
| SUBJECTIVE | It may well be your opinion that it would be bad for kids to think homosexuality and gay marriage are acceptable, but that doesn’t make it true. Believing that it is acceptable does not mean that someone is or will become gay. |
| NONARGUMENT | That people will be more tolerant in the future of people who are different is a good thing, not a bad thing. If anything this is a good argument for gay marriage, not against. |
#11. Marriage unchanged for centuries. Shouldn’t change it now. |
|
| INCORRECT | No. There was a time when a spouse was considered property. There was a time when marriage between people of different races was illegal. There was a time when there was no such thing as a common law marriage. In societies throughout the world and throughout history the concept of marriage has changed one way or another countless times. Arranged marriages, polygamous/polyandrous marriages, and so forth. |
#12. Homosexuality has harmful effects on society. |
|
| NONARGUMENT | Without debating whether that is true or not, assume for a moment that it is true. If gay people are not allowed to wed, will they stop being gay? No. Will they stop having homosexual sex? No. So what difference does it make? Cigarette smoking has a harmful effect on society as well but we don’t deny smokers the right to marry. This is irrelevant. |
#13. Gay isn’t a race, so banning gay marriage isn’t the same as banning interracial marriage. This is not an equal rights issue. |
|
| INCORRECT | Wrong. While you are correct that “homosexual” is not a race, our government recognizes several protected classes against which discrimination is illegal. Some of these protected classes are race, gender, marital status, parental status, religion. Sexual preference is a legally protected class, and thus discrimination against that class is considered every bit as inappropriate as discriminating based on race or gender. That makes it an equal rights issue under US law. |
| DISCRIMINATORY | It is openly discriminatory to single out one protected class as somehow less important than the others. |
#14. Homosexuality is a choice, unlike race or gender. I shouldn’t have to support with my tax dollars a choice I disagree with. |
|
| INCORRECT | Whether or not homosexuality is the result of nature (not a choice) or nurture (choice) is still unknown. There is much evidence to suggest that there is a biological component to homosexuality. Given the evidence goes both ways, it is inaccurate to flatly state that homosexuality is a choice. We still don’t know if it is a choice at all, or even if it is an unconscious choice.On the second matter, our society defends the right of its citizenry to freedom of choice and self determination, and you don’t get to decide who will and won’t get your tax dollars based on your personal beliefs of how everybody else should behave. |
| NONARGUMENT | Assume for a moment that homosexuality is 100% conscious choice. So what? Many of the protected classes recognized by our government are choices (such as creed, marital stats, pregnancy, parental status, etc.) Singling out homosexuality because it might be a choice ignores the fact that your tax dollars support all sorts of things which are choices you don’t agree with.You may be a Christian, but your tax dollars support marriages and organizations of every religious stripe. You may be an environmentalist, but your tax dollars end up benefitting people who drive hummers and clearcut forests. Both matters, choice and choices you disagree with, are irrelevant to whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. |
#15. Homosexuals already have equal right under the law to marry, just not someone of the same gender. |
|
| DISCRIMINATORY | This argument is openly discriminatory. A homosexual would likely only want to marry a person of the same gender, granting them the right to marry only people they do not love is hardly equal. This argument ignores the issue and goes for semantics instead. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | If the law were changed tomorrow so that people could only marry people of the same gender, would you as a heterosexual still feel that you had equal rights under the law? |
#16. Gay marriage will lead to bestial marriage. |
|
| FALLACIOUS | Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious. Other choices that might be made in the future are not valid arguments against choices being made now. In this case there is no analog. An animal does not have the same legal rights as a human, and could not read, understand, or sign a marriage license. Rendering this argument silly as well as fallacious. |
#17. Gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage. |
|
| FALLACIOUS | Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious. Other choices that might be made in the future are not valid arguments against choices being made now. Even if it were true, incest can be either homosexual or heterosexual in nature, and heterosexual marriage hasn’t led to incestuous marriage has it? |
#18. Gay marriage will lead to polygamous/polyandrous marriage. |
|
| FALLACIOUS | Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious. Other choices that might be made in the future are not valid arguments against choices being made now. Polygamous and polyandrous marriage has been legal in the past and is still legal in many countries. Homosexual marriage wasn’t required to make it happen there, so why should it make it happen here? In this case there is no analog, homosexual marriage, in that it involves two consenting adults, has more in common with heterosexual marriage than it does with polygamous/polyandrous marriage. |
#19. Gay marriage will split the community and my church. |
|
| FALLACIOUS | Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious. It’s quite possible that once passed, the public (and your church) will forget about it and move on to more important issues, such as abortion. |
| NONARGUMENT | There are homosexuals in your church, and this issue isn’t going to go away even if it is banned countrywide. There will always be a group of people fighting for their rights. Chances are it is already an issue in your church or community. Given that such splits, if they are going to happen, are already happening, it is hardly an argument against gay marriage. |
#20. What if homosexual love is not real? |
|
| NONARGUMENT | We don’t deny people the right to marry based on whether or not they are in love. Why should we concern ourselves with whether or not homosexual love is real? |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you allow someone to annull or prevent your marriage based on their opinion of whether or not you really love your spouse? |
#21. Homosexuals very small percentage of population. Not worth all this trouble. |
|
| DISCRIMINATORY | The size of a minority doesn’t make discrimination against them okay. If a justice of the peace refused to marry a man named Melvin Dinklemeyer to a woman named Rosamina Ingersoll because he thinks their names are stupid, it doesn’t make it okay just because they are the only two people in the country with those particular names. Discrimination is discrimination. |
| NONARGUMENT | The lower estimate for the percentage of the population that is gay is 3%, the upper estimate is 10%. The percentage of people in the USA that are Jewish is 5%. Does this mean it is okay to discriminate against Jews because the percentages are comparable? Of course not, this is irrelevant.Further, if it really is “not worth all this trouble” and homosexuals are a vanishingly small percentage of the population, why all the fuss? Just let them marry and don’t worry about it… they’re such a small group after all. If anything this is an argument for gay marriage, not against. |
#22. Why do they need to marry anyway? A marriage license is just a piece of paper. |
|
| NONARGUMENT | If it really is “just a piece of paper” why all the fuss? Just let them marry and don’t worry about it. If anything this is an argument for gay marriage, not against. |
#23. Why not “civil unions”? |
|
| DISCRIMINATORY | We don’t create special legal categories for other sorts of marriages. There is no legal category “interracial marriage”, and while a common law marriage is recognized, it is still legally referred to as a “marriage” in all respects. Singling out homosexuals for a special kind of “separate but equal” marriage is openly discriminatory. Historically our society has demonstrated that “separate but equal” doesn’t work, and just serves as a vehicle for discrimination. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you be prepared to accept that your marriage is not “marriage” in the eyes of the State, and instead is only identified as a “civil union”? |
#24. There’s something “sacred” about marriage. If we allow gay marriage that will be lost. Allowing gay marriage will lessen the value of my own marriage. |
|
| SUBJECTIVE | It may well be your opinion that marriage is sacred, but that doesn’t make it so. Not everyone is of the same religion as you and our society guarantees freedom of religion. |
| DISCRIMINATORY | Taking away the right of other people to marry the person they love based on your personal religious beliefs is openly discriminatory. You are pitting your desire to feel comfortable against their basic human right to marry the person they love. |
| NONARGUMENT | There are already gay people who are married. Has something happened to your marriage? Did your spouse suddenly stop loving you? Did God disappear from your life? Further, on the matter of “sacredness”, gay couples are seeking civil marriage, marriage in the eyes of the State, not marriage in your church. So your religious beliefs do not apply either way. This argument is both illogical and irrelevant. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you permit a stranger to disallow you anything based on subjective arguments? Say you love to hike in a grove of trees on your property. Then one day a group of Native Americans in Nevada announce that in their religion, your particular forest is sacred, and if you are allowed to hike there that will be lost. Allowing you to hike there or own the land it stands on will lessen the value of all forests in their religion. Therefore you should not be allowed to hike there and further must move off that land. Would you be packing your bags the next day? |
#25. We have freedom of religion in this country. Forcing me to accept gay marriage is a violation of my right to my beliefs. |
|
| FALLACIOUS | This argument is completely illogical. Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage. You can’t say that allowing someone else across town to marry the person they love prevents you from believing whatever you want to believe. This sort of illogic tends to arise from an inability to differentiate between applying your moral standards to yourself and applying them to other people. Nobody is requiring you to marry a person of the same gender, therefore you aren’t being forced to accept anything. If gay marriage is allowed you will be perfectly within your rights to believe that it is wrong, that gay people aren’t really married in the eyes of God, and to speak out in that regard. |
| NONARGUMENT | Gay couples are seeking civil marriage, marriage in the eyes of the State, not marriage in your church. So your religious beliefs do not apply either way. This argument is irrelevant. |
| DOUBLE STANDARD | Would you allow someone to annul or prevent your marriage based on their right to hold personal religious beliefs that you do not share? What if a pagan said your marriage wasn’t real because you didn’t sacrifice an animal or perform the ceremony in the nude, and therefore because they have a right to religious freedom, you can’t be married? |
Hope you found this useful. Click here if you’d like to post a comment.
i think gay people sohlud be allowed to marry eachother and have it called marrage. I think its just discriminating when they dont allow it to be called marrage just because the two people are of the same sex. Marrage is supposed to be the union of two people who love eachother, it sohludnt matter what your gender is.
Pingback: A> J, I: See also: "FAQ — color-coded for your convenience" | Die wunderbare Welt von Isotopp