SAME SEX MARRIAGE QUESTIONS states and their sexual desires, without such a stress upon a binding and
their sexual desires, without such a stress upon a binding and objective
QUESTIONS
What could be wrong with affirming two peoples love and commitment to each
other?
The question at issue in the same-sex marriage debate is not whether the love of
same-sex couples for each other should be affirmed, but whether it should be
affirmed as marriage. There are many ways in which families, friends, communities,
and society more generally could affirm the love and commitment of a same-sex
couple that dont involve redefining the institution of marriage. These can and
should be discussed in their place, but this particular debate concerns marriage.
Further to this, the love and commitment of individual couples has always had a
rather uneasy relationship to marriage as an institution. While married couples are
typically expected to get married in large part on the basis of a love for and a willing
commitment to each other, the institution of marriage exists not to affirm this love
and willing commitment as such, but to create something more certain and lasting
beyond that. Marriage typically places considerable restrictions upon love. It places
limitations and pressures upon our choices of suitable partners. It denies us the
right to have sexual relationships with persons we might love outside of marriage
bonds.
For many, the institution of marriage is designed to make it very difficult and costly
for them to get out of a relationship with someone that they stopped loving many
years ago and may now positively detest. While it begins with a willing commitment
of two persons to each other, marriage renders that commitment something
objective and binding upon the persons, even should the commitment become an
unwilling one. The flipside of the romantic grounding of marriage upon love and
willing commitment is a strong divorce culture, because for a significant percentage
of marriages, what began as a willing and loving commitment will not always
remain that way.
While this is certainly not the only way that a same-sex marriage proponent could
put their case, it is important that we notice how the question frames the issue and
the assumptions that it betrays. 1. Society is put in the position of affirming and
recognizing rights, downplaying the idea of the imposition of norms and duties. 2.
The focus is upon individual couples, rather than upon marriage and society more
generally. 3. More particularly, the focus is upon the underwriting, rubber-
stamping, facilitation, and celebration of their volitional, dispositional, and emotive
commitment.
What the framing of such a question reveals is that the re-imagining of marriage
taking place in many quarters does not merely rest with the issue of whether two
men or two women can marry each other just like a man and a woman. Rather, the
very sort of thing that marriage itself is is in the process of being re-imagined. As I
have argued elsewhere, marriage is ceasing to be about institutional norms and
public values and is gradually moving towards a more privatized lifestyle consumer
model.
Reframing the original question in terms of a more traditional understanding of the
sort of thing that marriage is, our hypothetical interlocutor could ask: what could
be wrong with society expecting all LGBT persons willingly to commit themselves to
the norm of lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships between two persons of the
same or opposite sex, to reserve sexual relations for such bonds, to form a culture
that reinforces and supports them, to privatize displays of sexuality (though not
necessarily romantic affection), and to form a society that is ordered towards the
needs and the raising of a new generation? Marriage culture is binding on
everyone, not merely on those who get married.
The fact that a question of this form is so rarely asked is telling on a number of
fronts. In particular, it reveals that society in general is largely leaving behind the
idea of a marriage culture. With it the idea of marriage as an institution designed
to serve and strengthen societys fabric is being jettisoned in favour of the idea of
marriage as a private lifestyle choice that should be underwritten, affirmed, and
increasingly freed from external restrictions.
I also suspect that, despite the enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, with its
affirmation of the equality of same-sex relationships to opposite sex relationships
and its puncturing of heteronormativity, there really isnt great enthusiasm for
marriage culture within most quarters of LGBT communities. A campaign for same-
sex marriage that is championed by a significant number of persons who are
ambivalent, resistant, or even hostile to marriage culture isnt really going to help
an institution that is already ailing within our society. One of the things that have
been most concerning in the recent debates is realizing just how extensive this
departure from marriage culture in Western society actually is.
Isnt it discriminatory for it to be illegal for two men or two women to marry?
Once again it is important to clear up a misunderstanding within the question as it
is framed. For same-sex marriage to be illegal in the sense of being prohibited or
unauthorized by the law it would first have to be a possible entity. For a
considerable number of opponents to same-sex marriage, the key question isnt
whether same-sex couples should have permission to get married but, if such
permission were granted, whether a same-sex marriage is even possible. The
debate here is about the reality to which marriage refers and whether it is a reality
that a same-sex couple could constitute. The reason why circles cannot be squared
or women cannot be fathers is not on account of a lack of permission. This is the
reason why one would really struggle to find evidence of laws against same-sex
marriages throughout various societies over the course of human history: one
doesnt need to legislate against that which is considered impossible.
The legalization of inter-racial marriage is frequently taken as an analogy for the
present same-sex marriage debates. The contrast between the two examples is
illuminating, however. There was general agreement that an inter-racial marriage
was a possible entity. The debate was purely over whether the possibility should be
a legal one. However, there is not the same agreement that a same-sex marriage is
a possible entity.
This also reveals that the claim of discrimination isnt as straightforward as
assumed. Discrimination (and, more particularly, unjust discrimination) was clearly
operative in the case of inter-racial marriages. However, if a same-sex marriage is
an impossible entity it doesnt make sense to say that it is being discriminated
against.
Even were we to grant that same-sex marriage were a possible entity, however,
discrimination against it would not necessarily be wrong. Despite the careless
contemporary uses of the term, discrimination is not a bad thing per se.
Discrimination, when it recognizes the various natures and ends of things and treats
different things differently, is very healthy. For instance, we discriminate when we
establish ages of marital consent. We recognize that mature consent is conducive to
the health of marriage, individuals, and society and so we restrict people below
certain ages from marrying. Discrimination only becomes problematic when the
grounds upon which we are discriminating are not good ones.
The prohibition of inter-racial marriage discriminated on the basis of skin colour,
which, relative to the nature and ends of marriage, is a very bad reason upon which
to discriminate. However, in discriminating between the committed sexual
partnerships of same-sex couples and couples of the opposite sex there are many
more grounds upon which to discriminate and, relative to the ends and nature of
marriage, a strong argument can be made that they are good ones.
Shouldnt we seek to treat all people equally?
This question is related to the last. The language of equality has considerable
currency within our society. However, by itself the term equality is largely
question-begging and tends to obscure rather than reveal. Equality is only truly
meaningful when people or entities are in fact equal and, within the relevant
context, interchangeable. When we use equality language to speak of complex
realities where genuine and significant differences do exist, such as gender and
forms of relationships, we start to presume the very things that we need to prove.
As it functions in contemporary discourse, especially surrounding gender, sexuality,
and forms of relationships, egalitarianism tends to be a self-asserting dogma, often
making it impervious to reasonable discourse. I firmly agree with egalitarianism on
the point that, when things are truly equal relative to a particular end, they should
be treated equally. We should never discriminate between persons or entities on
the basis of irrelevant criteria. However, when we are trying to have a debate about
the natures and ends of particular realities and which criteria are relevant in
particular contexts, to speak about equality merely begs the question.
Instead of the language of equality, I suggest that we adopt the language of equity.
Equity recognizes that people are different and, taking those differences into
account and discerning differing natures and ends, is impartial, even-handed, and
fair in its administration of justice.
We all agree that equal things should be treated equally: the challenge for
proponents of same-sex marriage is to prove that, relative to the ends and nature
of marriage, same-sex pairings are actually equal to opposite sex pairings. Equality
rhetoric simply dodges this difficult task.
Why should same-sex couples be denied rights in areas such as inheritance or
visitation?
I do not believe that they should. However, there are ways to grant or secure such
rights without redefining marriage. To redefine an institution as fundamental to
human society as marriage for the sole purpose of addressing such problems is
extreme overkill. More troubling, the suggestion that one not infrequently
encounters that it would be a sufficient rationale for doing so betrays an alarmingly
hollow view of what marriage actually stands for.
Jesus never said anything about same-sex marriages. Why should Christians speak
on the subject?
As I have already remarked, many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that it is
an impossible entity, so it should not surprise us that Jesus never spoke about it,
just as he never spoke against women being fathers. Nevertheless, Jesus teaching
does clearly stand against same-sex marriage. Jesus grounds the institution of
marriage firmly in the created reality of sexual dimorphism:
And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at
the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has
joined together, let not man separate. Matthew 19:4-6
Jesus argument against the Sadducees in Luke 20:34-38 is also illuminating on this
front. N.T. Wright observes:
The logic of Lukes version of Jesus riposte then depends for its force on two
unstated assumptions: (a) that marriage is instituted to cope with the problem that
people die; (b) angels do not die. The Levirate law, quite explicitly, had to do with
continuing the family line when faced with death; Jesus in Lukes version, not only
declares that this law will be redundant in a world without death, but that marriage
itself, even with one husband and one wife, will likewise be irrelevant in such a
world. A key point, often unnoticed, is that the Sadducees question is not about
the mutual affection and companionship of husband and wife, but about how to
fulfil the command to have a child, that is, how in the future life the family line will
be kept going. This is presumably based on the belief, going back to Genesis 1.28,
that the main purpose of marriage was to be fruitful and multiply.
The purpose of marriage, both in Genesis 1 and 2 is about much more than
companionship. It is framed by the concept of vocation: the vocation of humanity
to be fruitful and multiply, to fill and subdue the earth, and Adams vocation to
serve the earth, to guard and keep the garden, and to uphold its law. After the Fall,
marriage is also framed by the reality of death and the need to survive and multiply
in its face. Human companionship is wonderful and many of its benefits can be
enjoyed in particular richness in the context of the lifelong bond of marriage.
However, marriage serves ends beyond this and, for Scripture, the tasks of
procreation and child-rearing are central. In the new creation, the human race will
have finished these tasks and so marriage ceases too. Companionship isnt as
primary an end of marriage in biblical thought as it is within contemporary society,
where, given the nature of our world and our economy, companionship with a
spouse has to bear the sort of existential weight that were previously typically
borne by thick relationships within a settled community.
Such a firm grounding of marriage upon both sexual dimorphism and procreation
stands sharply opposed to same-sex marriage.
Why should Christians speak to this issue? First it should be stressed that Christian
ethics should address matters of which Jesus never spoke. The fact that Jesus never
explicitly condemned bestiality doesnt make it permissible. We have explicit
commands elsewhere in Scripture that address such things. We also have
developed principles of justice that we can bring to bear upon realities that arent
addressed in the biblical text.
The Christian teaching on subjects such as marriage, gender, and sexuality are
extensive. Most of this teaching takes a positive form, filling out such realities as
sexual dimorphism with meaning and purpose, rather than the negative form of
prohibiting particular behaviours (although there is plenty of that too). One of the
problems with the assumption that Jesus never spoke to the subject of same-sex
marriage is that, rather than taking our bearings from close attention to the positive
teaching, it presumes that our answers would only be found in the form of negative
prohibitions. However, the positive statements that Jesus makes about marriage
clearly reveal that he is speaking about something quite different from same-sex
relationships.
Christians should also speak to the subject of same-sex marriage because we are
members of society and have an interest in and duty to it. Marriage and the family
that grows from it represent the fundamental institution of the original creation. It
relates us to deep and transcendent dimensions of reality. It humanizes some of our
most fundamental animal functions and orders them to personal and societal ends.
It explores and articulates the meanings of the most basic created anthropological
difference and relationship that between a man and a woman. We should seek to
guard this for the sake of the good of wider society and for generations to come.
Doesnt all opposition to same-sex marriage boil down to homophobia and
opposition to gay sex?
No. One does not have to exclude LGBT persons from those to whom we owe
equitable treatment and recognition of personal dignity in order to oppose same-
sex marriage. Opposition to same-sex marriage can be quite consistent with
support for civil rights for LGBT persons more generally. The arguments that I have
raised against same-sex marriage here and elsewhere do not presuppose
opposition of homosexual relations, nor even to their recognition by society. The
question that we are addressing here is not about the morality of homosexual
practice (a question that must be addressed in its own place), but about the
meaning of marriage.

Why the fixation on same-sex marriage? Why not the same opposition to divorce
culture, for instance? Surely husbands and wives divorcing weaken the institution
of marriage much more than same-sex couples wishing to enter it.
Divorce culture represents a huge threat to the integrity of marriage. However,
divorce culture is a very complicated thing to address. There are valid reasons to
divorce, so making it illegal isnt a solution: it is not divorce but divorce culture that
is the problem. Divorce is a symptom of an underlying set of problems. Often these
problems dont lie so much with the laws surrounding divorce or even with the
liberal ways in which they are applied (although these are problems) as they do
with the underlying values of the society. Challenging and changing these values is
difficult.
We attack divorce culture by attacking the values that underlie it. However, the
arguments for same-sex marriage that we are encountering at the moment are
closely bound up with or serve to strengthen many of these values. It is at points
like this, when the underlying values of the divorce culture break the surface and
meet us head on and especially when we are asked to affirm and celebrate them
that we have the duty to resist them.
One of the principal threats posed by same-sex marriage is that of establishing
within the very public meaning of marriage key elements of the value system
integral to the divorce culture. Same-sex marriage would not be a cultural
possibility had not the values underlying the divorce culture paved its way. Ones
perspective on the current arguments for same-sex marriage will tend to be shaped
by your ranking of values relating to such things as, for example: 1. procreation; 2.
the stability of the environment of child-rearing; 3. the relating of the two sexes to
each other in society; 4. individual choice, autonomy, and self-fulfilment; 5. the
anthropological and religious significance of sexual dimorphism; 6. sexual
gratification; 7. marriage as cultural and institutional norm (sexual exclusivity,
lifelong union, avoidance of sexual relations outside of marriage, opposition to
adultery, etc.); 8. romantic love; 9. the bond between biological, legal, and social
parenthood; 10. the need for both a father and a mother and the full involvement,
commitment, and interdependence of both sexes in child-rearing; 11. the
enjoyment of social status, benefits, and perks; 12. the presence of social support
structures that uphold, inculcate, and facilitate the cultural norms.
The values that we hold most highly will be the values into which we will try to
integrate all others. However, such a process always requires sacrifice or
compromise. For instance, if romantic love is our highest value then we will tend to
compromise on marriage as a cultural and institutional norm, because the two will
frequently be at odds with each other. If we value marriage as a cultural and
institutional norm very highly, we will tend to tolerate indeed, to expect much
greater sacrifice in such areas as the happiness and sexual gratification of the
unmarried. All of this should be fairly straightforward and obvious.
In terms of the values listed above, traditional opposition to divorce culture would
place a high emphasis upon 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12 in particular and to downplay and
expect sacrifices in the areas of 4, 6, and 8. In order to secure the best interests of
children, adults need to learn how to resolve conflicts rather than escaping them, to
cope with profound sexual frustration, and to recognize limits on their choice and
autonomy. In tackling the divorce culture we need to stress the importance of the
duties and roles of both parents and just how necessary it is to guard the integrity
and unity of the bond of parenthood. For the same reasons as we oppose divorce
culture, we also seek to ensure that marriage is a universally acknowledged cultural
norm, so that children arent born out of wedlock and so that all of society is
committed to and focused upon making marriage a stable and healthy institution,
ordering our sexual and relational behaviour in terms of it.
The case for same-sex marriage, however, must necessarily downplay 1, 3, 5, 9, and
10, factors that serve as the primary basis for marriage as a socially normative
institution (7). Given the way that the core values of the institution of marriage are
carefully woven together, the significance of male-female bonding is never merely
an isolated thread within it, but is connected to everything else. Cut that thread,
and dont be surprised if you find all sorts of other things unravelling. The
arguments in favour of same-sex marriage have typically emphasized 4, 6, 8, and
11, which, once again, has tended drastically to diminish the significance of 7.
Grounding the practice of marriage upon choice and love may seem natural, but
history has shown that it is far from a stable basis for the institution.
The divorce culture approaches marriage as an institution ordered primarily around
adults ends and stresses individual autonomy. It tends to resist marriages
demands of couples and of society more generally, both married and unmarried. It
often treats romantic love and sexual gratification as the primary reasons both for
getting and for staying married. It tends to diminish the significance of the very
same values as same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage goes further, however, as such a diminishment is essential to
what it is. While divorce is a failure to attain to certain values integral to marriage,
same-sex marriage simply denies that many of these values are integral to marriage
or that necessary in the first place. Divorce culture may seriously compromise the
bond between biological, legal, and social parenthood. However, every child in a
same-sex relationship has at least three parents. Divorce culture may compromise
the childs right to the presence of an involved father and mother. Same-sex
marriage typically denies that children need both a father and a mother.
A further and absolutely crucial difference between divorce and same-sex marriage
is that divorce has never pretended to be anything other than a tragic sign that
something has gone seriously wrong somewhere and that something sought for
was not successfully attained. However, same-sex marriage takes much of the same
value system of which divorce was a symptom and calls us both to celebrate it and
to present it as integral to the meaning of marriage. Divorce typically acknowledges
the compromises and the sacrifices that it is making: same-sex marriage
strenuously denies them.
On what basis do opponents of same-sex marriage say that it will lead to
polygamy?
Questionable ones, I believe.
The shift to a more constructivist and malleable understanding of marriage, moving
away from close reflection upon the nature and ends of the realities with which it
deals, can definitely lead to a weakening of traditional objections to polygamy. The
steady de-institutionalization and privatization of marriage can also have the same
effect: if James and Stevens marriage doesnt harm mine, leaving me with no
reason to object to it, couldnt the same be said of Simon, Linda, and Janes? A
number of the arguments that many bring forward for same-sex marriage prove
more than they intend to and in this sense it could be said that they will lead to
polygamy.
However, I have yet to see a convincing reason why legalizing same-sex marriage
will open a legal door to polygamy. Nor, more importantly, is there much of a
cultural desire for it: the will of our society is running in very different directions.
Even if polygamy were made possible, it would be fringe in contrast to same-sex
marriage, which is in the mainstream. The following are a few reasons why
polygamy goes against the zeitgeist.
1. Polygamy is characterized by a fairly extreme gender differentiation. The current
trend is in precisely the opposite direction.
2. Polygamy has male-female bonds at its heart. It is worth remembering that
polygamy is not one man entering into one marriage within many wives, but one
man entering into many marriages with many wives. The wives are not married to
each other. There is an essential affirmation of sexual dimorphism and the fact that
a marriage is built around the committed sexual relationship between a single man
and a single woman at the heart of polygamy, even if those relationships arent
exclusive.
3. Polygamous groups tend to be highly procreative and polygamous families tend
to place a lot of emphasis on children. Marriage is oriented towards the production
of a new generation, not mere sexual gratification or romantic companionship.
Once again, this is directly contrary to the current trend.
4. Polygamous marriages tend to challenge the sentimental nuclear ideal of the
family, expanding the family beyond a unitary bond of affection and making it far
more of a public and communal reality that transcends and limits the will and
entitlement of those within it.
5. Polygamy tends to be de-individualizing, particularly for women and children.
While it produces more children, the polygamous family invests less in each
particular one. It also stresses roles, limitations, and ones place within a greater
order, not hinging upon and affirming the choices of sovereign individuals.
6. Polygamy typically relies upon a vision of marriage that is neither companionate
nor romantic in character. Almost the entire reason for same-sex marriages
plausibility to contemporary society rests upon such a notion of marriage.
7. Being procreative in orientation, polygamy would typically stress the connection
between sex and marriage, ironically strongly maintaining many of the values that
we associate with monogamy. Polygamous marriages are not typically open, non-
monogamous, or monogamish marriages in the sense that many more modern
relationships are.
It is worth remembering that polygamy is typically practised in more conservative
religious communities. This really isnt an accident. Polygamy is in many respects
the antithesis of same-sex marriage. While polygamists could exploit the current
inclarity concerning marriage for their ends, we should not fool ourselves into
thinking that polygamy is the direction that things are heading. Polyamory is a far
more likely suspect: it is romantically driven, gender neutral, oriented towards the
satisfaction of individual desires, more fluid and renegotiable, more sexually open
to outsiders, and typically non-procreative.
Couldnt same-sex marriage lead to a strengthening of marriage as an institution?
Following all of the focus over the last few years of the same sex marriage debate
upon marriage being primarily about the love, choice, rights, and affirmation of
individuals desires by society, it is unlikely that we are about to see a return to
marriage as a true cultural norm that would be prepared to compromise or limit
those things to maintain its institutional integrity. What we are seeing is a de-
institutionalization of marriage for everyone, as the wider public has largely bought
into the same notion.
I have encountered suggestions that a lowering of the divorce rate in some
countries where same-sex marriage has been introduced is evidence for such a
strengthening. Beyond the fact that divorce rates are complicated things to
interpret, given the difference in the duration of the marriages involved, it must be
recognized that divorce rates have generally dropped because far fewer people are
marrying in the first place. When only those who are most committed to the
institution bother to get married in the first place, a decline in the rate of divorce is
exactly what we should expect to see. The more telling figure is the percentage of
the population that marries in the first place.
Also, as a number of the ends integrated by marriage are slowly detached and
downplayed, we should expect to see a further chipping of the coin of marriage in
various ways. The value of monogamy will be weakened in favour of open
marriages, non-monogamy, and monogamish relationships. Marriage may also
become less oriented to the needs of children and more focused upon the rights of
adults. In such a situation, even those who do get married are committing
themselves to much less.
The effect of same-sex marriage is not really about the cumulative effect of
particular gay couples getting married. Its true damage arises from the corrosive
influence of the system of values that it champions and establishes. This system of
values isnt an invention of LGBT communities. Rather, it is a system of values that
has been operative in wider society for some time. The problem with same-sex
marriage is that it establishes this system of values as the new orthodoxy, the public
meaning of marriage, accelerating the change in what marriage means for everyone
and making reversal of these unhealthy trends exceedingly difficult.
It shouldnt surprise us if same-sex marriage further decreases the number of
people who marry (as marriage moves from being a cultural norm to a private
lifestyle choice), increasing the number of children born out of wedlock. Nor should
it surprise us if it reinforces the values of divorce culture (as that is the flipside of
the romantic view of marriage that makes love its all-encompassing rationale), and
gives pace to the movement towards a loosening of the values of monogamy.
My suspicion is that same-sex marriage and increasingly marriage in general, as it
will be practised in the future, will be more of a class-based entity, focused on the
class status signalled by the lavish wedding and upper-middle class domestic
lifestyle. It will function as a social norm to some degree, but the emphasis will be
on the desirable social appearance that marriage confers, and much less upon its
integral values. Weddings will be bigger, but marriages will be weaker. Such a form
of marriage, with its greater emphasis on marriage as sign value, serving to
indicate social status and provide a context for shared consumption, will also tend
to discourage the poor from entering into the marriage market in the first place.
How to argue for gay marriage.
Common Argument #1: Gay marriage harms the institution of traditional
marriage.
Your Response: Okay, then name one demonstrable, tangible effect that same-sex
marriages have on the functioning of individual heterosexual marriages. The ability
of same-sex couples to get married doesnt alter a single aspect of heterosexual
marriages directly or indirectly. The legal rights and benefits of heterosexual
couples are completely unaffected by the existence of gay marriage. Its not as if
straight couples suddenly start loving each other less or start treating their kids
worse once gay people start getting married.
Have marriage rates been in decline since states started legalizing gay marriage?
Well, sure, but marriage rates have been declining steadily since the 1970s, decades
before any U.S. jurisdictions legalized gay marriage.
Common Argument #2: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Legalizing gay marriage would be changing thousands of years of tradition.
Your response: A lot of things were always that way before they were changed.
For example:
Dictatorial rule by kings and emperors
Lack of any legally recognized human rights
Prohibition on land ownership by people without royal blood
Ritual human sacrifice
Curing medical ailments with spells and magic
Should we go back to doing all of that?
Why is long-standing tradition a good reason to prohibit gay marriage?
Common Argument #3: The purpose of marriage is to procreate, and same-sex
couples cant have children.
Your Response: So should we also prohibit straight couples from getting married if
theyre biologically incapable of having kids? What about if they simply dont want
kids?
The percentage of married couples with children has been declining over the last 25
years, but couples who don't want kids can still get married. And does adoption
count? Because around 19 percent of same-sex couples adopt kids.
In addition, there are plenty of legal benefits like hospital visitation rights, joint
tax returns, welfare benefits for spouses, and estate inheritance that married
couples enjoy regardless of whether or not they choose to have children. Should
the government prevent straight couples from receiving those benefits until they
have kids?
Common Argument #4: If we legalize gay marriage, it's a slippery slope to
polygamy, incest, and/or bestiality.
Your Response: Im arguing for one law, and one law only: Legal marriage rights for
same-sex couples. Anything else is a different policy argument altogether.
Overturning bans on gay marriage has no legal effect on polygamous, incestuous, or
sigh human being-animal relationships. Those are separate areas of law, and
they wont be affected by the existence of marriage rights for gay couples.
If youre saying that allowing gay marriage will set a legal precedent for legalizing
other types of relationships, you need to have some sort of evidence as to why that
might happen. And saying that you, personally, think that homosexuality is in the
same category as incest isnt evidence. Its a moral judgment, and the Supreme
Court has ruled against laws based onpersonal moral judgments.
Also, dogs cant physically sign contracts, so theyll never be able to get married
anyway.
Common Argument #5: Children raised by a mother and a father are more
emotionally well-adjusted than those raised by same-sex parents.
Your Response: Zero data supports this assertion, and studies from around the
world have all supported the opposite conclusion. Heres what a 2013 Australian
study comparing gay and straight families concluded:
On measures of general health and family cohesion, children aged 5-17 years with
same-sex attracted parents showed a significantly better score when compared to
Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health
measures, there were no statistically significant differences.
Heres an American study from the same year that focused on adopted children:
An estimated 16,000 same-sex couples are raising more than 22,000 adopted
children in the U.S., and these findings indicate that these children will likely fare no
differently, as a result of their family type, than those being raised by heterosexual
parents.
And heres the American Academy of Pediatrics, which analyzed over three decades
of data on child development in same-sex families:
Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children
raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to
social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and
social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is
affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of
competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the
family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.
In short, theres no evidence to support the claim that children with same-sex
parents are worse of and, once again, I have an intuitive feeling that they
probably are worse off doesnt count as evidence.
Common Argument #6: If same-sex marriage is legal, religious institutions that
oppose gay marriage will be unfairly forced to marry gay couples.
Your Response: Legalizing gay marriage wont have any bearing on what churches,
or other religious institutions, can or cant do. The Supreme Court has long upheld
the right of tax-exempt religious organizations to fire, hire, discriminate or not
discriminate based on gender and sexual orientation. While same-sex couples in
Denmark do have the legal right to get married in churches, theres zero precedent
for U.S. courts ruling the same way.
Common Argument #7: Civil unions are just as good as gay marriages.
Your Response: Separate but equal was the argument used in favor of racial
segregation in schools. Ever since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling
in 1954, the Supreme Court has consistently found separate-but-equal laws to be
unconstitutional.
Cliff Notes:
Heterosexual couples are allowed to get married regardless of whether
they can, or want to, have children.
There were a lot of atrocious practices that were longstanding human
traditions before we outlawed them.
Legalizing gay marriages wont have any effect on religious institutions or
the legal status of bestiality. Theres no legal precedent to suggest that it
will.
Numerous studies from around the world show that same-sex couples
raise more emotionally well-adjusted children than their straight
counterparts.