# Arguments \*\*against\*\* gay marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663 "2013-04-02T20:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/21 "2013-04-05T20:20:07Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > I would advise her to choose another topic, rather than the same topic 80% of her class will choose. How about Israel vs. Palestine, or how to deal with Iran or North Korea? Toilet paper: over or under? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/22 "2013-04-05T21:58:12Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Toilet paper: over or under? Please. Public discussion of the Under Heresy is simply not in good taste. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/23 "2013-04-05T22:06:17Z")
I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t boil down to “Jesus says Ick.” The sincere, earnest expositions thereof are just appalling in both logic and ethical basis. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/24 "2013-04-05T22:24:36Z")
Have her check out Maggie Gallagher. Not a fan and I think her arguments aren’t terribly good, but they’re not GAYZ ARE ICKY! ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/25 "2013-04-05T22:52:21Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t boil down to “Jesus says Ick.” The sincere, earnest expositions thereof are just appalling in both logic and ethical basis. But when you get right down to it, “Jesus would not like it” is a pretty strong argument for those who believe he’s the Son of God, an aspect of God Himself, the creator of the whole damn shooting match. Of course, for non-Christians (like myself) or the sort of Christian who believes that God’s word should change in accordance with the times the argument is as weak as dish-water. I’m with the poster above. The State has no business making any sort of laws about marriage, straight or gay. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/26 "2013-04-05T22:57:00Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > But when you get right down to it, “Jesus would not like it” is a pretty strong argument for those who believe he’s the Son of God, an aspect of God Himself, the creator of the whole damn shooting match. However, that isn’t a relevant argument given the OP: > [@Mama\_Zappa](#): > > So… any links to reasoned arguments against gay marriage? By that I mean, something that avoids the whole Phelps/God Hates Fags, religious opposition because homosexuality is Teh Evil, approach. And really, if “my god says so” is a good argument, then there are no bad arguments, for anything. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/27 "2013-04-05T23:56:11Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t boil down to “Jesus says Ick.” The sincere, earnest expositions thereof are just appalling in both logic and ethical basis. Actually, Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality. Or abortion for that matter. It’s people who have appointed themselves spokesmen on behalf of Jesus who have set the policy on these matters. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/28 "2013-04-06T06:28:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Actually, Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality. Or abortion for that matter. It’s people who have appointed themselves spokesmen on behalf of Jesus who have set the policy on these matters. Jesus said that true Christians had to follow “every jot and tittle” of the law, which certainly included homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/29 "2013-04-06T16:09:59Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Jesus said that true Christians had to follow “every jot and tittle” of the law, which certainly included homosexuality. But only “until everything is accomplished”. My understanding is that Jesus’ subsequent crucifixion fulfilled that requirement and people are no longer bound by Old Testament law. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/30 "2013-04-06T16:11:30Z")
“jot” and “tittle” appears in the bible? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/31 "2013-04-07T01:11:58Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > “jot” and “tittle” appears in the bible? Actually, they do in translation, with jot being a very close transliteration of iota, (passing through German to pick up the “j”). > **[Tittle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tittle)** > > The tittle or superscript dot is the dot on top of lowercase i and j. The tittle is an integral part of these glyphs, but diacritic dots can appear over other letters in various languages. In most languages, the tittle of i or j is omitted when a diacritic is placed in the tittle's usual position (as í or ĵ), but not when the diacritic appears elsewhere (as į, ɉ). > The word tittle is rarely used. One notable occurrence is in the King James Bible at Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till h... ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/32 "2013-04-07T02:26:13Z")
The best argument (and this isn’t saying much) against same sex marriage that I’ve come across is that it would undermine the culture of marriage that promotes responsible procreation. The logic is that responsible procreation is the ultimate goal of marriage, and if you allow same sex couples to marry, it would send a strong signal that marriage is not about responsible procreation. What about heterosexual couples who can’t have children? We have to allow those because any fertility test would be too intrusive. Additionally, in many non-fertile marriages, one partner may not be sterile, and a marriage should help keep him from procreation outside the marriage. All the other arguments are thinly veiled versions of “it’s always been this way” and “it makes me uncomfortable,” i.e., protecting traditional marriage, it’s too soon and we don’t have all the facts, and the bible says it’s bad. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/33 "2013-04-07T03:59:10Z")
If you thought homosexuality was a conditioned trait ultimately chosen by it’s adherents then it’s not a stretch to believe children raised in that environment would be more likely to choose it over heterosexual relationships. I’m cool with adults in relationships joining Scientology or LDS, but children raised in that environment borders on child abuse in my opinion. So I guess I accept the possibility that SSM opposition isn’t entirely disingenuous and cruel. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/34 "2013-04-12T11:56:29Z")
In order to be against gay marriage, or for it, you have to first figure out what marriage is for. The purpose and methods of marriage has been extremely fluid over the centuries. I’m not even sure it’s easy to define what marriage is for NOW. Proponents of gay marriage basically boil marriage down to a committed relationship between two people who love each other. If that’s what you think marriage is, then gay marriage makes sense. And frankly, given what marriage is in practice today, I have to agree with that definition. Back in the day when marriage was primarily about procreation, things like arranged marriage and polygamy also made sense. But today even social conservatives see marriage as a committed union between two individuals. Given that definition, the opposition to gay marriage crumbles. And really, the opposition to plural marriage as well. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/35 "2013-04-14T18:07:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But today even social conservatives see marriage as a committed union between two individuals. Given that definition, the opposition to gay marriage crumbles. And really, the opposition to plural marriage as well. How can “two individuals” have a “plural marriage”? HUH? When I pointed out to an anti-gay marriage person that marriage is about “two people who love each other” he responded “Gay people don’t love each other. It’s all about lust.” He also said that gay people raising children was “child abuse.” 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Gymnopithys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/fbc32d/32.png) [@Gymnopithys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gymnopithys)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/36 "2013-04-14T19:38:00Z")
This would be an argument against homosexual marriage: Quote > **[Gay Marriage: Kids Need Married Moms and Dads](https://www.dailysignal.com/2013/03/15/social-science-confirms-kids-need-married-moms-and-dads/)** > > A group of social science professors present the scholarly research on the importance of marriage in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court. “A recent study, using a large random population-based sample, shows that children raised by married moms and dads did far better in education and employment than peers in other parenting arrangements—including same-sex relationships—and were less likely to suffer from depression and drug use. They were less likely to be sexually abused, receive welfare, have an affair, or cohabitate”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/37 "2013-04-14T19:53:49Z")
> [@Gymnopithys](#): > > This would be an argument against homosexual marriage: > > Quote > [Gay Marriage: Kids Need Married Moms and Dads](http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/15/social-science-confirms-kids-need-married-moms-and-dads/) > > “A recent study, using a large random population-based sample, shows that children raised by married moms and dads did far better in education and employment than peers in other parenting arrangements—including same-sex relationships—and were less likely to suffer from depression and drug use. They were less likely to be sexually abused, receive welfare, have an affair, or cohabitate”. Not really, unless there is some evidence that same sex couples won’t have children if they are not allowed to marry. ---
**Author:** ![Gymnopithys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/fbc32d/32.png) [@Gymnopithys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gymnopithys)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/38 "2013-04-14T20:27:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really, unless there is some evidence that same sex couples won’t have children if they are not allowed to marry. If gay marriage is legal, they may adopt children. And the kids will ask “Why don’t I have any dad/mom?” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/39 "2013-04-14T20:34:36Z")
> [@Gymnopithys](#): > > If gay marriage is legal, they may adopt children. > > And the kids will ask “Why don’t I have any dad/mom?” They can adopt children without being married. Perhaps you might conclude that they should not be allowed to adopt children, but not all married people can. I would argue, though, that individuals should not be punished because they belong to a group that may or may not produce different results than other groups. Unless there is evidence that all gay couples make crappy parents, each gay couple should be judged on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/40 "2013-04-14T20:37:20Z")
Back in 2004 I witnessed a bunch of lame arguments against gay marriage. Figuring I could do better I presented the following. > [@Gay marriage - non-religious objections?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/141): > > I have only skimmed this thread. If this point has been made earlier, I presume that posters more committed to this issue than I can point me in the proper direction. Alternatively, I could be ignored. > > A Case Against Gay Marriage > … but not domestic partnerships. > > Today marriage is, among other things, a contract between two different genders. If one believes in the Chromosome Planets shtick, this fact will be relevant during divorce cases. > > By way of example: > IANAL, but my understanding is that courts presume that infidelity is grounds for divorce, in the absence of evidence for an “open relationship”. > > This presumption may not be reasonable in the case of male couples. I’m not saying that male gays can’t be sexually monogamous with another. I’m saying that enough male couples voluntary choose nonexclusive relationships so that it may not be fair to assume that infidelity is grounds for divorce, in the absence of an explicit over-ridding contract. > > (Isn’t that what marriage is, a standard contract that can be over-ridden with a pre- or post-nup? Ok, admittedly, there are other elements to this particular social institution.) > > More generally, it may make sense to have a different set of divorce precedents for MF, MM, and FF couples. > > ## I propose that we call these 3 sorts of contracts, a “Marriage Contract”, a “Domestic Partnership I Contract” and a “Domestic Partnership II Contract”. Naturally, codicils would be permitted to over-ride any of these presumptions. > > Weakness in my argument: We _could_ call all 3 sorts of contracts, “Marriage”. But it seems silly to make an issue of labels, as opposed to substance. At any rate, since there is a necessity for setting up 3 separate precedents, it seems reasonable to apply different labels to these domestic arrangements. My argument was thoroughly demolished, but there might be something there. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4560029](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4560029) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=3)