# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/81 "2013-04-16T03:37:26Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > To Human Action: > > You claim there is no right to children. Is this to say that the government can pass laws to prohibit people from having children? There is no right to **have** , ie possess children. Depends on the law, see [Buck v Bell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v_Bell) and [Skinner v Oklahoma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma). If there is a right to procreate, it doesn’t follow that the government must guarantee the _success_ of that procreation, they just can’t deny it by law. The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t require the government to buy us all guns, the right to free exercise of religion doesn’t require the government to build churches, and a right to procreate doesn’t mean the government has to subsidize artificial insemination. > [@steabo](#): > > You wrote that there’s nothing to subsidize. There all all kinds of federal financial benefits for married couples, from tax benefits to transfer payments. That’s a subsidy of marriage, not procreation. You wrote: > [@steabo](#): > > The government should neither regulate nor subsidize sexuality, but it should subsidize procreation. In what way does procreation need subsidization? It pretty well takes care of itself, as the billions of unsubsidized humans alive at the moment can attest. > [@steabo](#): > > And whether its through surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, or even kids from a previous marriage, gay coupling necessarily requires third-party providers (sperm or egg donors, labs/clinics, agencies, and former heterosexual spouses), whereas married couples require them only incidentally. Gay couples’ families are thus beholden to others for their very creation, while married couples’ families can get started even if stranded on a desert island. So what? The same is true of many heterosexual couples. This is a distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/82 "2013-04-16T03:54:08Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > …married couples’ families can get started even if stranded on a desert island. As can those of unmarried couples; marriage provides no particular help or hindrance in this. The point being that I can’t help but think that the state’s interest here should be in helping provide a stable environment in which to _raise_ kids, rather than _bear_ kids. Or to put it another way, assisted vs. unassisted procreation is nothing more than a red herring. (And it’s past its “use by” date). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/83 "2013-04-16T04:14:19Z")
I don’t get why the use of reproductive technology has any bearing on marriage. Heterosexual couples were using it first, and will continue to do so in higher numbers that homosexuals even after gay marriage becomes legal in the U.S., I expect. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/84 "2013-04-16T04:26:58Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > The point about procreation/procurement was really about the inherent inequality of heterosexual and gay couplings; the individuals involved are equal, but the couplings themselves are not. An analogy might be the differences between sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations; these are treated differently in law because they operate differently. What, explicitly, do you think is not equal between heterosexual and homosexual marriages? Throwing out bad analogies lets your audience know that you do not approve of one, but it provides no genuine explanation why you would hold such a belief. We see lots of people saying they don’t like the idea of SSM. We rarely see a reason posted why they hold that belief. In fact, the title of this thread is arguments against gay marriage, not fact free bad analogies to gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![colander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@colander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colander)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/85 "2013-04-16T04:35:29Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > The reason hillbilly marriage is discouraged is because their offspring will likely have mental/physical problems. This is simply not true. Children of first-generation incestuous unions have higher rates of some defects than those of non-incestuous unions, but the vast majority are perfectly healthy. Also, cousin marriages are only prohibited in 25 states. ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/86 "2013-04-16T04:35:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > We see lots of people saying they don’t like the idea of SSM. We rarely see a reason posted why they hold that belief. It’s been my experience that it boils down to one of two points (or both): 1. My holy document says it’s a sin unto God (Insert like 4 smileys here.) 2. Ew. That’s gross! Your average person doesn’t seem to have much trouble copping to the first. But people rarely want to admit that the second is the main reason, even if it’s true–probably because they know how it makes them look. And a lot of the people convinced of #1 will have heard that homosexuals are all pedophiles, that homosexual couples will invariably raise homosexual children…all that drivel. This issue seems pretty clear cut to me (although I disagree with the pro-lifers, at the very least I can understand that the question of ‘life’ is a muddier topic and might be debated.) Those who don’t want to be in a same-sex marriage shouldn’t get themselves into a same-sex marriage. And I guess, if they choose, pray for God to bless the sinners always. Idunno. ---
**Author:** ![Wolf333](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf333/32/3460_2.png) [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/87 "2013-04-16T04:37:32Z")
Disregard ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/88 "2013-04-16T15:27:30Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s a subsidy of marriage, not procreation. I should have stated that the gov should support ‘publicly-committed and independently procreative relationships’ (ie: marriage). > [@Human\_Action](#): > > So what? The same is true of many heterosexual couples. This is a distinction without a difference. The same is true, but only incidentally so, not necessarily. ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/89 "2013-04-16T15:34:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What, explicitly, do you think is not equal between heterosexual and homosexual marriages? Throwing out bad analogies lets your audience know that you do not approve of one, but it provides no genuine explanation why you would hold such a belief. We see lots of people saying they don’t like the idea of SSM. We rarely see a reason posted why they hold that belief. In fact, the title of this thread is arguments against gay marriage, not fact free bad analogies to gay marriage. I have made the proposition that there is an objective difference between the two. The analogy was to explain the proposition, rather than to stand as an argument. I don’t see why it is a bad analogy, or why it shows the audience that I favor one over the other. In the analogy, I stated no preference for a particular type of business organization; I simply stated that they were different. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/90 "2013-04-16T15:41:53Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > I should have stated that the gov should support ‘publicly-committed and independently procreative relationships’ (ie: marriage). But all marriages aren’t procreative ones, see the infertile and the childless-by-choice. If the government wants to support public, committed relationships in which children are raised, that includes same-sex couples as well. They _do_ raise children, so denying them marriage works against having those children raised in public, committed relationships. > [@steabo](#): > > The same is true, but only incidentally so, not necessarily. It’s still a distinction without a difference. There is already a subset of marriages now in which the partners cannot conceive without outside assistance. Adding to that subset will do what, again? ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/91 "2013-04-16T15:43:06Z")
> [@colander](#): > > This is simply not true. Children of first-generation incestuous unions have higher rates of some defects than those of non-incestuous unions, but the vast majority are perfectly healthy. You contradicted yourself here (note my use of the term ‘more likely’). Plus, you mentioned the offspring of first-generation incestuous unions, but if we apply the categorical imperative, then there would be no ‘first-generation’; each succeeding generation of boys would seek to marry their sisters. What would be the effects of that? > [@colander](#): > > Also, cousin marriages are only prohibited in 25 states. Shouldn’t it be explicitly outlawed everywhere? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/92 "2013-04-16T15:47:49Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > each succeeding generation of boys would seek to marry their sisters. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/93 "2013-04-16T15:59:39Z")
Tradition? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/94 "2013-04-16T16:02:42Z")
[Because they’re so attractive?](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0757018/trivia?tab=qt) ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/95 "2013-04-16T16:11:30Z")
> [@BlakeTyner](#): > > It’s been my experience that it boils down to one of two points (or both): > > 1. My holy document says it’s a sin unto God (Insert like 4 smileys here.) > > 2. Ew. That’s gross! Well, regardless of what your experience has been, I fall into neither category. I consider myself a deist who approaches all human text with caution, and all the works of nature with wonder. While I do regard male-on-male sexuality as inherently unhealthy, I do not begrudge anyone his sensual pleasures. If I am prejudiced, it is only against the idea that words and concepts have no meaning, and I believe marriage has meaning. To this end, I propose the following proposition: If enough men didn’t want women, and enough women didn’t want men, human beings would not even exist. Any society that takes itself seriously must place the relationship of a man and a women above all other relationships. The fact is that modern societies great and small do indeed recognize the public commitment of a man and women to each other, under the obvious conclusion that they will have children and be committed to the care, education, and training of those children for life. Indeed, that marriage exists as an institution independent of national, religious, linguistic, and cultural boundaries is evidence (circumstantial, yes) that this institution in fact predates the formation of these boundaries. This seems to be evolution at work; those societies that discovered marriage as a tool for establishing responsibility for the next generation are the ones that survived and prospered; societies in which every type of non-procreative sexual delight became normalized were not able to produce enough healthy children at replacement rates, and they presumably died off. Marriage laws exist in every country on earth; every religious confession has rites confirming marriage; every language has a word for marriage; and every culture has special dishes, decorations, and sayings associated with the marriage ceremony. One can offer every particular argument about how not every child comes from marriage, or that not every marriage produces children, but these do not detract from the phenomenon of this universal human institution. I argue that civil unions are well within the common law tradition to provide a framework of special rights for gay couples who want take care of each other. If you wish to accuse me of racism-grade bigotry for this view, I’m sorry to hear that, but my opinion will be changed only by reason, not by fear. ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/96 "2013-04-16T16:15:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why? OK, what if only half of the boys continued this tradition? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/97 "2013-04-16T16:17:59Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > OK, what if only half of the boys continued this tradition? Again, what makes you think this is a possibility? It’s like saying that people shouldn’t have toilets because “What if everybody flushed at the same time?”. ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/98 "2013-04-16T16:23:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Again, what makes you think this is a possibility? It’s like saying that people shouldn’t have toilets because “What if everybody flushed at the same time?”. Because its where they came from. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/99 "2013-04-16T16:32:55Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > Because its where they came from. If you’re not going to use reason in your arguments, asking us to use reason to rebut them seems to be just a bit…unreasonable, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/100 "2013-04-16T16:39:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If you’re not going to use reason in your arguments, asking us to use reason to rebut them seems to be just a bit…unreasonable, don’t you think? Indeed, my first argument that they would all follow the example of what produced them doesn’t seem reasonable, but why shouldn’t half (or a sizable portion) of them wish to follow such an example? Should we expect them to think it was wrong? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=6)