Same Sex Marriage - Arguments for and against

[Petros Agapetos]

Same sex marriage - Arguments for and against - The right of homosexuals to marry

Gay marriage or same-sex marriage refers to marriage between two people of the same gender, typically because they are homosexual. It is a controversial subject in many religions and countries. Some countries allow a similar status of "civil union" which is marriage in all but name.

Arguments for Gay Marriage

If people want to get married, even if they of the same gender, there is no good reason to stop them. Therefore gay marriage should be allowed.

Gay marriage provides stability and benefits to the lives of those involved. For example, if one person is sick, the marriage partner has additional rights when dealing with authorities.

In July 2007, Austin Cline ran a poll on his weblog asking whether atheists should be allowed to marry. Respondents overwhelmingly said that marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one (it should be kept in mind that this poll was posted on an atheist weblog, and therefore the distribution of respondents was certainly skewed). Based on this, Cline drew the obvious conclusion:

"If religion isn't a good reason to prevent atheists from getting married, how can it be a good reason to prevent gays from getting married?"

Arguments against Gay Marriage

Both religious and secular arguments have been presented against gay marriage. It is notable, however, that most of the opponents of gay marriage—certainly the most vocal ones—present religious arguments, either alone or in addition to secular arguments. Rarely, if ever, does anyone present secular arguments alone. This leads to the conclusion that opposition to gay marriage is primarily rooted in religious beliefs. Arguments from religious beliefs fail as arguments since there is no evidence to suggest any holy book is true, and places like the United States have separation of church and state.

[Petros Agapetos]

God defined marriage as between a man and a woman

Based on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, apologists say:

"marriage was ordained by God and instituted in law."
— Mike Pence, US Vice President 2017

Contrary to apologists' claims, the Bible does not explicitly define marriage in this way. Apologists are interpreting the Bible to fit their own preconceptions.

The notion of "complementarity" of a man and a woman in marriage is contradicted by other laws that allow for polygamy Deuteronomy 21:15-17, as well as divorce after sexual immorality Matthew 5:32. These arrangements are not condemned and often directly condoned by the God of the Bible. Therefore, marriage is not defined as between one man and one woman.

[Petros Agapetos]

Contrary to the purpose of marriage

"[Same sex marriage] also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children."

This is a teleological argument based on the suppose purpose of marriage. However, the assumption that marriage has a particular "purpose" has not been established. Marriage is a human invented concept and only has meaning that we bestow on it.
"[Heterosexual marriage] naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile."

This variation of the argument commits the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something occurs in nature, does not in itself make it desirable.

[Petros Agapetos]

Human nature

Apologists claim that same sex marriage violates natural law.

"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. "

There is no grounds to believe any "natural law" exists, except in the human mind. There is also little agreement as to what natural law entails. It is also difficult to justify any such natural law without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

[Petros Agapetos]

Children's Interests

"It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent."

"[Heterosexual marriage] is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children."

— Mike Pence, US Vice President 2017

Research shows that having two parents, either same sex or heterosexual, is about the same for children.

"On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association and other health, professional, and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation

[Petros Agapetos]

Validates and promotes deviant lifestyles

Apologists claim that same sex marriage would validate and promote this lifestyle, presumably making people homosexual.

That assumes homosexuality is a choice, which it is not. Since it is not a choice, it does not matter if this lifestyle is validated or promoted since it will not significantly influence people's behaviour. It's like saying an owl festival would encourage people to become owls, which is absurd.

[Petros Agapetos]

Devalues Traditional Marriage

Apologists argue that same sex marriage devalues traditional marriage.

This is a vague statement: what does the apologist mean by "devalue"? The existing heterosexual marriages can continue in exactly the same way as before. No harm, no foul

[Petros Agapetos]

Weaken public morality

Apologists argue that same sex marriage weakens public morality.

This argument assumes that homosexuality or same sex marriage is immoral, which is not generally accepted. The concept of "public morality" and how it may be "weakened" is vague and arguably meaningless.

[Petros Agapetos]

Subverts state support for marriage

"One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents.

This argument is an argument from authority that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. However, the state is not a generally recognised authority on this matter.

The state supports childless marriages. Based on this argument, these couples are exploiting the state by taking benefits and not spending them on children. This is absurd.

If it were necessary to only support child rearing marriages, the state could change regulations so only these families receive state support.

[Petros Agapetos]

Violates freedom of conscience

"In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality."

Freedom to persecute others is not a generally recognised freedom. Freedom of conscience is not absolute: for instance, it does not extend to owning slaves. Society and governments can limit what is acceptable behaviour and it does not need to defer to freedom of conscience.

[Petros Agapetos]

It offends God

Apologists argue against same sex marriages because it supposedly offends God.

This assumes God exists, God has a morality in mind, humans could know what God has in mind and humans should obey God. None of this has been established reliably.

[Petros Agapetos]

Pushes people away from religion

Acceptance of gay marriage has been blamed for the decline of religion in the US. However, while this might explain people changing denominations, it does not explain why people leave religions altogether.

[Petros Agapetos]

Argument from Semantics: "Calling something marriage does not make it marriage."

"marriage is between one man and one woman and once you redefine that you lose the essence of marriage itself."

The meaning of words has changed over time.
If a word is used in a particular way or context, that is the meaning of the word.
As Wittgenstein argued, "meaning is use".
Calling something marriage does, in a sense,
make it marriage as long as we have a shared understanding of the usage.
You don't necessarily need to agree with the usage to understand it.

[Petros Agapetos]

Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is the union of two individuals of the same sex in a marital relationship, with the full legal rights and responsibilities allotted to this contract in a given jurisdiction. Legally defined marriage of homosexual couples is limited to a minority of jurisdictions at this time; more common is a "civil union," which includes many of the all-important legal trappings, without the title "marriage" and the religious overtones some think are implied by the word.

Supporters of same-sex marriage may refer to it as "marriage equality," while opponents may call it "redefining marriage," or may use scare quotes (i.e., same-sex "marriage").

Already as of July 2015, the institution of traditional marriage has been improved destroyed in twenty-one countries. As a result, millions of poor innocent people around the world have been forced to watch their gay friends and neighbors declare their loving commitment for one another publicly. This, of course, is a sign of progress in society the Satan. Marriage has been shifting from a religiously-dictated ritual to a social construct that is no longer related to the personal beliefs, or to any ritualism specific to organized religion. Disgusting!

Since the news media and partisan groups tend to treat both of these topics as a single issue, this article will do the same. Let us acknowledge at the outset, though, that conflating civil unions with marriage, and the rights allotted by marriage with the institution of marriage, is erroneous, and a common rhetorical trick used by conservative commentators. Let us further acknowledge that this conflation (or lack thereof) is precisely the reason for modern court rulings about equality of gay citizens if they must have a "separate but equal" union, i.e., an alternative to marriage.

There are several religious groups which endorse or carry out gay marriages (Though many, particularly the Christian groups, have enjoyed yet another endured a schism when they chose to do so) including Episcopalians, Presbyterians Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, Eckists, Raëlians, Druids, Native American faiths with two-spirit traditions, certain Reform Jewish Rabbis and Wiccans.

[Petros Agapetos]

Same-sex marriage became legal (nationwide or in some parts) in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom the United States, and Uruguay. The law in Finland is expected to take effect on 1 March 2017.

[Petros Agapetos]

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada followed a series of constitutional challenges based on the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the first such case, Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General), same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in Ontario on 14 January 2001 were subsequently validated when the common law, mixed-sex definition of marriage was held to be unconstitutional. Similar rulings had legalized same-sex marriage in eight provinces and one territory when the 2005 Civil Marriage Act defined marriage throughout Canada as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

[Belmonde]

There is no any argument in support of heterosexual or homosexual marriage between two persons except for a poor person marrying a rich one, who is soon going the give the money. The marriage is an idiotism that devastated the sexual life of the society. The religion introduced it to produce more idiots and reduce the sexual partners, so to make everybody's situation worse. The main purpose of the marriage has always been punishment of the adulterer by burning alive, but the religious people simply gradually get rid of that to feel more comfortable, but they kept the nonsense. Purposes of more kind nature are ruining the sexual life of the married and self-muitilation, like those eating only one type of food all life long in the concentration camps, the rest is immoral. The decline of religion should have resulted in the final ban of all the marriage, not in leaving it alone.

[Petros Agapetos]

Do you support the right of gay couples to (i) marry, (ii) adopt children, (iii) have their own children (indirectly or artificially)?

[Belmonde]

deleted post

[LeBrok]

There is no any argument in support of heterosexual or homosexual marriage between two persons except for a poor person marrying a rich one, who is soon going the give the money. The marriage is an idiotism that devastated the sexual life of the society. The religion introduced it to produce more idiots and reduce the sexual partners, so to make everybody's situation worse.

How do you explain that marriage, or simple partnering for life one to one, exists even in simplest societies of modern hunter gatherers. Check amazon jungle tiebs, Papuans or Inuits. They live without organized religion, just with simple spiritual beliefs. How do you explain that even in animal kingdom there are many examples of animals who stick together for life, and yet they don't even have simple spirituality, never mind religion.
It looks like natural inclination of many species on earth, especially the ones with ration of male to female being one to one.

The main purpose of the marriage has always been punishment of the adulterer by burning alive, but the religious people simply gradually get rid of that to feel more comfortable, but they kept the nonsense. Purposes of more kind nature are ruining the sexual life of the married and self-muitilation, like those eating only one type of food all life long in the concentration camps, the rest is immoral. The decline of religion should have resulted in the final ban of all the marriage, not in leaving it alone.

You are so concentrated on sex that you managed to miss the most important part of marriage which is bringing offspring maturity. Making sure that next generation survives and prosper.

[LeBrok]

Children should not be adopted by anyone without their consent because it is an age discrimination against them. All children able to speak should be old enough to choose for themselves and with who they want to be. Children should have the rights to choose everything for themselves as adults, not only what they want to eat. There is no evidence that a child with 150 IQ and superhuman abilities is less mature than the older and should be submissed to dumb parents.

I have a feeling that you are 12 years old with IQ150, and with parents you hate. Is this so?

I am against all kinds of marriages because they prevent me to be with who I like, who are always married. Because I am not a hot dog-lover. I spent all my childhood in a prison facility because I forced my married teacher, who didn't want to do it with me because she was so married. Anyway after divorcing she consentualy did it with lots of people and peoples. I hoped Santa to take me out of prison for Christmas, but he didn't. Then, after turning out ten, I realized the basic truth I hadn't heard of- just don't do it. Some tribes for example teach their children to share everything because they consider all conflicts evil. And what the judicial society taught me as a child- both no marriage and no sex or prison? They sentenced me so young that I attempted crying in my cell, but then I found out more interesting things there- writing poems about zombies. P.s this is a horrible drug called bonzai, ask me in private to try.

I see. No wonder your writing sounds like a psychedelic vision.

[Fire Haired14]

II. Children should not be adopted by anyone without their consent because it is an age discrimination against them. All children able to speak should be old enough to choose for themselves and with who they want to be. Children should have the rights to choose everything for themselves as adults, not only what they want to eat. There is no evidence that a child with 150 IQ and superhuman abilities is less mature than the older and should be submissed to dumb parents.

Kids and teenagers might be about as intelligent as adults but they're not as wise. Wisdom comes from experience. They're not experienced/wise enough to know what's best for them.

[Petros Agapetos]

Argument #1: That same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage.

• The often-quoted reference from Romans 1:29-32 omits the following verse, Romans 2:1, which reads "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."
• No credible study has ever found that children are negatively impacted by being raised in a lesbian or gay household.

[Petros Agapetos]

Argument #2: That if same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy will follow.

Even if this concern had a rational basis, a simpler solution to this problem would be to propose a constitutional amendment banning polygamy--which would be easily ratified--rather than fooling around with an anti-gay constitutional amendment that only one-third of Americans support.

[Petros Agapetos]

Argument #3: That same-sex marriage would make heterosexual divorces too easy.

No, seriously. The article actually describes this as an "even greater objective of the homosexual movement" than the legalization of same-sex marriage proper. The article makes no real attempt to explain why this would happen, or how this would happen, but presumably one is expected to accept the statement at face value without giving any real thought to it