Professor Frank Oberklaid of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute has stated that:

"We also found that children raised in same-sex parent families worry about being teased
or bullied by their peers, particularly in the school environment.

"As a result, they feel distressed and guilt and a sense of shame, and this is harmful to their
wellbeing and sense of self, much more than the actual raising in the families."

Associate Professor Gray said discrimination of any kind is damaging to children's

emotional wellbeing and development.

"It's not just about family structure or the gender of you parents, any kind of
discrimination is harmful."
The review also found LGBTIQ young people were at risk during the debate.

"Young LGBTIQ people are much more likely to experience poor mental health, self-harm
and suicide than other young people," Professor Oberklaid said.

"Sadly, this is largely attributed to the harassment, stigma and discrimination they and other
LGBTIQ individuals and communities face in our society."
19 November 2014
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Whether an individual is married or single, heterosexual or
homosexual,
legalizing same-sex marriage is about everyone. Same-sex marriage has
a short but
heated history in the United States alone. It first came to national
attention in a 1993
Hawaii case, in which judges found that the state‟s constitution
required a compelling
reason not to extend to gays equal marriage rights. The ruling
prompted congress to push
through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented
homosexual couples from
receiving benefits traditionally conferred by marriage. Since then, states
have scrambled
to define their own stance of the issue, in some cases recognizing civil
unions or domestic
partnerships. Currently, in every state there are decisions about laws
being made about
same-sex marriage. Supporters and oppositionist alike cite religion, civil
rights and
procreation as their defense, but on totally opposite sides. The views
on legalizing same
sex marriage are effected by religious beliefs, the law itself and
interpretation of civil
rights. Both arguments have great points, but sometimes feelings need
to be put aside and
everyone needs to take a look at the big picture. If someone happy with
their husband or
wife, why can‟t they be happy together?
If same-sex couples are allowed to marry what would this mean to the
sanctity as
marriage between heterosexual couples? Would allowing same-sex
marriage change the
benefits of marriage now afforded to heterosexual couples? It has been
the belief that allowing same-sex marriage could lead to other groups
wanting to legalize marriage.
From a religious standpoint, leaders argue that marriage has a specific
purpose for society and same-sex marriage does not fit into this mold.
From a political standpoint, the debate about legalizing same-sex
marriage and enacting the Federal Marriage Amendment is losing steam.
The public is losing interest, the margins are becoming neutral for
opposition and agreement on both sides of the argument and unless it‟s
an election year, the politicians aren‟t focusing on the issue. Allowing
same-sex couples to wed doesn‟t weaken the sanctity of marriage
between heterosexuals, it won‟t lead to an outbreak in other types of
unions and the argument that marriage is for the purpose of
procreation isn‟t supported. Politicians are no longer about to use the
subject as a vantage point. As a society, legalizing same-sex marriage
would acknowledge same-sex relationships as relevant. Legalizing same-
sex marriage recognizes the commitment of lesbian and gay couples
choice for monogamy, their willingness to commit to each other for life
and yes, even their desire to raise families as a couple.
Religious oppositionists of same-sex marriage believe that the reason
for marriage is for the purpose of procreation, repopulating the earth.
Barret Pitner, a multimedia journalist for The National Journal, recently
wrote an article featuring David Blankenhorn‟s views on same-sex
marriage. Blankenhorn has a strong opinion about same-sex marriage.
He contends that same-sex marriage and the damage it may create for
the already troubled institution of marriage would add to the problem.
We are in a society that is seeing increasing levels of unwed
childbearing, non-marital cohabitation and family fragmentation among
heterosexuals. From a procreation standpoint, there would be no
reason to allow same-sex marriage, as gay and lesbian couples wouldn‟t
be able to naturally have their own children. When expressing
viewpoints of supporting same sex marriage, it‟s argued that a good
morals start with family and an ideal family unit is two parents; a father
and a mother. On the other hand, supporters of legalizing same-sex
marriage would argue that if the sole purpose of marriage were to
procreate, and if a heterosexual couple is unable to bear children, then
they should also not be allowed to marry. It‟s been pointed out that
the legal institution of marriage is good for the children of heterosexual
parents, why should the children of lesbian and gay couples be punished
by their government simply because of their sexual orientation of their
parents? Marriage is no more solely for the purpose of procreating,
than love is solely for heterosexuals. Over the last fourteen years,
voters have approved 32 out of 33 statewide bans on gay marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are still winning the legislative fight.
The 1993 Hawaii case prompted to push through the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act, which prevented homosexual couples from receiving
benefits traditionally conferred by marriage. States have scrambled to
define their own stance on the issue. On the other side of the legal
debate for the same-sex, there are victories. In 2003, the Massachusetts
victory, 13 states passed anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the subsequent
election.
Tom Head, author of numerous books, including the Historical
Dictionary of
American Civil Liberties and the ACLU, explains that the Federal
Marriage Amendment states: “Marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this
Constitution, nor the constitution of any other state, shall be construed
to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon any union other than the union of a man and woman.” (Head,
2013.) Ed White, of The Daily News, insists that banning same-sex
marriage does not violate the 14th constitutional amendment of equal
protection, since there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
He argues that even if same-sex marriage became a constitutional right,
it does not mean that it would become a fundamental right. He implies
that is the concern is that the right to marry is a civil right and marriage
is for the purpose of procreation and this is fundamental to the very
existence and survival of the race. Than by that definition banning same-
sex marriage does not violate fundamental or civil rights. “The gay
movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights
movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral
revolution aimed at changing people‟s view of homosexuality,” (TFP
Student Action, 2013.) Supporters of same-sex marriage state that the
argument that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil
right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the
constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. Civil
rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal
treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law
is all about. The opposition against same-sex marriage uses a few basic
key points in their argument, religion, politics and civil rights. From
their viewpoint they can see how these things support their stance.
Religiously, marriage is for procreation; a union between one man and
one women. Politically, in congress the support is still strong against
legalizing same-sex marriage with a majority of the states still having
bans on same-sex marriage.
When looking at civil rights, oppositionists do find marriage a
fundamental or civil right. And when the advocates support same-sex
marriage, the reasons are the same. They believe that a religious union
is not exclusive to heterosexual couples. Same-sex supporters are
gaining ground politically with the progress they are making in states
that have adopted same-sex union laws. And from the viewpoint of the
supporters of same sex marriage, the civil right that refers to the
„pursuit of happiness‟ is exactly what they are asking for.
Works Cited
Pitner, B.H. (2012, June 23). Same-sex Marriage Opponent Reverses
Stance. National
Jorunal.com. Web.6 Mar. 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.nationaljournal.com TFP
Action (n.d.) “10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and
Must be
Opposed” Retrieved from http://tfpstudentaction.org
Head, T. (2012, June 1) “Four Reasons to Support Gay Marriage and
Oppose the Federal
Marriage Amendment.”
About.com.civilliberties.civilliberties.web.21.feb.2013
TIME (2008, May 22) “A Brief History of Gay Marriage” Retrieved from
http://time.com
Silken, J.W. (n.d.). Public Justice Report. Second Quarter Retrieved
from
http://www.cpjustic.org
White, E. (2013, March 7). Judge taking a look at Michigan’s gay
marriage ban. The Daily
Everything Is Illuminated
SAME SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD BE BANNED4/09/09Same sex marriage
should be banned because it is the wrong which sits upon anestablished
wrong premise. Same sex sexual relationship is wrong to start with andto
enhance it and legitimize it will be the greatest blunder of all times.Without
respecting the biological attributes of female and male gender and thesexual
functions with which they have evolved over millions of years, any social
system will not survive. In fact, the society will disintegrate and, if survived
through a fluke of nature, it will be only in chaos populated with
confused,unhappy, misdirected, and declining people who will be quite
different from the humans we know today. This process has already
established a footing in many countries including America through the
process of equal rights, human rights, and so on…….and to undo this will be
quite difficult. The only thing the society can do is to stop it right where it is
at, and find ways and means to educate public to stay on course of the
culture which has been established, tested, survived, and proven for millions
ofyear. Marriage has been and is between a Man and a Woman, and there
should not be any deviation from this fact. Religious, political, and social
freedom should not be allowed to create a new “social species”. We should
never forget that the current social system and the developments associated
with it will become the foundation of the future social systems which have
yet to come. Social systems established today will affect the future
generations in more than one way. Therefore, we should think and think
again before we establish laws which have far reaching influence over many
generations of humans in the future. An enormous social and psychological
burden will be put on the people who are already married, about to get
married, children, schools, hospitals, military, public facilities, custody of
children, and every other segment of our political, economic, religious, social,
etc life if same sex marriage gains acceptance and momentum. If allowed,
same sex marriage will spread like a disease in America andpossibly to other
parts of the world. Today, gays visit other towns and countries to find young
candidates, including children, and the local population is un affected because
of the perception of the problem being far away—what is not seen does not
gain attention and concern. Same sex marriage will open the doors wide
open for gays to go out and solicit sex in the neighborhood, because it will
be within their rights just as regular males and females have. Gay behavior is
non-productive, non-reproductive, and does not serve any purpose to the
human colony. On the other hand, it is dangerous, spreads confusion on
mass scale which is strictly detrimental to the growth of children, and
creates an environment where children grow up to be incomplete adults.
Incomplete adults cannot serve the society successfully and, therefore,
become an unbearable burden on the society, which can lead to societal
decay and destruction. Gay behavior isa state of mind, or a mental condition
which can be counseled and cured. Spreading same sex marriage will open
several windows which could create formidable challenges for our National
Security, increase the number of courts, new and complicated laws, much
more police because of increased crime, difficulty in dispute resolution, new
diseases, new types of street crimes, etc. Over a period of time, people will
become less social which will lead to disconnectedness and possibly non-
communication which are the initial stages of breakdown of social system.
Open gay social system will increase the stress levels of average American
who is already under a great stress and experiences 50% marriage failure
rate. Society is already under a great pressure which can cause ruptures, if
not a

breakdown. Legally united same sex couples will be an imposition on the rest
ofthe society who do not know currently and will not know in the future how
toadequately deal with them.Children born and nurtured in a society which
allows same sex marriage, witnesssame sex couples, go through the challenges of
going to schools, playgrounds,libraries, community halls, public facilities, etc. will
grow up “confused” andwill less likely grow up and mature to be well rounded
adults. These “confused”children after reaching the adult age, but not the adult
maturity, will enter thegovernment service, military, businesses, politics, etc. to
serve the people……..social declination process will be on.The current adult
population may not get greatly affected by the same-sex marriagelaws, because
they had a solid childhood which prepared them for a variety of challenges within
a secure social system. But the future generations will experience an entirely
different scenario…..which should be of concern to all political, social scientists,
all political parties, think tanks, and the elected officials. Gay segment of our
society should be extended all the respect, rights, and protection that an average
citizen enjoys, but their marriage should never be accepted in to law no matter
how much money has been contributed, or how much political weight they
carry. They are patriots, intelligent, and capable people like others. It will be bad
for our nation, and bad for the world (world follows and adopts American
habits). America should create a long lasting decent, stable, and secure social
system which can easily be adopted by the rest of the world(they always do), and
which can last for centuries in the future. Warmest regards, Prem
Bhandariwww.PremBhandari.comwww.BookEnterprise.com
THE WORD “RIGHT” IS UNIVERSAL. Since it is inherent to human
beings, all human beings have the same ones. AND IF WE GRANT
SAME SEX MARRIAGE TO HOMO SEXUAL PEOPLE BECAUSE OF
“MARRIAGE EQUALITY” THEN THAT MEANS THAT PEDOPHILES,
INCEST, AND POLYGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS ALSO HAVE THE
RIGHT TO MARRY IF WE WILL BE BASING ON ‘‘MARRIAGE
EQUALITY’’
RIGHT:
1. It is something that human beings possess naturally
and inherently. It belongs to you because you are a human
being made in God’s image. You are born with it.
2. It has not been given to you by other people and should not be
taken from you. No government can grant it, and no
government should violate it. If a government violates people’s
rights, it is usurping God’s authority.
3. It is universal. Since it is inherent to human beings, all human
beings have the same ones.
4. It is recognized universally–or very nearly so. Since everybody
wants his or her rights recognized by others, it logically follows
that he or she must recognize the rights of others.
5. It imposes only a passive (or negative) obligation on other
people. It says what others may not do to you.
PRIVILEGE:
1. It is something that is given to you by somebody else.
2. It is usually something that certain people have while other
people do not have it. For example, some people receive the
privilege of going to college at no cost to them, while other
people must students must pay full tuition.
3. It is open to dispute and is often disputed. For example, should
people have the privilege of free health care? That question is
debatable.
4. It imposes an active (or positive) obligation on other people. It
says what somebody else must do for you.Here are what I
consider a valid definitions for the two words:
right–something that is claimed by almost all people and recognized by
almost all people as an inherent property or quality of human beings
that imposes a passive or negative obligation on other human beings
privilege–something that people ask for or that somebody voluntarily
grants to another as a special favor that imposes an active or positive
obligation on the one providing it

Davis2
happy. Individuals should be able to love whomever they want without
getting ridiculed abouttheir decision.However, religious views point out
that marriage should be between women and men. Asthe bible says
marriage is traditional and intimate and should not be of the same
sex but of theopposite sex.
Not all religious people go exactly by the bible. “
Some religious associations refuseto employ or even offer services to
same sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same- sexmarriage
tend to believe that lesbian and gay peoples were created as such by
God and should
have the same rights as others” (“
History and Debate
”
). Some individuals with religious viewsfeel that same sex relationships
are immoral
and against Gods’ will and will destroy the goal ofhuman sexuality,
which is to reproduce children (“History and debate”). Religious groups
all
over the world are different. In some states that have already legalized
same- sex marriage haveministers that will still refuse to marry a gay
couple due to their own personal beliefs. Religiousgroups also believe
that AIDS is a punishment from God above for disobeying his word.
Peoplewho are religious also believe that a child should grow up with a
father and a mother and not two parents of the same sex. There are
studies found that when a child that is raised by twohomosexual people
often have homosexual families of their own but are capable of having a
heterosexual family as well (“History and Debate”).
It is questioned that when young girls weretold that their attractions
to boys at a young age was wrong, and vice versa could have a
bigimpact on the rise of homosexuality (Baird 129).Unfortunately the
society has definitely painted a picture for those to be biased againstgay
marriage rights without completely understanding why having
their rights is so important.People have agreed that same sex marriage
rights go hand in hand with civil rights. Both sets of people fighting for
what they want and most importantly, what they believe in. People also
argue

Davis3
that as long as there is love in the relationship, that’s all that should
matter when it comes to
marriage. Social views also engage on whether the couples get married,
and will they get thesame benefits as heterosexual couples (Hall
172). Individuals feel that same sex marriage shouldnot only be legalized
in 35 states but it should be legalized in America period. Studies show
thatcouples that marry in one state but want to move to another state
fear that their benefits andrights will not be protected and or permitted
in the state that they move to. Society shows that theindividuals that
are denied to marry are also denied the protection and rights
given toheterosexual couples. People seem to not take this so well,
being that it is unfair to deny familiesthat have homosexual parents the
opportunity to have and enjoy the same benefits asheterosexual
families. It is unexplainable as to why gay couples that have
committed to oneanother for a long period of time not yet married
have to pay higher taxes as well (Hall 172).There are many pros and
cons to legalizing same sex marriage. People think that
whenhomosexual couples marry, they will weaken the tradition of
marriage but if same sex marriageis legalized it could decrease divorce
rates in America as well
(“Gay Marriage Procon.org”).
To conclude, bashing someone for doing something that they believe in
is not going tochange how an individual feels about their decision to be
homosexual. More supportive citizensof the United States could
possibly make legalizing same sex marriage easier. Individuals thatseem
to open up and not stay completely biased, start supporting the gay
community as well.Many people think that they were born gay and
nothing is wrong with them being interested intheir same sex. People
that are disrespected by others because of their sexuality feel as if
they are being discriminated against. Being denied to marry and health
care, insurance benefits, estate
taxes, home protection etc. because of a persons’ sexuality is also
discrimination as well (Hall
172-173). Children that have been sexually abused by the opposite sex
may find themselves

Davis4
being homosexual in their future as adults. Also, people that have been
in abusive relationshipsor just been completely betrayed by their
previous significant other, may venture out and findinterest in the same
sex. As one nation America should stand together and support one
another.America should not be divided by sexuality or even race.
People feel that marriage is a privilege
not a right, but it is someone’s right to marry w
homever they chose to marry. Having the right tomarry should not be
up to anyone to dictate or have an opinion on.

Davis5
Works cited page
Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. “Same Sex Marriage.”
The Moral and Legal Debate
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1997 print.
“Gay Marriage Procon.org”
Procon.org Headlines.
N.P. n.d. web 05, Dec. 2014
Hall, David M. “Taking Sides”
Clashing views in Family and Personal Relationships.
EighthEdition. New York, NY McGraw Hill, 2010 print.
“History and Debate”
Gay Marriage Debate.
N.P. n.d, web. 07, Dec2014

On the other end of the political spectrum, Barack Obama endorsed

the vital role of fathers in a 2008 speech: "Of all the rocks upon which
we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most
important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every
father is to that foundation."
The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and
Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a
disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of
parenting skills than women.
"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception
across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet,
there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One
problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on
same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith
Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including
available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay
male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and
a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical,"
Stacey said.
In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based
parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that
very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's
psychological adjustment and social success.
As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely
cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not
children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents
generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent]
families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender
of parents."
Indeed, there are far more similarities than differences among children
of lesbian and heterosexual parents, according to the study. On
average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were
less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children
with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.
However, like two heterosexual parents, new parenthood among
lesbians increased stress and conflict, exacerbated by general lack of
legal recognition of commitment. Also, lesbian biological mothers
typically assumed greater caregiving responsibility than their partners,
reflecting inequities among heterosexual couples.
"The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two
same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two
different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the
widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father
to do well," Biblarz said.
Stacey concluded: "The family type that is best for children is one that
has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on
average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two
not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that
don't matter."
This study is published in the February 2010 issue of the Journal of
Marriage and Family.
The Canonical List of Rebuttals to Anti-gay Arguments Against Gay
Marriage Rights

Table of contents

All entries are indexed for your convenience. To link directly to an

entry within this page, just copy the link location from this table of
contents.

Homosexuality is a choice.

Homosexuality is just a behaviour! Behaviours don't have associated

rights.

Marriage exists to support sexual reproduction. Gays can't reproduce!

Homosexuality is unnatural! If everyone was gay, mankind would die

out! Evolution would have eliminated homosexuality!

Homosexual parents would hurt their children and make them gay!

Homosexual marriage deprives children of a mother and father.

The bible says...

You want to redefine the fundamental unit of our society!

You threaten the sanctity of marriage!

Gay marriage would weaken a fragile institution.

Opposition to gay marriage is about preserving our moral fiber, not
about discrimination

Homosexuals already have the right to marry; they can marry someone
of the opposite sex right now!

Homosexuality spreads diseases! Homosexuals are promiscuous!

Homosexuals eat poop! Gay bowel syndrome! GLaaaaGH!

Because I have freedom of religion, I shouldn't be forced to accept

homosexual marriages!

Marriage is a covenant with God, and God says marriage is between a

man and a woman.

Churches will be forced to marry homosexuals!

If two men can marry, then why not a man and a pig? Why not a man
and his sister or brother? Why not marry groups too? Where does it
end?

It will be expensive if homosexuals can get married. They'll start getting

on their partners' insurance! Insurance will become more expensive!

Gay marriage would be government endorsement of a dangerous

lifestyle.

The majority of people don't want gay marriage, so allowing it would be

undemocratic!

Gays have civil unions.

Let gays have civil unions.

Gays want "special rights!"

Gays don't want rights; they want acceptance

Gays can already get the rights they want with contracts, filing for
power of attorney, etc!

If gays get married, society will collapse. Plague, locusts, famine!

Destruction! Doom! Sky is falling!

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

I'm a gay atheist. Gays shouldn't have the right to get married!

If gays can get married, gay marriage and homosexuality will be taught
to children in schools!

Churches will lose their tax exemptions without a ban on gay marriage

Individuals will be sued unless gay marriage is banned

Homosexuality is a choice.

This is not an argument against gay marriage, but an argument against

gays. Furthermore, if sexual orientation is a "choice" as fundamentalists
claim, then it follows that heterosexuality is a choice too. Why should
one "choice" be favored over another?

Incidentally, a person's religion is certainly a choice, yet we firmly

protect that as a person's right.

Don't bother explaining to a fundamentalist that the preponderance of

evidence indicates that sexual orientation is not chosen, that studies
show numerous biological correlations with sexual orientation, that the
APA denounces so-called "therapy" to turn gay people straight, that
"ex-gays" keep turning up in gay bars, etc. They don't believe in science
anyway.
Homosexuality is just a behaviour! Behaviours don't have associated
rights.

Like "Homosexuality is a choice," this is not an argument against gay

marriage but an argument against gays. And again, although religion is
just a behaviour, these people would be quick to defend their religious
freedom and rights.

Moreover, if homosexuality is "just" a behaviour, then it follows that

heterosexuality is "just" a behaviour as well. So would heterosexuals
say that they're only heterosexual during the act of copulation or lust,
and that throughout the whole remainder of their postpubescent lives,
they're asexual? If not, then why would they make such a claim about
homosexuals?

Like it or not, human sexuality is as much an integral part of who we

are as our personalities, our intelligence and our beliefs.

Marriage exists to support sexual reproduction. Gays can't reproduce!

There are a number of flaws here. First, heterosexual couples need not
swear an oath to reproduce in order to receive a marriage certificate.
Heterosexual couples need not even be capable of reproducing to
marry: no fertility tests are necessarily conducted for the granting of a
marriage license. Elderly people who are incapable of bearing children
get married all the time. Couples who simply don't want children can
still marry. Marriages are not annulled by the state if a couple fails to
produce children.
Furthermore, sexual reproduction is clearly possible without marriage
(or do these people still believe that married couples sleep in separate
twin beds and that a stork delivers them a baby?). Family units exist
where nobody is married. Single moms and dads abound.

Clearly the primary purpose of marriage is not sexual reproduction.

Gays in fact can reproduce. They're not sterile. Many a lesbian has
become pregnant through artificial insemination. Surrogate mothers
aren't a new invention by any means.

It has been said that there's a state interest in supporting the

reproductive family unit, and that is absolutely true. This can be
accomplished, however, without excluding non-reproductive families;
there's no reason that homosexual couples must be excluded any more
than there's a reason that sterile couples or couples who simply do not
wish to have kids should be excluded (and these heterosexual couples
are not excluded at present). While there is a rational basis for the
government to support heterosexual reproductive marriage, there is no
rational basis for supporting it to the exclusion of others.

Homosexuality is unnatural! If everyone was gay, mankind would die

out! Evolution would have eliminated homosexuality!

Again, this is an argument against gays, not an argument against gay

marriage.
That which occurs in nature is, by definition, natural. (Research shows
that homosexual orientation exists in countless species other than
human beings.) It can also be said that "if everyone were male, mankind
would die out," but you don't see many people trying to argue that
being male is unnatural.

Assertions about evolution are curious, since the fundamentalists

making them generally disbelieve evolution. Nonetheless, this claim
shows an abject ignorance of evolutionary theory and of genetics in
general. Traits are often determined by a combination of genetic factors
and random chance, and individual factors are easily passed from parent
to child without particular traits being expressed.

Nature is filled with examples of genetic variances which would

ordinarily remove a person from the gene pool (but also note that gay
people are not sterile to begin with) that have not been de-selected by
evolution. For example, genetic variations cause harlequin type
ichthyosis and progeria, both of which typically kill the unfortunate
victims before they reach sufficient age to father or bear children. This
is not to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic disease or disorder
(since it does not qualify as either disease or disorder according to the
American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric and
American Psychological Associations) but merely to point out that
natural selection won't necessarily eliminate traits that tend to lead to
non-procreation.

It's also a fact that not everyone is gay, so conjecture about what could
or would happen if everyone were gay is both silly and pointless. This
argument also makes the flawed assumption that marriage exists solely
to facilitate sexual reproduction.

Homosexual parents would hurt their children and make them gay!

Homosexual marriage deprives children of a mother and father.

Curiously, the same people who assert that homosexuals can't

reproduce also make this claim. There's absolutely no credible evidence
that having gay parents causes children any direct harm or that the
children are more likely to be homosexual themselves. Quite the
contrary, research by Judth Stacey and Tim Biblarz concluded that
children of homosexual parents are no worse for it.

Since spawning children isn't the sole function or requirement of a

marriage, children need not factor into the discussion at all, let alone
whether they were deprived of anything. Besides, aren't these the same
people who say gays can't reproduce?

The bible says...

The Bible is not the law of the land. Period. The First Amendment to
the US Constitution, regardless of whether you like it, forbids
entanglement of religion with the state. That is why it admonishes that
Congress cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion
[emph. added]. Laws must have a secular purpose. Laws may not cause
excessive entanglement with religion. Clearly limiting marriage to
heterosexuals for the sake of something the Bible says would breach
the limitations laid out in the First Amendment.
Incidentally, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies the
limitations set forth in the Constitution to the states.

And as Reverend Lovejoy once said in The Simpsons, "The bible says a
lot of things." The bible condemns everything from eating shellfish to
wearing clothing of blended fibers to touching a woman during her
menstrual period to allowing women to speak at church. Most people
preaching against homosexuality from the Bible just take a verse or two
out of context, cherry picking what they need to justify their prejudices,
while ignoring other "condemned" things entirely.

You want to redefine the fundamental unit of our society!

Does this mean that single people and children have no place in society?
Our social order is comprised only of married people? This is laughably
untrue.

The definition of "marriage" has never been static in any case, and at
any given moment, different people already have different ideas of what
it means. In some cultures marriages are still arranged. In the past,
marriages have been used to end wars or seal treaties. It was once
expected that the father of a bride would be paid a dowry for the
privilege of marrying her. In the early 20th century it was unheard of to
have two working parents, but by the end of the 20th century it was
common. Definitions and ideas change over time.

The atomic unit of a society is the individual.

You threaten the sanctity of marriage!

What, and Elvis marrying people in drive-thru chapels in Las Vegas

doesn't? Where were you when Britney Spears married Jason
Alexander for a whole weekend?

"Marriage" as a concept clearly holds no sanctity unto itself, even for

heterosexuals, who seem to do an excellent job of undermining it on
their own. If the test for legitimacy of marriage is whether people of a
particular sexual orientation would "undermine" its "sanctity" then
heterosexuals should be forbidden from marrying as well.

Whatever "sanctity" a marriage holds exists in the bond between the

married.

See also "Gay marriage would weaken a fragile institution"

Homosexuals already have the right to marry; they can marry someone
of the opposite sex right now!

How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of
marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't
possibly love. Again, it sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage
far more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the
fundamentalist ones. Those using this argument must take the position
that "marriage" is a meaningless business contract; but even taking that
position, it cannot be denied that the contract is being offered to a
certain class of people and not to another based solely upon the sexes
of those involved. This is a clearly discriminatory position.
The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the
person of their choosing (with reasonable limitations of age and genetic
relationship). Homosexuals do not, at all, under any circumstances (age
and genetics notwithstanding). The two classes of people are treated
differently under the law, clearly.

This same intellectually bankrupt argument could be used to argue in

favor of interracial marriage bans; after all, so long as white people can
marry the other white people of their choice, there's no problem,
right?

Homosexuality spreads diseases! Homosexuals are promiscuous!

Homosexuals eat poop! Gay bowel syndrome! GLaaaaGH!

Like many other arguments, these are not arguments against gay
marriage, but arguments against gays. Furthermore, they're surely
arguments FOR gay marriage! Surely if promiscuity and diseases were
concerns, providing the structure of marriage would tend to discourage
that behaviour. Also, it is not homosexuality that causes the spread of
disease, but promiscuity of any sexual orientation. The fact of a person
being homosexual does not in itself cause anyone to contract any
disease or disorder.

Promiscuous heterosexuals are just as prone to contracting sexually-

transmitted diseases; in addition, they're far more likely to cause
unwanted pregnancies (and by implication, more abortions!).
Incidentally, there is no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome."

Because I have freedom of religion, I shouldn't be forced to accept

homosexual marriages!

No, freedom of religion is why you must. Because our laws must have a
secular purpose, and because the government must not entangle itself
with religion, limiting the rights of homosexuals for the sake of your
religion would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Further, imagine if people of different religions and religious

denominations used this reasoning: Catholics would refuse to accept
protestant marriages; Christians would refuse to accept Muslim
marriages; religious people would refuse to accept atheists' marriages,
and vice-versa. In the end, in order to avoid offending any one religious
belief, no marriages could be permitted at all!

Moreover, it is not the case that ALL religions deny same-sex unions.
Many religions and religious denominations perform and recognize
same-sex unions. To accept the reasoning that same-sex marriage is a
denial of religious freedom (of those religions that prohibit same-sex
unions) would require also accepting that refusing to permit same-sex
marriage is a denial of religious freedom (of those religions that
recognize same-sex unions) as well. This presents a rather obvious and
silly contradiction futher emphasizing the fallaciousness of this
argument.

Marriage is a covenant with God, and God says marriage is between a

man and a woman.
This argument has the same problems as the freedom of religion
argument and the Bible law argument.

In any case, a couple need not get married in a church at all, or be

religious at all. A heterosexual atheist couple can make an appointment
at any local courthouse.

Churches will be forced to marry homosexuals!

This isn't so much an argument as it is a scare tactic, and an untrue one

at that. Just as the First Amendment forbids laws being written to favor
religion, the law also can't inhibit religion. The state has no right to
force any church to marry anybody it doesn't want to marry. It doesn't
have that power now: a Catholic church is under no obligation to
marry someone who has been divorced nor to marry a protestant
couple, for example.

If two men can marry, then why not a man and a pig? Why not a man
and his sister or brother? Why not marry groups too? Where does it
end?

This isn't so much an argument about gay marriage as it is a scare tactic

and a demeaning remark about gays. The idea is to suggest that
somehow the love between two persons of the same sex could be no
more than that between a person and an animal. It's really just an
inflammatory remark that assumes that homosexuals are less human
than heterosexuals, but let's consider it anyway.
The real question isn't "if two men can marry, then why not a man and
a pig," but rather, "if a man and a woman can marry, then why not a
man and a pig?" How about "if a man and a woman can get married,
why not a man and his sister?" A man and his sister would, after all, be
an opposite-sex couple. Rhetorically, these questions are identical.
Better still, "if a man and a woman can marry, then why not a man and
a man?"

These rhetorical questions aren't arguments; they're just inflammatory

remarks which make the hidden assumption that heterosexual couples
are worthy of marrying but homosexual couples are not. (It's almost
circular reasoning in some respects; because homosexuals are
unworthy of marriage, ask a rhetorical question that's supposed to
relate that unworthiness.) This hidden assumption can be challenged
and invalidated simply by asking the same question a different way,
inverting or removing the assumption. If heterosexuals can get married,
why not a man and his sister? If heterosexuals can get married, why not
homosexuals? And if you don't like answering questions like that one,
why are you asking them?

The actual answer to these questions, of course, is that it's a given

society that determines what partners may enter into a marriage. In
Biblical times, it was common for a man to have many wives. Even in
the relatively-recent past, polygamy was practiced in the United States
by certain religions and accepted by certain states. I don't know of any
cases of people marrying animals.

Our society ostensibly supports freedom, liberty, and equality under

the law for everybody, which our great Constitution eloquently
outlines. It is this equality which same-sex couples seek to secure in
their efforts to legalize same-sex marriages.

It will be expensive if homosexuals can get married. They'll start getting

on their partners' insurance! Insurance will become more expensive!

Since when did the monetary cost become a deciding factor with
regard to fundamental rights?

In any case, it should be the homosexuals who complain about this;

after all, it is currently they who are subsidizing the cost of married
heterosexuals' insurance premiums.

It's also worth noting that the government and private insurance
companies are already prepared to supply benefits and coverages to
presently-unmarried people, so long as they pair with anyone of the
opposite sex. Nobody questions providing new coverage and benefits
for these marrying people; why does cost suddenly become such an
interesting issue when the marrying partners are of the same sex?

Gay marriage would be government endorsement of a dangerous

lifestyle.

Again, this is not really an argument against gay marriage; it's meant to
be an inflammatory argument against gays. For one thing, there's
nothing inherently dangerous about homosexuality. For another,
permitting something is not the same as endorsing it. It could hardly be
argued that the government itself endorses all the speech and
expression carried out in this country on a daily basis; it's simply the
people's right, and the government takes a passive posture toward it.

Lastly, sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle." Homosexuals live their lives

in as many varied and sundry ways as heterosexuals. Much as
fundamentalists might like to believe otherwise, every homosexual
person does not fit the narrow stereotype that the fundamentalists
promote (in a way, theirs is a straw-man argument: create an artificial
stereotype of homosexuals to attack as "dangerous").

The majority of people don't want gay marriage, so allowing it would be

undemocratic!

We do not democratically decide on fundamental rights. The US

Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is indeed a
fundamental right:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.

Imagine if we could democratically vote on whether to abide by one of

the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What would be the point of
having a Bill of Rights at all if we could just vote to ignore it?

The founders of the United States believed that people have inalienable
rights that cannot be taken away or brought to a vote. These rights are
enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments (though others also
exist, by virtue of the Ninth Amendment). Among them we find Equal
Protection under the law. Equal protection is non-negotiable without a
Constitutional Amendment.

Other civil rights issues have been unpopular, but ultimately prevailed
by virtue of the unconstitutionality of suppressing them. Most recently
the black civil rights movement, desegregation of public schools, and
permission of inter-racial marriages were all unpopular ideas at the
time, but prevailed because they were right, not because they were
popular

Gays have civil unions.

Let gays have civil unions.

First, a common misconception is that gays already have civil union

rights. This may be true in some locations, but it is hardly universal
throughout the US.

Second, calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but

a "civil union" for homosexuals reeks of the failed doctrine of "separate
but equal." See Brown vs Board of Education for what the Supreme
Court thinks of "separate but equal" with respect to equal protection
under the law.

Finally, in many location where two-partner unions exist that aren't

classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities, and
privileges associated with those unions falls short of those recognized in
marriage. Not only are these unions separate, they're also UNequal.
Gays want "special rights!"

On its face, the term "special rights" doesn't even make sense. If
something is a right, it isn't "special." It belongs to everybody. And
according to the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, marriage is a
fundamental right. Yet, the anti-gay extremists trumpet this "special
rights" meme every time gays attempt to attain or retain any type of
equal treatment, in an apparent effort to try to convince people that
gays are trying to get something that other people don't have.

In fact, it's obvious in the case of marriage that the only group that
could be considered to have a "special" right is heterosexuals. They can
get married. Gays cannot. What these people should be saying is that
they want their own right to remain "special" by preventing gays from
attaining equality.

Gays don't want rights; they want acceptance

While it's true that everyone wants to be accepted, what gay marriage
advocates are trying to secure are plainly rights. Like the "special rights"
argument, this overlooks the fact that in the case of Loving v Virginia, it
has been clearly spelled out that marriage is a fundamental right. Gay
marriage advocates are often trying to undo prohibitions and protect
against discrimination. None of the bills passed have included language
that demands that anyone "accept" anything. Allowing and accepting are
two entirely different things.

One could turn around this argument and say that anti-gay religious
zealots want "acceptance" of their hatred of gays, and this is why they
craft legislation specifically to oppose gays and gay rights. Further, one
could expose the discriminatory attitude hidden in this argument by
asking if gays should be complaining that they're "forced to accept" the
heterosexual lifestyle because heterosexual marriage isn't illegal.

If gays get married, society will collapse. Plague, locusts, famine!

Destruction! Doom! Sky is falling!

These are fear-monger slurs that have no basis in reality. Gay marriage
has existed for some time in the Netherlands, with no apparent ill
effects, destruction, doom or peril. The sky hasn't fallen in
Massachusetts or Canada. No social collapse has been reported in
Denmark, though their gay marriages are called "civil unions," but retain
all the same rights.

Nobody has ever demonstrated a causal relationship between state

sanctioning of gay marriages and any type of disaster, chaos or social
disarray.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

See Loving v Virginia, which states in no uncertain terms that "the

freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Gay marriage would weaken a fragile institution.

Let us not forget who made it fragile. You can hardly blame gays for
that.
But more importantly, note that this is actually an argument against
gays, not an argument against gay marriage. Sure, it sounds like an
argument against gay marriage at first, but think about the presumption
it makes. Who's to say that gays getting married wouldn't strengthen
the institution of marriage? Or perhaps do nothing at all to it? Why the
assumption that it would, by necessity, weaken it?

This argument is a clear manifestation of an anti-gay bias if you stop to

think about it.

Opposition to gay marriage is about preserving our moral fiber, not

about discrimination

Like the argument about gay marriage weakening the institution, this is
an argument against gays, not an argument against gay marriage. The
argument assumes that homosexuals are uniquely capable of
"destroying" some "moral fiber" in a way that heterosexuals are not.

To assert that this position is not discriminatory is laughable on its face.

Imagine if nobody could get married and separate bills were introduced
simultaneously to acknowledge the marriage rights of heterosexuals and
homosexuals. How else could it be explained other than discrimination
if one bill was passed but not the other?

I'm a gay atheist. Gays shouldn't have the right to get married!
This isn't really an argument, but it's mentioned here to point out a
relatively new tactic used by anti-gay activists when spouting other
nonsense in opposition to gay marriage (and weirdly, these people
often start in with "the bible says..." at some point).

Some anti-gay activists seem to believe that when approaching a

community dominated by non-religious people or by gay people or gay-
sympathetic people, their malformed arguments will have greater
credibility if they claim to be atheist, gay, or both. Yet if you read their
arguments carefully, looking for hidden assumptions, these are the most
bible-believing, anti-gay gay atheists you'll ever meet.

The real point is that it doesn't matter who makes these bogus
arguments against gays or against gay marriage; they're still just as
bogus. Claiming to be gay, atheist, from outer space or even Swedish
makes no difference.

Gays can already get the rights they want with contracts, filing for
power of attorney, etc!

First, this isn't even true. There exists no civil means, for example, to
ensure that property can be inherited from someone to his or her
same-sex partner with the same tax benefits as a married, opposite-sex
couple. There are literally thousands of state-provided perks for
heterosexual married couples that are not available through any means
other than through marriage. It ignores the fact that there have been
cases where even though a partner had power of attorney, he was still
denied his right to hospital visitation; the term "marriage" carries with it
an instantly understandable social connotation. This argument is
essentially a straw-man, suggesting that one of the most-sought
benefits- hospital visitation- were somehow the only benefit to be had
from civil marriage.

Furthermore, even if we supposed that this absurd statement were

true, it is surely also an argument against heterosexual marriage! Why
should opposite-sex couples be permitted to wed if they can simply
secure all of these benefits through contracts and power of attorney?
The fact that those making this argument chose only to apply it to
same-sex couples reveals the blatant anti-gay bias in their reasoning.

If gays can get married, gay marriage and homosexuality will be taught
to children in schools

Like the "gays would weaken a fragile institution" argument and the
"sanctity of marriage" argument, this is an argument against gays, not an
argument against same-sex marriage.

Those who complain that gay marriage would have to be taught in

schools (setting aside for a moment whether this assertion is even
factually correct) presumably have no problem with heterosexual
marriage being taught in schools (ask them!). The only way to explain
this dissonance is a bias against gay people.

Churches will lose their tax exemption without a ban on gay marriage

Like the "churches will be forced to marry homosexuals" argument, this

is not an argument against gay marriage but simply a scare tactic.
There's no reason to believe this would happen any more than it would
happen for a church refusing to marry atheists, a Catholic church
refusing to marry divorcees, a protestant church refusing to marry
Catholics, a synagogue refusing to marry Buddhists, etc. Since no
church has ever lost its tax exemption for any of these things, there's
no reason to expect that any church would lose its tax exemption for
refusing to perform gay weddings.

Individuals will be sued unless gay marriage is banned

Like the "churches will be forced to marry homosexuals" and the

"churches will lose their tax exemption" arguments, this is a scare
tactic, not an argument against gay marriage. There is no evidence that
this would happen or could happen, and the First Amendment of the
US Constitution protects people's rights to their personal beliefs (and
to state those beliefs publicly and in groups).

The one situation in which a person could be sued would be a state

official acting in his or her official capacity. But in these cases it's not
truly that individual person being sued so much as it is that person's
state office being sued. If, for example, someone believed a state law
was violating a group's civil rights, it could be the state attorney
general's name on a lawsuit. This is merely a formality and an indication
that the state itself is a party to a lawsuit.

There is no reason to believe that any individual citizen has been sued
or could be sued simply for holding a particular belief and expressing
that belief about gay marriage.