- 1 Arguments against same-sex marriage
- 1.1 Evidence against natural homosexuality
- 1.2 Slippery slope
- 1.3 Religious imperative
- 2 What YOU can do to support marriage
Arguments against same-sex marriage[edit | edit source]
The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation suggests homosexuality is indeed aberrant. As only sex between a male and female can produce offspring, it is obvious that only that coupling is one accepted by nature.
How we define a word is absolutely important in this debate of same sex marriage. To start, Hetero is the greek word for "other" used as a prefix in the word heterosexual. Homo is the greek word for "same" and is used as a prefix in the word homosexual. First, let's stop using other languages to say what needs to be said. Let's be politically correct. People with the same gender want to be contractually bound in the same way that two people of opposite sex are joined together under the marriage contract. Why? For the sake of benefits?! Taxes, retirement, sex and any other perks?! If this is the case then single adults should have the right to these perks as well. That's where morality comes in. Out of all the benefits of marriage, sex is the ultimate benefit. Sex is the most pleasurable human experiences. Consequently as with anything that is so valuable, it must be protected from abuse. The abuse of sex really good is destructive to humanity from a civilized point of view. Let it be said that no one can protect sex better than the Law. If the Law relinquishes its protection from sex, the world is in for a fatal shock. It is the responsibility of Law to protect that which cannot protect itself. For example, children need to be protected because they cannot protect themselves. If parents don't protect their child than that child now becomes an infant of the Law, child of the state. In other words sex is awsome you should have a child.
To justify the use (abuse) of sex, most same sex partners are trying to get the Law to turn it's face from the nature of this delimma. The question needs to be asked, why are these benefits given to a man and a woman under a contract by consent (married) and not to any other type of contract. The truth is that Law must protect itself. A man and a woman joined together by contract are the closest representatives of Law simply because they offer two of the most important perspectives from a coinciding point of view... a male and female point of view. For example, in the case of race, it is easy for people of the same race to be bias, hence slavery and the holocaust. Another example would be women's liberation... this was needed due to the fact that influential men ruled the world. The point is that two men will most likely not have the best interest of sex in mind but their best interest in mind. It is not in their nature to do so. They will not provide checks and balances in a sexual relationship. The same with two women. Same sex marriage is one the most unnatural acts on the face of this earth. When sex loses its innocence and purity, it becomes a tool of destruction. Same sex marriage is just the beginning step of destruction. What if sex was becomes lawless?
Darwin's law of natural selection dictates that only sexually reproductive specie can survive, thus it's natural that a sexually reproductive species like the human race would be unlikely to evolve a purely non-reproductive life style.
- Please rename this section. It only briefly mentions Darwin's theory and it does not draw on any scientific evidence. In summary, this is not a scientific argument, but a moral and political one. --Waldsen 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence against natural homosexuality[edit | edit source]
While much has been touted about findings that homosexuality is natural, there are studies that indicate different findings, such as the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" . Dr. Paul Cameron, Chariman of the Family Research Institute, maintains it is a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. 
- Dr. Cameron received his PhD in psychology in 1966, but has since been ejected from the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association after he "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." 
That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage.
Slippery slope[edit | edit source]
When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be polygamous, pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account.
Religious imperative[edit | edit source]
Aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion[edit | edit source]
First and foremost, all religion aside, secular law should always be aligned with the majority, moral codes or no moral codes. This is both the purpose and spirit of democracy.
Secondly, (the vast majority of, if not all) gay marriage supporters are not in any way suggesting people cannot live whatever lifestyle(s) they choose. They are merely stating that such behavior cannot and should not be condoned in what is, like it or not, a religious institution. Gay marriage supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that homosexuals are entitled to protections by a religious institution, and (more often than not) claiming that anything otherwise would be intolerant. However, this is a weak argument at best and a hypocritical one at worst. Gays wishing a legally-binding institution are free to pursue one--just leave ours This section is for rebuttals to points made in Same-sex marriage/Pro.
Counterpoint to freedom and individual liberty argument HOW TO BE GAY PART 2[edit | edit source]
While many pro-gay marriage advocates claim that marriage is a freedom, marriage is actually a State and/or society issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the State or society, therefore you can't say that the State/society take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State/society sponsored institution. Moreover, under the current system, heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. "Same-sex marriage" is an attempt to redefine the nature and purpose of marriage.
Dissenting opinion[edit | edit source]
This principle is not unlike those surrounding the interracial marriage issue that was only recently addressed in the US. The argument was made that a black person has the same rights as a white person to marry within their 'race' and that both blacks and whites were equally prohibited from marrying outside their 'race.'
Until 1967, many states had laws banning interracial marriage. In Loving v Virginia the US Supreme Court struck down all those laws.
Here is part of the US Supreme Court Ruling on that case:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Counterpoint to framing the argument[edit | edit source]
Many proponents of gay marriage claim the true issue is whether or not homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. I believe this to be a red herring--the only real issue is the definition of marriage. While one's belief regarding the status of homosexuals can--and oftentimes does--influence ones stance, it has no real bearing on the true issue at hand--whether marriage is an exclusive union between males and females or a more general bonding between two individuals.
Counterpoint to sexual orientation is not a choice[edit | edit source]
Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not is irrelevant to the "gay marriage" discussion. People can fall in love, have straight or gay sex without getting married. Marriage status is not a precondition to express one's sexuality. We have had heterosexual marriage both when people believed that sexuality was a choice or when they belived it was a destiny, therefore the choice vs. destiny is irrelevant to the marriage discussion.
What YOU can do to support marriage[edit | edit source]
Allow democracy to take its course. In the USA, marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. The voters support that definition by a wide margin. Homosexual "marriage" will be defeated simply by not squelching the voice of the people. Support voter initiatives and reject activist judges. Simply allow the people their freedom to vote and marriage will survive.