by Dick Stewart

Created on: May 28, 2009

There are two kinds of objection to gender-neutral marriage. One is the public face of the "anti gay marriage" campaign. That category of objection portrays an opposition founded in reasonable concerns: protecting a cherished institution and young people from the claimed ill effects if persons of the same gender were allowed to share the same married status as traditional couples.

But if the people who are most vocal in their opposition were honest with themselves, perhaps they would realize that the level of passion they bring to this crusade can only be attributed to baser, more emotional motives.

The website nogaymarriage.com lists 10 arguments against gay marriage.

#1: It's Destructive to the Institution of Marriage.

Their foremost reason is the negative effect they claim it has on the institution of marriage. Their premise is that same-sex marriage will accelerate the trend toward single-parent families.

Their evidence is a single article in the conservative Weekly Standard. It supposedly claims (It is not on their website) that gay marriage is the reason why half of all children in Scandinavia are now born out of wedlock.

On the face of it, this argument is ridiculous. What percentage of the fathers of those children are now in same-sex marriages? Are they claiming that if not for the availability of the same-sex marriage option, some portion of those fathers would now be married to the women who bore their children?

#2: The Slippery Slope

Reason #2 is the opening they claim it creates for the legalization of polygamy. Their concern rests on the supposed reversing of the legal standard concerning polygamy. Whereas previously the burden of proof was on polygamists to demonstrate that their practices were not "harmful to the culture," now the opponents of polygamy must show that "a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society."

That seems a specious argument. Shouldn't a freedom only be denied if its effects can be demonstrated to be harmful? Do they fear that they can't demonstrate that it is? If it's not, what's the objection?

They include a paragraph demonizing judges which needs no response.

They play the fear card, portraying a slippery slope that leads inevitability to group marriage, marriage between relatives and between adults and children, marriage between a man and his donkey. This is the argument that was once used against interracial marriage.

The rest of this argument cites "tradition, legal precedent, and the overwhelming

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>