Section I:
Secular Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage
The issue of gay marriage is not about religion, discrimination, or equal rights. For many years the gay activists have been mischaracterizing the issue of gay marriage by making it about religion and equal rights in order manipulate public opinion. They have also been very successful in using emotion to dramatically change public opinion. The following document will go into detail the secular arguments against same-sex marriage.
The first and main example of the gay activists mischaracterizing the issue of gay marriage is to argue that “gays” have the right to marry or should be allowed to marry. The reason this argument is a mischaracterization is because the issue isn’t whether or not anyone has the right to marry. Everyone under current law already has the right to marry. The issue is whether or not a real marriage is only between a man and a woman or can be between two people of the same gender. If marriage is defined by nature as being between a man and a woman than same sex relationships are not real marriages. Even if a same sex couple has obtained a marriage license it should not be considered a real marriage since marriage is defined by nature not the government. Same sex couples are still free to practice their beliefs. If two men or two women want to live together, have a wedding ceremony, and exchange vows they are free to do so. However because they are not really married they are not entitled to the same legal status and benefits as real marriages.
In order to make the case that defining marriage between a man and a woman is a form of discrimination one first has to prove that homosexuality is a permanent and purely biological condition. Not only has that not been proven but there is evidence to the contrary. First of all the process of natural selection implies that we are inherently heterosexual by nature. For example if someone was born with the “gay gene” it would not be impossible for them to reproduce but because they would be less attracted to the opposite sex they would be less likely to. Over a period of time people born with the “gay gene” would become a smaller and smaller percent of the population until they became extinct.
According to a 2011 CDC report 5.6 percent of males and 12.7 percent of females engage in same sex behavior. However only 1.7 percent of males and 1.1 percent of females between ages 18-44 identify themselves as homosexual. The percent of individuals who identified themselves as bisexual were 1.1 for males and 3.5 for females. This suggests that the majority or at least a significant percent of people who engage in same sex behavior identify themselves as heterosexual. It also shows that although males are more likely to identify themselves as homosexual females are more that twice as likely to engage in same sex behavior. The reason for this is most likely because our culture celebrates same sex behavior among females more than it does for males. The CDC study also shows that cultural beliefs and educational level may influence same sex behavior.
There are numerous studies that show evidence that childhood sexual abuse is a major contributing factor in homosexual behavior in adults. According to a study published by the Journal Archives of Sexual Behavior 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported homosexual molestation. However only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of homosexual women reported homosexual molestation. Although these studies do not prove that childhood sexual abuse is the sole cause of homosexual behavior in adults or show how much of a factor sexual abuse is, it does raise questions about the assumption that homosexuality is a purely biological condition.
One of the main arguments the gay activists make for same sex marriage is to compare the so called “ban on same sex marriage” to the ban on interracial marriage. The reason for this is not only because the gay activist can not argue directly in favor of same sex marriage but also to compare their political movement to the civil rights movement. This argument falls apart if choice and environment are shown to be factors in homosexuality.
Even if it could be proven that homosexuality was a purely biological and permanent condition there is still a fundamental difference between real marriages and same sex relationships. It is a indisputable fact that every person in the world has one thing in common. Every human being has one biological mother and one biological father. There is not a single person in the history of this world that wasn’t created by one man and one woman and there is not a single person that was conceived through homosexual behavior. Only heterosexual couples have the potential to create children and it is that potential that defines marriage. Marriage is not defined by government or religion but by nature as being between a man and a woman. The gay activist try to counter this argument by pointing out that we don’t deny marriage licenses to infertile couples or couple beyond there reproductive years. There are several reasons why this is not a valid argument. First of al the reason why infertile couples can not reproduce is different from the reason why same sex couples can not reproduce. Infertile couple can not reproduce because their reproductive organs are not or are no longer functioning properly whereas same sex couple can not reproduce because it would violate the laws of nature and it is not even theoretically possible. Secondly if a couple is struggling to conceive a child it might not be impossible. It might take several years and they might have to undergo fertility treatment but the possibility still remains. It would also be very impracticable to wait until after a couple conceives their first child to issue them a marriage license because as a society we want to encourage potential mothers and fathers to commit to each other before having children. Finally if a couple is infertile it does not change the nature of the relationship because it is natural for a man and a woman to form relationships and to commit to each other. None of us would exist without the union between a man and a woman. It is essential to our existence and the commitment between a mother and father provides children with the best chances for survival and the best quality of life.
Another argument the gay activists make is to point out that same sex couples can still have children by adoption, by artificial insemination, or by using a surrogate mother. However even in these cases it still requires one man and one woman to create those children. There is another fundamental difference between real marriages and same sex relationships. Only relationships between a man and a woman can provide a child with both a mother and a father. This leads us to the most important reason why changing the legal definition of marriage will have a negative impact on society. The concept of same sex marriage challenges the belief that traditional families are the best way to raise children. According to the gay activists it doesn’t matter whether or not a child grows up in a home without a mother or father. If marriage is redefined in this country it will make it even more socially acceptable to have children outside of real marriages. Both mothers and father play a unique role in childhood development and because it always takes a mother and father to create a child that’s what is natural for childhood development. It has been shown that males that grow up without fathers are six times more likely to commit violent crimes as adults compared to males that are raised by both a mother and father. It is also true that out of wedlock pregnancies is one of the main root causes of poverty in this country. The gay activist try to counter this argument by pointing to studies that show that children raised by same sex couples are no worse off than children raised by traditional parents. However these studies are flawed because when they focus on children raised by same sex couples they only focus on children who were the results of planned pregnancies then they compare those children to the rest of the population. Another problem is that same sex couple who have acquired marriage licenses are far more likely to file for divorce than opposite sex couples. According to a 2004 Swedish study same sex male couples were about 50 percent more likely to file for divorce and same sex female couples were 167 percent more likely to file for divorce over an 8 year period. It also shows that lower rates of children were not a factor in the “divorce rate” in same sex couples. What this mean is that if the gay activist are successful in changing the legal definition of marriage then it could lead to an increase in the number of children growing up in single parent households. Not only would it be more socially acceptable to have children outside of real marriages but it would make it illegal for adoption agencies to show preference to real married couples.
The real problem with the gay activist movement is that they are putting their own selfish desire to impose their belief system on the rest of the public ahead of the well being of children. Every child deserves the stability of being raised by both a mother and father that are committed to each other and we deserve to live in a world free of the social problems created by the breakdown of marriage.
Section II:
Rebuttals to Arguments in Favor of Same Sex Marriage
Over the last 20 years there has been a dramatic change in public opinion on same sex marriage. In the early 90’s only a small percent of the public supported the idea and it was considered to be an extreme position. In recent years the public has become evenly divided on the issue. Even though more people still oppose same sex marriage than support it, those who do oppose it are often afraid to openly oppose it and speak their mind. Public opinion is currently trending in the direction that is favorable to same sex marriage. The gay activist have accomplished this not by making rational or intellectual arguments but by using inflammatory rhetoric, superficial comparisons, and simplistic emotional arguments that lack any real substance. This second section will focus on rebuttals to arguments in favor of same sex marriage.
1.Gays should have the right and freedom to marry.
This is one of the most commonly used arguments for same sex marriage. It is also a very simplistic argument and a mischaracterization of the issue. The issue isn’t about whether or not the government can give the right to marry to anyone. The issue is “What defines a marriage?“. Is marriage defined by the government or is it defined by nature? If marriage is defined by government than it can be what ever you want it to be but if marriage is defined by nature as being between a man and a woman then same sex relationships are not real marriages. If they are not real marriages then they are not entitled to the same legal status and benefits as marriages. Another problem with the “Gays should be allowed to marry” argument is that is assumes that homosexuality is a purely biological condition.
2.People who oppose same sex marriage hate gays and are homophobic bigots.
This argument is a perfect example of inflammatory rhetoric. There is no substance to this argument. It is only an attempt to guilt trip, intimidate, and demonize those who oppose gay marriage. The main problem with this argument is that it assumes that people that oppose same sex marriage or question whether homosexuality is purely biological are taking these positions out of hatred. It is entirely possible to have these positions without being hateful and it is also possible to be accepting and tolerant toward people without sharing their beliefs. Most people who disagree wit the gay activist are not taking this position out of hatred. It is the gay activists that have a problem showing tolerance and acceptance towards people who have different beliefs than they do. Whenever you hear the gay activists falsely accusing others of hatred it is often because they are projecting their own hatred on to others. Look at the way former Miss California Carrie Prejean was treated by Perez Hilton and the gay activists. She was the target of malicious mean-spirited personal attacks and yet she continued to state her beliefs in a way that was respectful towards those whom she disagreed with.
3.It is discrimination to define marriage between a man and a woman.
This is a variation of the first argument. The gay activists use the word discrimination in order to invoke an emotional reaction from people. It is a tactic that is more effective on people who have not experienced real discrimination than it is on people who have. This is the main reason why so many Black Americans turnout to vote for proposition 8 in California when the majority of White Americans voted against it. The point of this argument is once again to make people feel guilty for opposing same sex marriage by making it the moral equivalent of racial discrimination. The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a permanent biological condition and that same sex relationship are the same as real marriages. If either one of these assumptions is false than one can argue that defining marriage between a man and a woman is not a form of discrimination because homosexuality is not a permanent biological condition and same sex relationships are not real marriages.
4.The “ban” on same sex marriage is similar to the ban on interracial marriage.
This argument is using an informal fallacy that is known as the Straw Man argument. Instead of making the case in favor of same sex marriage the gay activists compare the so called ban on gay marriage to the ban on interracial marriage. This is of course a superficial comparison. It is a lot easier to argue against a ban on interracial marriage than it is to argue in favor of same sex marriage. It also uses past racism guilt trip and demonize people who disagree with them.
5.Gay marriage is just another chapter in the civil rights movement.
This is an attempt to legitimize the gay activist movement by attaching it to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. However there are noticeable differences between the real civil rights movement and the so called gay rights movement. First of all the gay activist are comparing sexual behavior to race. We know for are fact the race is purely biological and determined before birth. We also know that there are people who have changed their sexual behavior and identity throughout the course of their life. Tila Tequila for example used to identify herself as bisexual but after an abusive relationship she had with a man in 2009 she changed her identity to lesbian. Another noticeable difference are the tactics the gay activist use to manipulate people’s emotions. They often act overly sensitive, use name calling, and even workplace discrimination to intimidate those who disagree with them into silence. There was a Texas woman who got fired from Macy’s for telling a man wearing a dress that he had to use the men’s changing room instead of the women’s changing room. This shows how hypocritical and insincere the gay activist are since they were the ones lecturing everyone else about tolerance and acceptance towards others. Now they have become very intolerant and hostile towards anyone who disagrees with them.
6.We don’t deny marriage licenses to infertile couples so we should not deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.
This is not so much an argument in favor of same sex marriage rather than it is an attempt to debunk an argument against it. It is a superficial comparison that ignores the fundamental difference between real marriages and same sex relationships. It is a fact that only opposite sex couples have the potential to produce children. It always take one man and one woman to create a child. The reason why infertile couples can not reproduce is because their reproductive organs are not working properly whereas the reason why same sex couples can not reproduce is because it violates the laws of nature. It not even a theoretical possibility to conceive children through homosexual behavior. The fact that infertile couples exists does not change the nature of the relationship and is not enough of a reason to change the legal definition on marriage.
7.Our grandchildren will support same sex marriage so it’s just a matter of time.
This argument uses a logical fallacy which is referred to as the Bandwagon Fallacy. It assumes that just because public opinion is trending in a certain direction it must be the right one. The reason why this argument is so effective is because most people have the emotional desire to be on the winning side of an issue and to have their own point of view reinforced. On the other hand it can be really discouraging to supporters of the traditional definition of marriage to see the public opinion polls trending in the direction of same sex marriage. Part of the reason why public support especially among young people has continued to trend in the direction of same sex marriage is because the gay activist have been very effective in using peer pressure and the entertainment industry to promote it. According to a recent CNN Gallup poll 50 percent of people support same sex marriage and 48 are oppose to it. After President Obama voiced his support for same sex marriage the poll showed an increase in support. However there is some evidence that support for same sex marriage is overstated by the polls. Back in 2008 polls predicted that proposition 8 would fail. Instead it passed in one of the most liberal states in the country. Despite the passage of proposition 8 and the recent vote in North Carolina public opinion continues to trend in the direction of same sex marriage. This leads to a perception that same sex marriage is inevitable so we might as well cave in to the gay activists and support it. This is exactly what the gay activists are counting on. They don’t want people to think for themselves they just want everyone to follow the rest of the crowd and jump on the bandwagon. A principled person does not take a position based on current trends in public opinion polls. A principled person does take a position based on what he or she thinks is right.
8.”Banning” same sex marriage violates the separation between the church and state.
The basis for this argument is that the only reason anyone opposes same sex marriage is because of religion. It is true that religious people are less likely to support same sex marriage but that does not make it a religious issue. This argument is mostly made by people who are ideologically liberal and are strongly anti-religious. The main reason why liberals have embraced the cause of same sex marriage is because they don’t like who is opposed to it. This give liberals an issue that they can use to denigrate and demonize religious conservatives. However it is irrational to support an idea simply because you don’t like who is opposed to it.
9.Divorce is perfectly legal and widespread in society so same sex marriage should be too.
On this argument the gay activists make a legitimate point. If you believe in protecting marriage you should be more concerned about the divorce rate more than same sex marriage. The divorce rate among mothers and fathers combined with the illegitimacy rate are the main root causes of poverty in this country. The gay activists are also correct in pointing out that they are not to blame for the breakdown of marriage and traditional family values in this country. However changing the legal definition of marriage could make a bad situation worse because it sends the massage that it is okay to have children outside of real marriages. Although it is true that areas like the state of Massachusetts have lower divorce rates than the rest of the country the reason for that is because people living in large urban areas tend to have a higher level of education and get married at an older age. It is also true that people that live in large urban areas tend to be more socially liberal. On the other hand the percent of same sex couples filing for divorce are significantly higher than the overall divorce rate and countries that have changed the legal definition of marriage tend to have higher percentages of out of wedlock pregnancies. The divorce rate and out of wedlock pregnancies contribute to major problems in this country but are not an argument for same sex marriage. Instead we need to make changes to the no fault divorce laws in this county, promote family planning and traditional family values.
10.Civil unions are akin to separate but equal.
This is another argument where the gay activists make a legitimate point in the sense that if you believe that defining marriage between a man and a woman is somehow denying rights to anyone then you should be in favor of same sex marriage. The problem isn’t so much with the argument as it is with the very concept of civil unions. If a same sex relationship is not the same thing as a real marriage then it should not be treated like a real marriage and same sex couples should not be given the same benefits as real married couples. We should not create a legal status similar to marriage where people are not actually married. Creating a “lite” version of marriage could be just as harmful to society as redefining marriage. It gives people the same benefits of marriage without the commitment. It also causes employers to spend more money on heath insurance benefits than they already would have which makes it harder for businesses to create jobs in this country. Supporter of civil unions argue that civil unions are needed so that same sex couples can have someone as their beneficiary and visit each other in the hospital. However creating a new legal status is not necessary for accomplishing this goal. A same sex couple can have a living will so that they can have their same sex partner as their beneficiary and hospitals can set their own rules to accommodate those beneficiaries. The main reason why so many people have taken the civil union position is out of guilt. They don’t believe that same sex relationships are real marriages but the don’t want to offend people who identify themselves as homosexual. The only other reason anyone takes this position is political. It is a way for politicians to be on both sides of the issue in order to pander for votes.
11.It has been proven that gay people are born that way and that homosexuality is not a choice.
The problem with this argument is that the gay activists just expect us to accept that homosexuality is purely biological without question. It is true that there is evidence of biological factors in homosexuality but there is also evidence that environment and choice are factors too. There is a genetic predisposition associated with alcoholism but it does not mean that people are born alcoholics. Considering that there is evidence that childhood sexual abuse is a major factor in homosexual behavior in adults and that people have been known to change their sexual identity it is inconclusive to assume that people are born homosexual.
12.Animals engage in homosexual behavior there forth it must be purely biological.
It is true that homosexual behavior has been observed in animals. However this is not proof that homosexuality is purely biological. Just because an animal is engaging in homosexual behavior does not mean that animal is incapable of mating with the opposite sex or that it wouldn’t prefer to mate with the opposite sex. Another assumption the gay activists make is that animals aren’t affected by their environment. It has been observed that when bonobos (which are a type of chimpanzee) were under stress and about to fight they would often engage in homosexual behavior instead in order to relieve stress. Penguins have been observed to engage in homosexual behavior but the only way to tell a male penguin apart from a female is with a blood test. It is possible that the penguins are simple confused or that this behavior is more common place in captivity than in the wild. Male mallard ducks have also been observed attempting to mate with deceased male mallard duck. This does not mean that those ducks were born homosexual necrophilias. A more likely explanation is that those ducks were simply responding to their instinct to relieve their sexual desire and that their was no female present for them to mate with.
13.Studies have shown that children that are raised by same sex couples are no worse off than children that are raised by opposite sex couples.
The problem with these studies is that when they focus on children raised by same sex couples they only look at children who were the results of planned pregnancies and then compare those children to the rest of the population. Many of college campuses have a strong liberal bias so it is possible that these studies were conducted with an ideological agenda and that the people who conducted these studies could have cherry picked the children raised by same sex couples to get the results they were looking for. Generally speaking children that are the result of planned pregnancies have fewer emotional problems and are better behaved than children who are the result of unplanned pregnancies. There are also studies that show that males that grow up without fathers are 6 times more likely to commit violent crimes than males who grow up with father and children who are raised by single mothers are more likely to grow up in poverty and depend on tax payer funded programs. According to a Swedish study same sex female couples who acquire marriage licenses are 3 times more likely to file for divorce than real married couples so changing the legal definition of marriage could lead to an increase in children being raised by single mothers.
14.Gay teens are being bullied and committing suicide because society won’t legalize same sex marriage.
The latest tactic to be used by the gay activists is to argue that people who oppose same sex marriage are responsible for “gay teens” being bullied and in some cases committing suicide. The problem with this argument is that bullying and teen suicide have nothing to do with the issue of same sex marriage. The gay activist are just trying to hijack the issue in order to guilt trip people into supporting same sex marriage. Not only is it inappropriate and exploitative to use these tragic teen suicides to score political points for same sex marriage but there is no evidence of a connection between suicide and discrimination. If you look at suicide rates by race and gender you will see that it is highest among white males and lowest among black females. The reason why suicide rates are higher among teenagers that engage in homosexual behavior is because they were already suffering from emotional problems. It is the emotional problems that were likely caused by sexual abuse that lead to homosexual behavior in the first place which also put them at greater risk for suicide. What’s ironic about this is that it is the gay activists are trying to bully people who disagree with them. They use fear and intimidation to silence people who disagree with them to ensure that the only voices that are heard in this debate are their own.
The institution of marriage is important to society because it provides children with stability and the best quality of life. It is fundamental to our nature and prevents many of the social problems that plague society. If we are going to change the legal definition of marriage and make a major change in the structure of the family we should at least discuss and debate the issue in a way that is rational and respectful to all. Unfortunately the gay activists have chosen to undermine the institution of marriage and to manipulate public opinion through emotion by using guilt, fear, intimidation, peer pressure and intellectually dishonest arguments.