Gay Marriage

Hey there. So I don't intend on necessarily disagreeing with you on gay marriage, but I would like to put forth some of the arguments against gay marriage and possibly clear the air, so to speak. So to start off, I'd like to address some of your comments in regards to the people that disagree with you. Yes, homophobic and bigoted individuals are against gay marriage, but this is a far cry from saying that the intentions of EVERYONE who disagrees with gay marriage are full of malice, bigotry, or homophobia. I think you soil the discussion by painting anyone who disagrees with you like this. "I accept gay people because they are also humans, and not some being that exists to kill everyone" ^^ This is a straw man. 1) Not everyone against gay marriage thinks gay people aren't human (I don't think anyone makes that argument). 2) Who is arguing that gay people exist to kill everyone? This is an extremely irrational position to take right off the bat, and I don't think I've EVER heard such an argument put forth. Aside from attempting to poison the well, I don't think statements like that serve any purpose, nor should they reside in an intellectual discussion over ANY particular topic. The purpose of a marriage is much more than two people loving each other. Love is a beautiful thing, and I believe it can take place between two people of any gender. But the problem is that this argument is often pushed as a justification of gay marriage. Since gay people can love each other too, they can also get married. As I stated above, marriage is not simply about two people loving each other. Marriage is intended to be a permanent bond between a man and a woman for the purpose of setting a foundation for future generations. Every single bit of data we have on demographic outcomes shows that two parent (biological parents) households are the best environment to raise the next generation. Thus, marriage is essentially the social institution by which we ensure that the next generation is raised in this optimal environment. With this in mind, marriage is comprised of a few tenets which help ensure the benefits of such an institution are transmitted to the future generations... 1) Marriage is a bond between two people - 2) a man and a woman (given the biological realities that homosexual couples cannot bear children) - 3) involving both permanency, 4) and sexual exclusivity. So the important thing to realize is that the pro-gay marriage stance involves contention with premise #2. If we just think of marriage as nothing more than an expression of love, then contentions with gay marriage seem unjustified, and it's easy to reject this 2nd tenet, or premise. But again, marriage is about more than love, so we need to address the entirety of the subject. If we are going to reject the 2nd premise behind marriage, what is stopping us from rejecting all of it? This is an interesting question, because I've asked several of my gay friends who are married what they think about these various pieces. For example, they expressed their beliefs that marriage is in fact a bond between two people, and that it should be permanent, and imply sexual exclusivity. This is a problem since we've already rejected 1 of the 4 premises. What is stopping us from rejecting the rest of them? My point is, if marriage is no longer an institution between a man and a woman, who's to say that marriage can't be between more than two people? Or a non-permanent bond like a lease agreement? What about sexual exclusivity? Many married gay couples would wish to uphold these 3 other tenets, but what gives them the right to stand up against people who wish marriage to exist as a bond between 3 people (a "throuple"... yes... it's a real thing)? Or those who believe marriage is not permanent? Or those who believe marriage doesn't imply sexual exclusivity? Are these people now bigots deserving of condemnation and insults? You may personally say that all 4 tenants don't really matter, and people should be able to do whatever they wish (I don't necessarily disagree). But then, what exactly IS marriage? If it doesn't mean anything then what really is the point of it? Couldn't civil unions serve the same role? This is where you get many of the arguments from the political right who claim that gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage. It's similar to the "slippery slope" argument, because once you reject one piece of marriage, you don't really have an philosophical reasoning for upholding the rest. The natural result is that marriage will end up as a meaningless term with no social backing. As I eluded to above, this could be detrimental to society, and I would argue that we are already seeing some of the problems associated with an absence of dual parent households in society.