It seems to me that these are the main objections to same-sex marriage:
I'll try to answer each of these in turn.
Homosexuality is unnatural
Well this is just wrong, as this article demonstrates:
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
I'm not saying that if animals do something, then it must be ok. I'm saying that something cannot be unnatural if it repeatedly occurs within nature.
Even if it really was unnatural, it would still be a pathetic argument. Computers aren't natural. Motorised transport isn't natural. Would you refuse medical treatment because it isn't natural?
You know what else isn't natural? Marriage. When was the last time you saw a couple of swans swear mutual oaths of loyalty and fidelity in front of their friends and family? Did you see them ratify their oaths with a legally binding contract?
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
Not true. They have been various examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. If nothing else, the fact that it was banned in the Codex Theodosianus in 312AD kinda implies that it was going on. Why ban something that isn't happening?
Even so, arguing against something on the basis of tradition is incredibly daft.
Female genital mutilation is a tradition, is that ok? What about the tradition in india in which babies are thrown off a 15m rooftop onto a bedsheet? Human sacrifice was traditional. Or are we only talking about traditions that we like? Because if that's the case, then being traditional really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring
Neither can infertile heterosexual unions. Should we really ban sterile people from getting married? Should marriages be dissolved if a spouse becomes infertile? What about IVF treatment? Can that "validate" a union? It certainly isn't "natural".
What if a heterosexual couple are both fertile but decide not to have children, can they still get married?
It destroys the sanctity of marriage
What the hell is the "sanctity" of marriage anyway? It seems to imply some kind holy aspect to it. Well non-religious marriages exist, so it's got to be more than that. Why aren't anti-SSM people up in arms about divorces and annulments? Surely nothing is a more direct threat to the sanctity of a marriage that it's dissolution?
It offends god
So does eating shellfish. Who cares? God will forgive us anyway, right? Given the innumerable things that offend god, which we all do anyway, why focus on this in particular ?
I think Violet Lilly Blossom hit the nail on the head with the issue of legal benefits. Denying homosexual couples the legal rights that married couples benefit from is just plain discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it.
- Homosexuality is unnatural
- Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
- Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring
- It destroys the sanctity of marriage
- It offends god
I'll try to answer each of these in turn.
Homosexuality is unnatural
Well this is just wrong, as this article demonstrates:
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
I'm not saying that if animals do something, then it must be ok. I'm saying that something cannot be unnatural if it repeatedly occurs within nature.
Even if it really was unnatural, it would still be a pathetic argument. Computers aren't natural. Motorised transport isn't natural. Would you refuse medical treatment because it isn't natural?
You know what else isn't natural? Marriage. When was the last time you saw a couple of swans swear mutual oaths of loyalty and fidelity in front of their friends and family? Did you see them ratify their oaths with a legally binding contract?
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
Not true. They have been various examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. If nothing else, the fact that it was banned in the Codex Theodosianus in 312AD kinda implies that it was going on. Why ban something that isn't happening?
Even so, arguing against something on the basis of tradition is incredibly daft.
Female genital mutilation is a tradition, is that ok? What about the tradition in india in which babies are thrown off a 15m rooftop onto a bedsheet? Human sacrifice was traditional. Or are we only talking about traditions that we like? Because if that's the case, then being traditional really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring
Neither can infertile heterosexual unions. Should we really ban sterile people from getting married? Should marriages be dissolved if a spouse becomes infertile? What about IVF treatment? Can that "validate" a union? It certainly isn't "natural".
What if a heterosexual couple are both fertile but decide not to have children, can they still get married?
It destroys the sanctity of marriage
What the hell is the "sanctity" of marriage anyway? It seems to imply some kind holy aspect to it. Well non-religious marriages exist, so it's got to be more than that. Why aren't anti-SSM people up in arms about divorces and annulments? Surely nothing is a more direct threat to the sanctity of a marriage that it's dissolution?
It offends god
So does eating shellfish. Who cares? God will forgive us anyway, right? Given the innumerable things that offend god, which we all do anyway, why focus on this in particular ?
I think Violet Lilly Blossom hit the nail on the head with the issue of legal benefits. Denying homosexual couples the legal rights that married couples benefit from is just plain discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it.
