So youre at a party, and the conversation turns to politics.

Its all going swimmingly,

but then someone says something ignorant. And while you know that theyre in the
wrong, and that you could totally engage them and win if you were a bit more
prepared, your words escape you. Pretty soon, the conversation has moved on, and
the moment is lost.
To make sure that doesnt happen, weve compiled a series of handy reference guides
with the most common arguments and your counter-arguments for all of the
hot-button issues of the day. This weeks topic:How to argue for gay marriage.
Common Argument #1: Gay marriage harms the institution of
traditional marriage.
Your Response: Okay, then name one demonstrable, tangible effect that same-sex
marriages have on the functioning of individual heterosexual marriages. The ability
of same-sex couples to get married doesnt alter a single aspect of heterosexual
marriages directly or indirectly. The legal rights and benefits of heterosexual
couples are completely unaffected by the existence of gay marriage. Its not as if
straight couples suddenly start loving each other less or start treating their kids
worse once gay people start getting married.
Have marriage rates been in decline since states started legalizing gay marriage?
Well, sure, but marriage rates have been declining steadily since the 1970s, decades
before any U.S. jurisdictions legalized gay marriage.
Common Argument #2: Marriage has always been between a man and a
woman. Legalizing gay marriage would be changing thousands of years
of tradition.
Your response: A lot of things were always that way before they were changed.
For example:

Dictatorial rule by kings and emperors

Lack of any legally recognized human rights

Prohibition on land ownership by people without royal blood

Ritual human sacrifice

Curing medical ailments with spells and magic

Should we go back to doing all of that?
Why is long-standing tradition a good reason to prohibit gay marriage?
Common Argument #3: The purpose of marriage is to procreate, and
same-sex couples cant have children.
Your Response: So should we also prohibit straight couples from getting married
if theyre biologically incapable of having kids? What about if they simply dont want
kids?
The percentage of married couples with children has been declining over the last 25
years, but couples who don't want kids can still get married. And does adoption
count? Because around 19 percent of same-sex couples adopt kids.
In addition, there are plenty of legal benefits like hospital visitation rights, joint
tax returns, welfare benefits for spouses, and estate inheritance that married
couples enjoy regardless of whether or not they choose to have children. Should the
government prevent straight couples from receiving those benefits until they have
kids?
Common Argument #4: If we legalize gay marriage, it's a slippery slope
to polygamy, incest, and/or bestiality.
Your Response: Im arguing for one law, and one law only: Legal marriage rights
for same-sex couples. Anything else is a different policy argument altogether.
Overturning bans on gay marriage has no legal effect on polygamous, incestuous, or
sigh human being-animal relationships. Those are separate areas of law, and
they wont be affected by the existence of marriage rights for gay couples.
If youre saying that allowing gay marriage will set a legal precedent for legalizing
other types of relationships, you need to have some sort of evidence as to why that
might happen. And saying that you, personally, think that homosexuality is in the
same category as incest isnt evidence. Its a moral judgment, and the Supreme Court
has ruled against laws based onpersonal moral judgments.

Also, dogs cant physically sign contracts, so theyll never be able to get married
anyway.
Common Argument #5: Children raised by a mother and a father are
more emotionally well-adjusted than those raised by same-sex parents.
Your Response: Zero data supports this assertion, and studies from around the
world have all supported the opposite conclusion. Heres what a 2013 Australian
study comparing gay and straight families concluded:
On measures of general health and family cohesion, children aged 5-17 years with
same-sex attracted parents showed a significantly better score when compared to
Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health
measures, there were no statistically significant differences.
Heres an American study from the same year that focused on adopted children:
An estimated 16,000 same-sex couples are raising more than 22,000 adopted
children in the U.S., and these findings indicate that these children will likely fare no
differently, as a result of their family type, than those being raised by heterosexual
parents.
And heres the American Academy of Pediatrics, which analyzed over three decades
of data on child development in same-sex families:
Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children
raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social,
psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social
stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much
more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence
and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by
the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.
In short, theres no evidence to support the claim that children with same-sex
parents are worse of and, once again, I have an intuitive feeling that they
probably are worse off doesnt count as evidence.

Common Argument #6: If same-sex marriage is legal, religious

institutions that oppose gay marriage will be unfairly forced to marry
gay couples.
Your Response: Legalizing gay marriage wont have any bearing on what
churches, or other religious institutions, can or cant do. The Supreme Court
has long upheld the right of tax-exempt religious organizations to fire, hire,
discriminate or not discriminate based on gender and sexual orientation.
While same-sex couples in Denmark do have the legal right to get married in
churches, theres zero precedent for U.S. courts ruling the same way.

Common Argument #7: Civil unions are just as good as gay marriages.
Your Response: Separate but equal was the argument used in favor of racial
segregation in schools. Ever since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling
in 1954, the Supreme Court has consistently found separate-but-equal laws to be
unconstitutional.

Cliff Notes:

Heterosexual couples are allowed to get married regardless of whether they

can, or want to, have children.

There were a lot of atrocious practices that were longstanding human

traditions before we outlawed them.

Legalizing gay marriages wont have any effect on religious institutions or the
legal status of bestiality. Theres no legal precedent to suggest that it will.

Numerous studies from around the world show that same-sex couples raise
more emotionally well-adjusted children than their straight counterparts.

Emboldened and energized by Justice Anthony Kennedys scathing and intellectually dishonest ad
hominem attacks in his ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level, advocates of
same-sex marriage are campaigning to put the definition of marriage up to a vote in Ohio and there are also
efforts under way in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania both at the ballot and in the
courts. In the last example, the State Attorney General has unilaterally announced she will not uphold the
state constitution. This is a serious issue which raises difficult questions, so instead of flinging insults, lets
have an honest debate. To wit, here are some reasons we should support same-sex marriage:
1. Gay Marriage is Going to Win, So Get Over It

Only Doc Brown and Marty McFly Know What the Future Will Be
This is called the bandwagon fallacy, or the argumentum ad populum. In any difference of opinion, both sides
believe in the certainty of their cause. For example, in sports, both teams think they are going to win or they
wouldnt bother playing the game. In history, opposing armies may win and lose many battles but there are
examples of wars that have gone on for decades or even centuries. Every great empire thinks it will last
forever, but they never do. Unless you own a Delorean with a flux capacitor, leave your convictions about the
right side of history to future historians.
2. Gay Marriage Doesnt Hurt Heterosexuals
Traditional practicing Catholic families are free to have children and raise them according to Church
teaching. Whats so bad about same-sex marriage, right? However, this is a dodge of the larger implications
of redefining marriage. Heterosexuals have already seen great injury to families and children from welfare
dependency and no-fault divorce over the past century. Same-sex couples have not been around nearly that
long, so we wont know the full impacts of redefining marriage will be for decades. In line with the first point,
the only sure thing in history is that it is full of unpleasant surprises and unintended consequences. Ignoring
this fundamental truth invites only misery and suffering. We disturb long established precedents at our peril.
3. If We Accept Gay Marriage, Peace and Love Will Reign

Polyamory: Theres a Flag for That Too

Advocates of same-sex marriage have not managed to come up with a rigorous limiting principle of what
they think the essential character of marriage should be. Even though the same-sex marriage battle is far
from over, some proponents are already talking about polygamy. What is the next battle after that? Will
bisexuals claim that limiting marriage to only two people is unfair because it makes them choose which
partner will get the benefits of legal recognition? In the absence of any limiting principle, same-sex marriage
advocates respond to innovations like polygamy and polyamory either with outright excitement or else with
the defense, No way, thats gross! People used to say the same thing about same-sex couples. Before we
redefine marriage, lets decide what the new definition is actually going to be first.
4. Marriage Is About Love and Commitment
See point two. Marriage is already in rough shape. Until death do us part, now has an escape clause, or
one of us decides to hire a lawyer. The corollary of this argument is that heterosexuals have no right to
lecture homosexuals about marriage because so many marriages already end in failure. However, this is a
great example of the tu quoque fallacy, because as it happens, same-sex couples are much more likely to
have affairs than heterosexuals. See point three, again, what is marriage supposed to be if not an exclusive
partnership? It would be great if our laws recognized marriage as a lifetime commitment, but they do not.
Redefining marriage to make the institution even weaker is not going to help.
5. Couples that Dont Have Children Still Get Married

Human Life is Not a Science Experiment

More families than ever are missing a mother or a father. Others, often through no fault of their own, are
childless. Some couples who are unable to conceive choose to adopt. Others may dedicate their lives to
helping others. Unfortunately, because procreation has become detached from marriage in our culture, there
are also couples who wait to have children until it is almost impossible to do so. They then go to incredible
efforts to conceive a child through in-vitro fertilization and other techniques which results in the
commoditization of life. Instead of bringing life into the world, this leads to the destruction of life at its most
delicate and vulnerable. There is already talk in California of making this unethical and immoral practice an

entitlement for same-sex couples who are obviously unable to beget children in the usual way. Procreation
needs the boundaries of marriage just as much as marriage needs the boundary of procreation. The two are
inextricably linked.
The arguments for same-sex marriage sound easy and simple, but they hide difficult and disturbing
questions. Heterosexuals have been grappling with marriage for thousands of years and its still not easy. It
takes a lot of work, a lot of patience, and a lot of sacrifices. Its impossible to discuss marriage honestly
without acknowledging that there are no easy answers and nothing is straightforward. Indeed, this timeless
truth reveals the greatest error of the same-sex marriage cause: there can be no such thing as marriage
equality because there is no equality in marriage.

Opposites Attract
Men and women have different strengths and weakness, different abilities, different fears and different
needs. By combining these complementary forces, marriage makes the couple stronger than they would
otherwise be on their own. Homosexual couples on the other hand will inevitably have many of the same
strengths and weaknesses in common. Instead of making them stronger together, the redefinition of
marriage will only amplify their weaknesses, just as it reveals the weakness of the logic behind their
arguments. Redefining marriage is fundamentally about eliminating the wonderful and beautiful distinctions
between men and womenand especially the greatest difference of all: the ability to perpetuate the human
race, and not only through procreation, but in every respect as parents and members of society at
large. Pace the old feminist saw about fish and bicycles, men need women and women need men.
This is really what is at stake. Marriage is an essential force in our society because it makes you become a
better person. This is only possible because of the encounter between the opposite sexes which reveals how
little we know about the human condition and how much we have to trust what we cannot experience and
cannot ever know in order to truly love another person. Redefining marriage as a genderless institution robs
it of the very essence that makes it worthwhile in the first place. Even if same-sex marriage advocates get
their way, little good will it do them.
- See more at: http://www.catholicvote.org/five-arguments-for-gay-marriage/#sthash.kH6zgmBb.dpuf

Same-sex marriage is a controversy that is part of the family values issue, and is related to homosexuality and marriage disputes.
Supporters: Those who believe that legal authorities should recognize the validity of marriages between two men or two women.
Opponents: Those who believe that legal authorities should only recognize the validity of marriages between one man and one
woman.

Contents
[hide]

1 Opinions
o

1.1 Unfair discrimination

1.2 Religion

1.3 Family Values

1.4 Definition

1.5 Distinction

Opinions[edit]
Unfair discrimination[edit]
Religion[edit]
Opponents: God has created the institution of marriage for the purpose of procreation. Same-sex couples are incapable of
procreating.
This argument relies on the premise that God created marriage for the purpose of procreation.
This argument relies on the premise that God exists
Supporters: Not all couples procreate, some by choice and others because they are infertile. Nobody argues that infertile
couples should not be allowed to marry.
Supporters: God desires that all people lead romantically and sexually fulfilling lives. The best way to do so is by committing
to a monogamous relationship with a compatible person. For homosexuals, the most sexually and romantically compatible
people are of the same sex.
This argument is part of the nature vs. nurture debate.
Supporters: Marriage is a religious institution defined by religious rules. In a country where there is separation between
church and state marriage should not be recognized as an institution in law whatsoever.

Family Values[edit]
Opponents: Allowing same-sex marriage will contribute to the breakdown of the family unit in society. The end result will
be more single-parent families and more instability in the lives of children.
This argument relies on claims regarding homosexuality and parenting.
Supporters: There is no evidence to indicate that same-sex couples are poorer parents then heterosexual couples.
In addition, marriage will make families headed by homosexual couples more stable, not less so, and will have no
impact on the parenting abilities of heterosexual couples.
This argument relies on claims regarding homosexuality and parenting.
Supporters: If things that weaken the family unit in society must be illegal, then divorce should by the same
token be illegal, and it's not.
This argument assumes that the existence of divorce is accepted by all.
This argument assumes that the existence of one anti-family feature of our law can justify another anti-family feature.

Opponents: Critical court decisions in support of parental rights have been based on the structure
of the traditional family in common law. If the definition of marriage were to change, these court
decisions would be in jeopardy.
This argument assumes that the said court decision should be upheld.
This argument assumes that the said court decision could not be interpreted to include same-sex parents.
Opponents: Much of this battle is about financial and legal advantages given to families.
While childless couples do benefit, the advantages have been fairly successful in
improving the lives of children. These advantages apply to all of us, because even
homosexuals start life as children.

Definition[edit]
Opponents: Marriage traditionally has meant the union of one man and one woman.
Homosexual unions can be classed more or less with polygamy, in that advocates want
to change the definition. And if the definition can be changed for homosexuals, why
would any other limits be different?
This argument ignores the fact that there are documentations of historic same-sex marriages in Ancient Rome and some
African tribes.
This argument can be considered an example of a Slippery Slope argument.
This argument is based on the assumption that multiple legal marriages should not exist.
Supporters: Gay marriage is unrelated to polygamous relationships. It
is possible to logically examine the evidence and conclude that one is
immoral and the other not.
This argument could well go either way. There are multiple cases of polygamy in the Bible. Thus, if we are to decide
which type of marriage is immoral by examining evidence, we may conclude that same-sex marriage is immoral.
There are only hinted biblical reference to homosexuality in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This con-argument assumes that the Bible is the one source from which moral laws should be taken.

Distinction[edit]
There is a distinction to be made between religious marriage and
the government institution of marriage. Some religious institutions
forbid same-sex marriage and some allow them. The question is
whether or not the state should or should not recognize same-sex
marriages.
Some people would break away from both camps on this debate
and argue that the state institution of marriage should not exist
altogether. They would argue that regardless of whether same-sex
marriages are recognize by the state, the state institution of
marriage amounts to the government determining how people are
to live their lives by providing social and economic incentives to
organize a particular model of family unit.
There are plenty of ways of organizing a family unit other than a
heteronormative couple that are already in existence, and not all of
these are based around two adults who are sexually and
romantically attracted to each other. For instance collectives often
raise children together. Regardless of whether the adult members

are attracted to each other, this is a type of family unit that is held
together by love. There is no reason, then, why members of a
collective should be denied access to the privileges afforded
heteronormative couples: for instance, hospital visitation rights

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Debate/Topics/Same-Sex_Marriage
Gay marriage should be legalized because it is uncivilized and unmerited. Our civil rights and the Constitution give us many
liberties. One of our civil liberties is the pursuit of happiness, which homosexual people are not allowed to chase. They
cannot be married to the person they love and it violates their freedoms. According to professorshouse.com, In Alaska,
Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, not only is gay marriage banned, but so are civil
partnerships.
Others might ask why gay marriage should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to
choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel
affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and
a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family
together.
Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we went to sleep in, meaning gay
people are now straight and all straight people are now gay. Do you think the newly straight people would fight for the
newly homosexual peoples rights? America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like.
After everything straight people have put homosexual people through, in this scenario, homosexual people would most
likely vote for their rights because they would want their rights to be voted for. We are equals in this world whether we are
Black, White, Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual
orientation?
The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a persons religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected.
Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that
category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a
marriage is a gift from God.
In a marriage there is one thing that truly matters: love. Yes, other things are important too, but not one couple would
make it to even asking someone to marry them if there was not some love. Las Vegas, Nevada is also known for being the
place where many weddings occur which are annulled within one week. These marriages are not based off love, but simply
a drunken night in Vegas. High divorce rates weaken what a marriage is defined as. Why are we not able to rewrite what a
marriage stands for and make it include a homosexual marriage? The definition of love, according to dictionary.com is as
follows: Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion. If gay people feel this way then why
shouldnt they be able to be married? If they are happy with each other, said persons should be able to marry.
California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships
meaning it is almost a marriage without the matrimony. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank
accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples are not entitled to this in most states.
Marriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay
couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay
couples are not able to add each other on. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make
life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said persons spouse is not recognized as
their next of kin and care is delayed.
Who would be affected if homosexual marriage was legalized? No one. Everyone believes there is one person who is out
there to love us. Gay people feel the same way. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage and gay couples cannot have children
by themselves, without some type of help, so they look to adoption agencies. In some cases gay couples are put on longer
waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks. On the website
professorshouse.com it reads, When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were
durable. This is a perfect example of matrimony and what it should be based on. . According to dictionary.com a marriage
is, The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the
accompanying social festivities. If this is a marriage why are gay people not included in this?
Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including, Christianity,
Islam, and Orthodox Judaism same sex preferences are a sin. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but
are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children because they cannot procreate on their own. If this is a stand

point on making or breaking gay marriage then only people who are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get
married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but they believe gay marriage will
weaken its institution by leading to high divorce rates. On loveandpride.com I read, One reason legislatures are denying
gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy
as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do. Others are
fearful for childrens futures and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise childrens
mental capacities.
Even though to most people gay marriage should be illegal and should stay in its current state, I believe we need to
change the world for future generations. We feared that different religions were going to clash, but now all of the religions
coexist. White people had Black and Hispanic slaves, but we overcame the odds and now White men, Black men, and
Hispanic men can be equals. If it is possible to overcome such fierce obstacles then we can overcome the boundary
obstructing gay marriages and straight marriages alike. Gay marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Evolution will
always continue and at any given point in time, something will occur that we will not like in this world, but we can
overcome this. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the
surface. We should take charge of it.

http://www.teenink.com/hot_topics/pride_prejudice/article/245702/Gay-MarriageWhy-it-Should-be-Legalized/