The Case against Same-Sex Marriage (In 5 Minutes)

December 17, 2012 By 17 Comments

Filed Under: Politics 17 Comments
  • Dorfl

    I paused the video around 1.25 to see what they were actually writing. When I took the time to look at the fine print, their arguments suddenly weren’t very impressive at all. Just for fun, we can look at each point in detail:

    2: Best raises children.
    “Children from natural marriage homes are 6 times less likely to commit suicide, half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, and less likely to drop out of highschool.”

    5: Lowers crime, poverty, and welfare – which reduces government spending and deficits.
    “Children from natural marriage homes are 7 times less likely to live in poverty, half as likely to commit crime, and are stronger academically and socially. They’re also healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood.”

    Points 2 and 5 both state that children from natural marriage homes are X times more likely to ‘good stuff’ and Y times less likely to ‘bad stuff’, without making clear whether they are comparing to children of same-sex parents or just to children of unmarried parents. If they’re comparing to children of same-sex parents, I’d be very sceptical of their claims, since there simply isn’t enough data to support them yet. If they’re comparing to children of unmarried parents, my response would be a ‘Well, duh’. We already know richer parents are more likely to be married, and children of richer parents are generally more likely to ‘good stuff’ and less likely to ‘bad stuff’. So unless they’ve also compensated for socio-economic background, they’re not just pretending that correlation is causation – they’re doing so where the causal relationship is already known.

    1: Creates children.
    “Natural marriage encourages an adequate replacement birth rate, resulting in enough productive young people to contribute to society and provide security for the elderly.”

    Well, yes. And adoption of children with no other parents available is necessary to turn those children into productive young people. Either way, same-sex marriage helps in the production of functioning adults, even if it does not directly create children.

    3: Protects women.
    “who often give up or postpone their careers to have children from being from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men.”

    I have trouble thinking of anyone who has more protection from being abandoned by an uncommitted man than a woman married to another woman.

    4: Civilizes men.
    “Married men are more likely to be employed, cause fewer crimes, less likely to be in jail… How often do married men roam the streets in gangs?”

    Or maybe women are less likely to marry unemployed, criminal gang members?

    • Josh Lyman

      “Married men are more likely to be employed, cause fewer crimes, less likely to be in jail… How often do married men roam the streets in gangs?”

      And so, the obvious answer is to let gay men marry! That way, they will not be in gangs!

  • Reverend Robbie

    How many bumper stickers can you parade across the screen in a 5 minute cartoon? Fifty bad sound bytes don’t add up to one good justification against gay marriage.

    There were so many poor arguments here that it’s hard to know where to start, but I think Dorfl did a decent job getting at the main points. In order to address the best of these bad arguments, perhaps Mr. Carter or other commenters could state what they feel are the best couple of arguments from the video. I’d be curious which of the statements from the video gay rights opponents feel actually constitute substantial, accurate arguments against gay marriage.

    • Reverend Robbie

      Well, we got one taker, Frank, and he was honest. There are no reasonably defensible secular positions against gay marriage rights; only religious ones. Frank says it won’t end well because God’s upset. Would anyone like to add to that?

  • http://www.twitter.com/johncfarrier John Farrier

    I am unpersuaded. Among other reasons, I reject the premise that government has any business promoting or prohibiting behaviors that do not cause harm without consent.

  • kenneth

    Anti-SSM groups have no secular evidence-based arguments whatsoever to offer. They have a junk science propaganda machine which makes apples-to-elephants comparisons and plays other hinky games with scholarship, but they got nothing to show when real scholars demand they show their hand. Their only intellectually honest argument is their belief that their religious doctrine ought to be forced on all of society.

  • Sus

    I think the video is great. It further proves that paranoia and homophobia is fueling the ridiculous assertion that life as we know it will end because of same sex marriage.

    I just don’t understand why Christians care about gay marriage. It seems to me that you have your own problems in your house. Mind those problems and keep yourself out of things that are none of your business.

  • Maria

    I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, but sometimes it requires sacrifices even for heterosexual people like myself. My husband is gay, but we have found a way to make our marriage work. In our intimate times I often role play as a man and wear a strap on. This is not ideal for me, but this world is not ideal either, is it? It is a sacrifice I choose to make. When it gets difficult I ask myself WWJD?

    I have never heard a pastor discuss this option, but maybe pastors should. Mr. Carter, would you be willing to role play in bed as a woman if your wife was homosexual? I expect that you would be willing, out of love for your wife. As a role model, I think it would help if you came out and said that you would be so willing.

    • kenneth

      WWJD? Pegging, of course! “When you topped for the least of these, you did it for me…”
      That just made my whole day. Nay, my whole holiday season! :)

  • jose

    We’ve had gay marriage for seven years now. Banks and land speculators are responsible for most of the nation’s problems, not gay marriage.

    Legalization is simply the most practical way to grant equal rights to all those gay couples who have been already living together for years and decades, married in every sense except for the legal status.

    • Frank

      A marriage in Gods eyes is man and woman. So no you cannot say “married in every sense except for the legal status.”

      In fact without God there is no real marriage.

      • jose

        Good thing then that religion doesn’t own marriage, much as it wishes it did. Your god’s eyes can go take a hike. :)

        • Frank

          I am so sorry you feel that way. It won’t end well.

          • Josh Lyman

            I’ll get you! And your little dog too!

  • Daniel

    At least here we have to crux of the real argument, I should say the only argument, against gay marriage- the condition of the children. This video comes out and says “Gay people can’t raise children as well as straight people”. Well, how do they know that? Did they cite their sources? I have yet to see any study done, by anyone, saying that gay people are inadequate on that score. What’s more, from the gay couples that I do know, they are doing a great job raising their kids. But really, in order for their argument to have any weight at all, they need to prove gay marriage is less than the same level of child-rearing ability than straights.

    • Reverend Robbie

      Daniel, the “traditional marriage” camp seems to have retreated into their final stronghold around this weak, unsupported argument. It’s progress that they recognize that they have to address this issue on secular, consequentialist grounds, but they still fail to have a relevant position. That marriage has always been, or was originally about, or was intended to be… or has traditionally been about, whatever… about raising children, is unsupported. I don’t think any of us has a clue why marriage started. It probably started in a lot of different ways in a lot of different regions and cultures for a variety of reasons. I’m not an expert, but I might speculate that the reason religion started in our particular cultural lineage had more to do with property and politics and power than anything else.

      What we do know is this: the rights associated with marriage are being granted to heterosexual couples and withheld from homosexual couples for no observable reason other than prejudice. Even if gay people can’t raise children as well as straight people, that does not justify withholding hospital visitation, dependent insurance, and inheritance rights from them. The last stand of the bigots is to point to irrelevant differences and hope to convince us that they’re relevant. I’m not even going to tread on their territory by trying to chase their red herrings any longer. It’s time to grant equality.

      • Reverend Robbie

        Sorry, I meant to say, “the reason MARRIAGE started…”. I inadvertently said, “religion”.