The Arguments Gay Marriage Advocates Use

Those who advocate neutering marriage use any and all manner of arguments of the heart.

These arguments all have common characteristics and share common fallacies.

Whenever a news article appears talking of the continuing law suit against California's Proposition 8, or other court or legal battles surrounding the question of same sex marriage, gay activists and other supporters fill the comments section with countless arguments, condemning all who disagree in the slightest with their position. Such comments and arguments have many fallacious elements in common. Here are the most common arguments.

Arguments Based on Identity Politics
Identity politics is an ideology based on the socialist concept of class oppression and the uprising of the proletariat. With regard to homosexuality, identity politics replaces class struggle with the politics of sexual preference.

The arguments based on identity politics claim analogy with racial identity, which is a false analogy. Sexual preference is not race, nor does any perceived same sex attraction and subsequent homosexual activity correlate to race. Yet, because both reside within the same category of identity politics, same sex marriage advocates use the language of race to condemn anyone who disagrees with their ideology.

The arguments take the following forms:

• You are a bigot.
• Allowing civil unions but not marriage is a reinstatement of separate but equal station.
• Banning same sex marriage is equivalent to anti-miscegenation laws.
• This is Jim Crow all over again.
• You are an intolerant homophobe.
• Your argument is hate speech.
• You are a closet gay.

Judge Walker, in his decision to overturn California's constitutional amendment granted by Proposition 8, argued almost entirely from the perspective of identity politics, rather than relying on the law. In effect, he said there is no rational basis for denying same sex couples marriage and that the Californians who voted to pass Proposition 8 were therefore irrational, bigoted, and acting out of hatred for homosexuals. Walker invented the gay protected class status, then applies any support for traditional marriage as proof of anti-gay sentiment.

Arguments Ad Hominem
Arguments along the lines of "you are a bigot" cross over into attacks against the person. These types of arguments are often quite forceful and difficult to answer to, yet they are nonetheless fallacious. These arguments often blur identity politics with direct attacks. Besides the name calling and labeling of bigotry - intolerance, homophobia, H8R, and so on ad nauseam - those who post comments will frequently flag any views protecting the institution of marriage as offensive, and many times succeed in getting any other comments removed from the comments.

These tactics are intended to shame or silence any opposition for the simple fact that most arguments in favor of same sex marriage cannot survive the marketplace of ideas.

Arguments which Misapply the Law
The most persuasive arguments in favor of same sex marriage appeal to the complexities and misapplications of law. Some of these arguments go like this:

• The courts have identified a natural right to marry, so homosexuals must be granted that right.
• We must let the courts decide with regard to gay marriage. We don't vote for civil rights.
• Keep your laws out of the bedroom.
• Gays as a class are protected under the 14th Amendment and therefore must be granted equality in marriage.
• Women never would have gotten the vote if it weren't for the courts.

And so on. Yet, each of these presents a logical or legal fallacy:

• The natural right to marry does not legally extend to same sex couples.
• Civil rights are those rights granted by the Constitution or by laws. Laws are created by vote. Civil rights are not natural rights.
• While anti-sodomy laws were indeed struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of privacy, marriage is a public institution long regulated by governments for the public good.
• There is no such thing as a protected gay class, having, at the least, the problem of proof of membership and of definition.
• Women were enfranchised to vote after the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920. Ratifications of amendments require state legislatures to vote. Many states had women's suffrage long before the 19th Amendment.

Arguments of False Analogies
Similar to same sex marriage arguments based on identity politics, many argue through false analogies. I've noted the false comparison of same sex attraction to race (or stretched even further), the comparison of a gays to race. We can also take note of the following false analogies:

• Denying gays marriage is the same as anti-miscegenation laws.
• Homosexuals have no choice in their attraction, so they should enjoy the equality of marriage.
• Those who "ban" gay marriage are fascists, no better than the KKK. (See the section on ad hominem arguments.)

Arguments of Redirection
A favorite tactic of same sex marriage advocates, indeed of modern liberals, is to redirect the argument away from the core issue into obscurities and sophistries. Here are some examples:

• Get with the times and stop living in the 16th Century.
• Divorces hurt marriages more than gay marriage ever will.
• You've destroyed marriage with your divorces.
• Most of the younger generation support gay marriage.
• Gay marriage is inevitable.
• Every study shows that gay marriage doesn't hurt children.
• We need to stop living in the dark ages.
• Marriage is an antiquated system based on nothing more than dividing property.
• The Greeks had gay marriage.

Besides the "so what?" factor,  each of these is a red herring fallacy, redirecting the argument away from the question of same sex marriage, and muddying the waters in irrelevant and tangential directions. They all suffer, as well, from the fallacy of reduction, taking a complex idea (for example the problem of divorce) and simplifying the blame and harm to use as, once again, an ad hominem attack against anyone who defends traditional marriage.

These also have the effect, as red herrings will, of derailing the argument into so many different areas that the original idea can become irretrievably lost.

Arguments against Religion
These are a specialized ad hominem attack, defying or debunking religion in order to attempt to demonstrate some moral superiority over religion. Here are some examples:

• Keep your religion out of my face.
• The Jesus I know would never be so intolerant as you are.
• Jesus was gay.
• Religion is a mental disease.
• How will gay marriage hurt your religion?
• The Old Testament may have condemned homosexuals but it also says you should stone a woman caught in adultery. You just pick and choose which laws you want to follow.

These all overlap other fallacious arguments.

Arguments that are Baseless (Silly)
A large category of arguments in favor of same sex marriage have no basis in reality, relying instead on gut feelings and emotional outbursts to make a point:

• Divorce has already destroyed marriage (it's already broken, so same sex marriage can't hurt it any more?).
• Gay marriage will save marriage and families (because the gay lifestyle is so much more moral than other lifestyles?)
• Gay marriage will prevent bullying and teen suicides (because teen angst will be wiped away once gays can marry?)
• Being gay isn't a choice (and neither is sex or marriage?)
• There's no difference between the sexes (?????).
• There is no gay agenda (...besides forcing a change in the definition of marriage, and creating a gay protected class, and enforcing laws to favor gay behaviors, and allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and enforcing sanctions against those who don't agree with the gay lifestyle, and...).

These all relate to emotions, argued, as modern liberals often do, from deep rooted feelings and not from rational thought. And, while we admit that people have feelings and usually "feel" their way through arguments instead of "thinking" their way through them, we must recognize these sorts of arguments for what they are, baseless attacks on those who disagree with the concept of same sex marriage.

The idea of same sex marriage is ideologically driven, based on self-identified same sex attraction, and manifested in homosexual behavior. In a nutshell, while same sex attraction may or may not be inborn, the outward expression of sexual preference is a moral question and not a question of innate consequence, nor is it a civil right. These common arguments of same sex marriage advocates demonstrate the inherent fallacies of their position.