A Response To "The One Minute Rational Argument For Gay Marriage"

Here’s my analysis of and response to something that was in my Facebook news feed, via Capitalism Magazine:

Marriage has been defined as heterosexual only because of religion. Period.

Incorrect. Biology may have a little something to do with it, too, you know. In other words, marriage has been defined as heterosexual because marriage is fundamentally about procreation, and since only heterosexual couples can procreate, marriage has traditionally been limited to them.

It is obvious to honest people who don’t live in complete seclusion, that gay couples exist with the exact same relationship as married people have, and they need and deserve the same legal recognition and protection.

Leaving the ad hominem attacks to one side for now (marriage traditionalists are dishonest and live under rocks, apparently), this is also wrong. Gay couples don’t have the exact same relationship as married (I think hetero was actually meant) couples. Can gay couples procreate? No? Well, that’s a fundamental difference between the two types of relationships, then; thus, the attempted equality argument fails.

The definition of marriage has been wrong because of religious bigotry. The concept of marriage applies to gay couples too, and the definition needs to be corrected to accurately refer to the concept.

Nope. Again, biology has a heck of a lot of influence here. It seems that the author isn’t aware that there are arguments against gay marriage that are really non-religious in nature, like that made by Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis in their Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article–and now full-length book–What Is Marriage?

Marriage is a type of relationship between two consenting adults.

If that’s all marriage is (of course, it is that, but not solely that), then what limiting principle could this guy offer that sets “marriage” apart from any other close relationship (between siblings, between parents and children, between close friends, etc.)? I don’t think there is one, if we redefine marriage. It’s either about procreation, or it’s in no way distinct from any other relationship and the institution is a mere fiction. But if it’s nothing more than a fiction, why all the fuss about gay marriage?

Final verdict: Epic fail.

Trending on Redstate Video