An argument against gay marriage that I've seen is:

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, people attempt many ridiculous things on a regular basis. Sometimes it's to make a point (like the gentleman who protested the Kansas Board of Education's attempt to include creationism in classrooms as an "alternative explanation", by insisting that they must give equal weight to his alternative explanation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster); sometimes it's because they have a somewhat skewed take on reality (like Dick Cheney's attempts to clear his reputation vis-a-vis the Iraq war by claiming that his favored policy of torture was too useful, and pointing at terrorist attacks that never happened as his evidence); sometimes it's because they just plain have lost touch with objective reality (such as members of the Flat Earth Society, or the aforementioned person who attempted to marry the Berlin Wall).

Just because someone does something, does not mean that legal definitions must be twisted out of any sort of recognizable shape in order to accommodate that. Marriage is a contract - as such, it can only be entered into by entities capable of giving informed consent and signing a contract. Your toaster is not capable of this, nor is your dog (no matter how "smart" you believe your dog to be), nor is the Eiffel Tower (its size and age notwithstanding).

Ah... but what about it's soul? After all, if someone is an animist, who also happens to be in love with... oh, I don't know, the Golden Gate Bridge, then you're not just looking down your nose at their sexual preference if you don't allow them to marry the bridge... you also are denying them freedom of religion.

How can you prove empirically that the Golden Gate Bridge doesn't have a "soul"? I mean... clearly it doesn't. But an animist could claim religious discrimination and sexual bigotry if they're not allowed to marry their "soul" mate.

You may not be conscious of it but you are making a farce of the concept of a soul. It's a great move!

12 reasons why gays should not marry.


1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like left handedness.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed,
since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer
lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Actually, there is a condition called Objectum Sexuality, which is allegedly more common amongst people with Asperger's syndrome, that has people (all of the declared ones are women) falling in love with inanimate objects. There are well documented cases of women marrying fairground rides, the Eiffel Tower, and the Berlin Wall. Obviously, these marriages have no legal standing, but since a minority have redefined marriage to mean a union between one human, and an object, what is the moral argument against marriage being legalised between humans and objects? It's actually not as daft a question as you'd think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sun ... 32519.html