Debunking Anti-Marriage Equality Talking Points

Recently I’ve gotten into quite a few wars/debates/shouting matches over Twitter about the recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage.  I quickly found, to my unfortunate surprise, that the dumbest of all the dumb arguments are made more often than I’d like to believe.  These are arguments so pathetic and outrageous, you may be so dumbfounded you can barely think of a response to refute their flawed logic.  You’d probably have an easier time getting Columbus’ crew to understand that the world isn’t flat.

Nevertheless, I’ve provided a breakdown of some of my favorite arguments:

Homosexuals and Pedophiles, what’s the difference?  This is a basic (and utterly flawed) “” that some people in the anti-gay hate machine enjoy using.  So really, what is the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles?  ”Legalizing same-sex marriage is clearly the first step to marriage between a child and an adult.”  It’s fun when this argument comes up as well, because many of those using it think they have really backed you up in a corner.  (They’ll start laughing and applauding their work, snickering at you.  At least, the ones that brought this up to me have.  Including getting high-fives from their peers.)

Don’t let their superior stupidity stop you in your tracks, however.  I know it’s difficult to want to continue after hearing such a thing.  My theory is that an intelligent individual originally came up with this argument, knowing that it’s sheer lack of logic would trip up even the smartest of debaters.  It’s easy to refute, however.

The thing that people are clearly ignoring with this “argument” is that of consent.  There are many things for which a child cannot give consent, and paramount among those is a child cannot give consent to sexual intercourse or marriage.  This is why, even if a minor gives “consent”, it’s still considered statutory rape.  This is a simple and well known fact that bigots will ignore to try and make their argument against freedom appear legitimate.  Remind them that like heterosexual marriage != men raping little girls, so to does same-sex marriage != men raping little boys.

Homosexuality is sexual deviancy.  (Allowing it would open the doors to marriage between adults and children; humans and objects; humans and animals.)  This argument may or may not be coupled with the above argument.  Nevertheless, it’s still used as a means to prevent same-sex marriage.  The most simplest of rebuttals is that the definition of “sexual deviancy” is a matter of personal morals and opinions.  Of course, the smarter of those using this argument will turn this around on you.  “So rape/pedophilia/bestiality/necrophilia/etc are only bad depending on your opinion?”  Do not let this trip you up.

A child, unwilling victim, non-sapient animal, dead body, and object are all things that do not/cannot give consent to their attacker.  You cannot argue that two consenting adults in a loving relationship equates to a man molesting someone’s corpse or raping his dog.  It would also be worth it to bring up how our society has changed.  If we stopped people from wedding because of “sexual deviancy”, nearly every American would be unable to wed.

To some, sex without purpose of procreation is considered sexual deviancy.  is still considered to be sexual deviancy.  So if we ban same-sex marriage because homosexuality is sexual deviancy and would lead to human-animal marriage, shouldn’t we ban marriage between those that have done any sexually deviant acts?  Wouldn’t allowing those that masturbate to wed open the door for adult-child marriage? 

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years.  Partly true.  Not totally true or half true, but only partly true.  For thousands of years all kinds of marriage has existed:

Monogamy: What the modern Western world considers to be “traditional” marriage.  A monogamous marriage between two people and only two people.

Polygamy: Polygamy, outlawed in the United States, is one man being wed to many women at once.  Polygamy is often compared (foolishly) to the monogamous marriage between two same-sex individuals.

Polyandry: Polyandry, also outlawed in the United States, is one woman being wed to many men at once.

:  Group marriages is three or more individuals all married to one another.  In polyandry and polygamy, the husbands/wives are not all wed to one another, but just to their wife/husband.  In a group marriage, each individual in the grouping is married to the other.  As such, these marriages would involve same-sex coupling.

Remember these points when people bring up the “history” of marriage.  Even in the Bible there are examples of polygamy.  Now some may suggest that polygamy was never sanctioned by G-d, and that’s a fine argument.  However, if you use history as an example of marriage, it must be pointed out that “one man and one woman” was not the only definition of marriage throughout history.

Another point to use is how irrelevant the history of marriage is, especially regarding the United States.  Slavery is a very historical thing, and is even permissible in the Holy Bible.  For thousands of years slavery was not considered an immoral thing.  In fact, until 1833, slavery was not an illegal thing in the United States.  So even if the “marriage was historically a man and a woman” argument held up, why can we change the morality of slavery but not the “definition” of marriage in the United States?

G-d says that homosexuality is immoral!  Luke 16:18 “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”  I guess that means we must make divorce illegal as well, eh?

Scientifically, homosexuality is abnormal.  This is a statement only presented by those that choose to .  You can’t even use evolution as an argument against this, as homosexual behavior has been witnessed among the (which, evolutionarily, we are the closest related to).

Homosexuality is a choice.  Science proves this to be fundamentally wrong, but let’s pretend for a second that this is true.  So what?

Homosexual behavior against two consenting human adults hurts no one.  Of course, I have had people suggest that homosexual sex does harm those involved through anal tearing and such.  However, if we consider this harmful enough to stop same-sex marriage, then we might as well outlaw sodomy or any other possibly harmful sexual acts.  For instance, .

This is just such a pathetically stupid argument, however, that I’m surprised the people using it don’t realize how easy it is to take this apart.  Smoking is a choice, as is drinking alcohol.  This country was founded on the idea of freedom and liberty, so why make a big deal out of something even if you believe it to be a choice?  Marriage is a choice in the first place.  Why should a homophobic bigot get to live their decision, but a loving same-sex couple can’t with theirs?  It makes utterly no sense, especially if you’re an American and believe in liberty.

What’s next?  Incest marriage!?  There are states that allow marriage between first cousins (such as Amendment One capital, North Carolina), as well as states that allow any incestuous relations as long as both parties are over the age of 18.  People may not like this, but who are we to get up in their business?  As long as they aren’t bringing incestuous children into the world and everyone has given legal consent, stay out of peoples’ bedrooms.  If you don’t like freedom, I’d say you’re in the wrong damn country.

The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage!  Actually, that appears to not be the case according to recent and polls.  Of course, the morons that you’d show this to would most likely consider Gallup and Pew as being “liberal/leftist anti-religion machines” or something silly like that.  However, for the sake of the argument, let’s pretend that this is the case, and the majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage.

In 1968, the same year that interracial marriage was made legal by the federal government, over .  Now, there’s a few things that could happen at this point.  First thing is that you might be dealing with a racist who proceeds to be angry that the federal government allows blacks and whites to wed.  The other possibility is that your opponent has decided to state that there is a difference between gays and blacks.  Perhaps they point out their naive notion that homosexuality is a choice, at which point you can bring up the above counterargument to that.

I would suggest bringing up the Constitution, however.

Amendment XIV, Section I

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;  nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice the little emboldened “liberty” in there?  It’s easy to argue not allowing same-sex marriage is the States depriving same-sex individuals of their Constitutional rights.  People may not want to believe it, but as same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general does not impede upon another individual’s rights, it is Constitutionally unsound for the government or a state to create or enforce marriage discrimination.

This also clearly defines gay marriage as a federal issue.  What I mean by that is, that if a state allows heterosexual marriage, by law they must also allow same-sex marriage as well.  If you don’t think so, please define to me your idea of “liberty”.


I don’t believe I’ve forgotten any silly arguments, and pretty much covered it all.  With these simple steps, you too can pwn your local or internet bigot in the fight for equality!  It’s clearly simple and easy to see that those arguing against the legalization of same-sex marriage don’t use critical thinking or research their arguments in the slightest.  (Of course arguing that Amendment XIV federalizes the fight for same-sex marriage is debatable, and clearly my interpretation of the amendment.)

P.S. Keeping same-sex marriage illegal is also big government.  Fan of keeping gays from being wed?  You must also be a fan of big government.  Congrats!

About Toni Goodman

Cultural Anthropology Major at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
This entry was posted in Politicking and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Debunking Anti-Marriage Equality Talking Points

  1. Allen Swain says:

    Good post.

  2. says:

    I’ve also heard: “If we allow same-sex marriage, what about the public schools? They will start having ‘The King and The King’! Teachers will tell stories that it is okay to be gay!” I’d like to hear your response to that argument. I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage, but this argument has dumbfounded me to the fullest extent.

    -The Doctor

  3. thecybercynic says:

    TardisDoctor, to that I’d respond with a quick jab to the throat, followed with a forceful kick to the genitals that would hopefully prevent any future breeding for the idiot that said something so wrong.

    In all seriousness though, that argument just hurts my brain. Teachers SHOULD be saying that it’s ok to be gay. Maybe not telling stories in the classroom, unless it pertains to the subject matter at hand, but definitely if the question arose. I’m curious to see why kind of response Toni can come up with for this one.

  4. Pingback: The Word War: Tolerance Versus Acceptance | Interstellar Politics™

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s