Attacking the Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

I am tired of hearing the same, simple-minded arguments against same-sex marriage that on their face are easy to discredit. Give me something real.

Today, former Bush-administration Solicitor General Ted Olson announced that he'll be co-counsel on Federal case about same-sex marriage. He is joining former rival David Boies, from the infamous Bush v. Gore case. On the blog where I read the story, some folks are arguing against same-sex marriage. Let's look at what they have to say:

Homosexual men can marry....women. Homosexual women can marry....men. How are they not equal to heterosexuals?

You are right! But how does that defend the sanctity of a 5,000 year-old institution. I can enter into a fully-legal godless, sexless, loveless marriage with a militant and promiscuous lesbian so that she can get my health insurance, but I can't marry a man I love? What purpose does civil marriage then serve?

If the people, as expressed by vote or legislature, decide to change the legal definition of marriage, then that is like other legal definitions. When a court changes definitions in violation of 3000 years of jurisprudence, that is tyranny, and the government will have chosen to devolve its legitimacy.

And yet, we survived when they did the very thing in 1967 in the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. Until that day, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books throughout the south banning interracial marriage. The vast majority of Southerners supported those laws and yet the Supreme Court invalidated them because they clearly violated the Constitution. And today, all rational people support the idea that race should not be a legal barrier to race.

Marriage has many aspects, but one essential factor is the ability, or at least the latent potential, for a male and a female to join together and produce children, whether it is actualizable potential or not. Produce children via sexual reproduction. A man can not EVER do this with another man, nor can a woman with another woman. CASE CLOSED.

Very true. This is why we don't allow post-menopausal senior citizens to marry. Or cancer survivors who were subjected to radiation treatment. Maybe we don't want marriage because I hear the mandatory fertility tests are quite onerous. This is just about the stupidest among stupid arguments, the least among lessers. Marriage is not about procreation and hasn't been since the advent of modern medicine. A state that demands procreative ability is a totalitarian state that should be feared.

Ted Olson has a broken logic switch in his brain. No one is telling homosexuals they can't get together and enjoy whatever perversities they want, it is just existentially impossible for a man to marry a man or a woman a woman. Ted Olson thinks King Canute was wrong! Stay out, tide! The physical laws of the universe don't apply, here!

Perversities. This is where their agruments truly lie. They hate us because we are different. They fear us because we are different. They are lazy parents who don't want to explain differences to their children. They are dangerous leaders who want to drive apart our civilization. They long for the days when man would lord over another man. Equality is profane to them.

If you have a better reason, then tell me!