Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society

You asked in,
http://www.debate.org... comments...

"do people not see the extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society?"

-- I contend that there is nothing to see. I contend that there is no danger to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Further, there is much benefit to giving people equal rights under the law. The danger is in not giving people equal rights: it causes unrest.

show me a gene in the human body that shows that people are born gay. It's funny because scientists and so many liberals have been trying so hard to prove that humans are born gay, yet they have no definitive answer. If there is a gene that is found that shows gays are born that way, then let's celebrate. I have nothing against gays. They are for the most part nice people. I have a serious problem with gay marriage though. If gay marriage is allowed, what is next? Humans and animals getting married? Triad marriages? Man-boy marriages? And if you think these claims are absurd, that is what everyone 50 years ago was saying about gay marriage and how ridiculous it was. AND LOOK! we now have gay marriages in some states....what's next?

By allowing gay marriage, you are saying that marriage is merely about sexual preference. If so, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry a horse or two wives?

I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors.

Similar to being left handed or situs inversus, there doesn't seem to be a monogenetic trait which leads to homosexuality. Which is far from saying that homosexuality is not inborn. In fact, studies have shown that homosexuals attraction parts of their brain works like those of females, prior to the conscious thought. Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn.

It's common to find brains wired up to be attracted to men, typically these brains belong to women but there's nothing exacting about human development. Gender identity, gender attraction, and even genital formation have shown a good amount of ability to do pretty much whatever. You only need it to work some of the time to propagate the species. Also, there's some speculation that homosexuals help their nieces and nephews enough to make the trade off worthwhile. In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed. So homosexuality may not be evolutionarily helpful for the individual but rather helpful to the larger family and matriarch of the family. The theory seems tenuous, but does make a good amount of sense.

However, all of that aside, what does it matter why a person is gay? If somebody were gay for the fun of it, that would still not warrant restricting their right to marriage. Why they are gay doesn't matter one jot. You have the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another person. If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that.

Slippery slope arguments are fallacies unless you can really show that there is something to fear. Humans are animals, so humans marry animals all the time. However, for the most part there's a real argument against marrying someone/something that doesn't have the ability to consent. A marriage is a contract between two people of sound mind and body who enter into an arrangement which is recognized by the state and conveys certain rights to the other person. Boys and horses don't really have the ability to enter into contracts because they aren't able to consent legally.

As for polygamy, there's a real argument there. I don't see anything wrong with such a contract if everybody involved is fully aware of the situation. The main objection to polygamy is that it often is implemented as polygyny and involves teenage girls being divvied up by church elders. That obviously fails, but additional spouses isn't by default objectionable and would be up to debate.

The line is drawn at consenting adults. If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a contract and the state has no right to restrict who can enter into a contract and who cannot.

Yes, I believe those claims are absurd and they are exactly what people were saying about interracial marriage 50 years ago.

What's next? I'd assume a complete set of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and no special privileges for anybody.

Your horse has no ability to agree to a marriage. This is perhaps the dumbest argument against gay marriage. Most of the arguments just come down to religion. If the only arguments against something are religious arguments, then that is simply saying that there are no good arguments for something.

you literally just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that garbage.

"I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors."

And circle gets the square.

"Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn."

hmmmmm maybe that's the way God created us. What a revolutionary thought.

"In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed."

Be honest, were you snorting heroin or tripping on acid when you wrote this?

"If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that."

Men can't marry boys (yet)...thats a restriction right there.

Please tell me you dont think polygamy would be ok in society.

"If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody."

Marriage is not a right.

What's next? The destruction of the family unit and society as we see it today.

Did I miss something or did you fail to explain, again, why same sex marriage is a danger to society.

You could claim that IVF leads to clone armies but that's not an argument against IVF it's an argument against clone armies.

Okay, we keep constant vigilance against man-horse marriage. I'll go ahead and say you've made an argument (though I see no evidence that you even established the point) that man-horse marriage will cause the end of society. Why then should the state deny the rights of marriage to individuals who fully understand what they're doing and love each other?

You've never come remotely close to establishing any danger whatsoever here.

Marriage is, in fact, a right as noted in the Supreme Court decision of Skinner v. State of Oklahoma.

No equality doesn't lead to the downfall of civilization. The same was argued during Loving v. Virgina which struck down interracial marriage. It didn't lead to the downfall of anything.

I feel like I'm talking to a second grader. Gay marriage will destroy the family unit, which is the cornerstone of American civilization. If you cant comprehend that, go back to kindergarten.