Thread: Logical argument against Gay Marriage

At the request of another poster, I have started a new thread, similar in scope to this one: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Here is the argument against allowing gay marriage to be recognized by law. Feel free to argue against the truth of the premises or the validity of the logic.

Premise 1: No kind of marriage license should be recognized by the law
------Sub argument for Premise 1------
-SubPremise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone.
-SubPremise 2: Any kind of marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
-SubPremise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

-.'. No kind of marriage licenses should be recognized by the law

Premise 2: Gay marriage licenses are a kind of marriage license

.'. Gay marriage licenses should not be recognized by the law.

Originally Posted by rathi

I am inclined to agree with idea that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely and purely offer civil contracts for cohabitation and other domestic arrangements. However, the first step to that would be dismantling the current marriage institution. As long as marriage does exist, it must be consistent and allow homosexual couples.

Agree, the gay marriage debate isn't about deconstructing the institution of marriage. It's about marriage equality, and if someone has a problem with the institution of marriage, they should be attacking the institution as a whole, not trying to stop gay marriage.

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Everything that Kori said is correct... and more. Research shows that folks who are married are more healthy both physically and emotionally, do better at the rearing of children than non-marrieds, create more stability in the areas in which they live, leading to greater wealth and prosperity, etc... all things that benefit society and the country as a whole.

I agree with this, which makes me puzzled as to why people would want to deny the ability to marry to gays. It would be for the betterment of society.

Marriage contributes to social stability and provides the most stable domestic environment for raising children. Families are the foundation of society and marriage is the glue that holds them together.

I don't value stability. Its boring. It reeks of stagnation. Stability incentivizes complacency, whereas instability incentivizes change, which is the harbinger of progress.

Also, there are plenty of people on the planet already, so I see no need to encourage the raising of children. I think families are a poor foundation for society and marriage has so far not done a very good job of holding most of them together at any rate, so I see little benefit to rewarding such behavior.

More to the point, what right does society have to compel me to finance their values? The fact that they have the firepower necessary to do so?