Gay Marriage

[Obi2Kenobi]

Ok, I'm going to post an argument that I wrote a while ago as an opening to a thread like this one. In it, I refute the opposition's arguments before they are made, seeing as how most arguments against it always contain the same problems with it. So I address more points than currently need to be, but I hope that it will stop them from being brought up in the future.

This thread is not whether you yourself would *like* homosexuals getting married, nor is it about whether you think homosexuality is a sin/immoral/otherwise not good. The question being asked is simply, "Do you think we should allow, in the United States of America, a ban on homosexual marriage?" What I am asking is simply a question of legality and civil rights, secularity, not theocracy. Far too often does the question of gay rights devolve into a religious one rather than a secular one.

I am in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Civil Unions are not enough. There are 1,049 federal rights and provisions specific to marriage and not civil unions, along with (on average) about 400 state rights. One such right is hospital visitation. Imagine, for a second, that your spouse (assuming you are married) gets into a car accident and is sent to the hospital with a very poor condition. (S)he is floating in and out of consciousness, and cannot speak. However, you are not allowed to visit, as you are not considered "family". This is absolutely unacceptable. Policies and laws whose goals are to provide separate but equal rights only obtain half of that which they set out for.

“...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...” (excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment)

To save time, I'm going to refute some of the opposition's argument before they have a chance to make it.

THE SLIPPERY-SLOPES ARGUMENT
"If you allow a man to marry another man, then what's to stop a man from marrying his dog, or his toaster, or a child?"
The problem with this argument is that pets, children, and household objects have no legal standing in court and cannot sign a marriage contract.
"And what about a man who wants to marry three wives?"
Well, I really have no problem with polygamy, so you're going to have to ask this one to someone else. The current marriage benefits would have to be rewritten, though.

THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENT
"Allowing homosexuals to get married would degrade the value of marriage."
Now for the sanctimonious bologna (see, I kept my message clean!). Hate to bring this up, as it is such a cliché nowadays, but when Britney Spears marriages are allowed... Or when people can get married by an Elvis impersonator, that's not exactly what anyone would define as sanctimonious (well, you could, but you'd be wrong). The Census Bureau of America estimates ~50% divorce rate, yet you still call it sanctimonious.
If anything, allowing homosexual marriage would at least lower the average divorce rate. The reasoning behind this is simple. Many homosexuals have worked hard to get these rights, and thus would have it as very important. Not many would want to throw away what has been worked for so hard.

THE TRADITION/MARRIAGE IS A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION/REDIFINING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENTS
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman under god, and has always been this way. Don't go about trying to redefine words to suit your purpose."
Marriage predates Christianity. So unless whomever first thought up this whole "marriage thing" happened to be a pre-Christ Egyptian Nostradamus... I mean, the earliest recorded marriage was somewhere around 500 BC, if my memory serves me correctly. And many Egyptologists agree that it had been around long (millennia) before that.
Also, if you'd all really like to go back to the traditional Christian marriage, there would be no divorces. There would be no marriages between people of differing color. There would be no marriage between people with differing socioeconomic status. Woman would be property. This, of course, would all be ignoring a little thing I like to refer to as secularity, more commonly known as the separation of church and state (as ruled by Gitlow vs. New York). The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Never be so deeply rooted in traditions so that your only reason for doing things is that they've always been done that way before.

THE UNNATURAL ARGUMENT
“Homosexuality is unnatural, and thus should be illegal.”
Unnatural? This argument is so bad; I’m going to refute it not once, not twice, but three times!!

Let’s just assume for a moment, that if something occurs fairly regularly in nature, it is, in fact, natural. I think it’s something along the lines of 90% of all male elephants have actively participated in homosexual sex. That’s just one example, and I can cite more if you’d like, and back it up with links.

Or if you’d prefer: Much like eyeglasses, synthetic fibers, and marriage itself.

Or how about: Why is it that, just because something is different, people feel it should be illegal? What harm is done to anyone? In fact, I’d say homosexuality is, in fact, better than heterosexuality. You see, hundreds of thousands of children (in the US alone) have no parents. Adoption is a very important option. And seeing as we aren’t close to the risk of being under populated, it lessens the need for more food.

THE ALLOWING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE IMMORAL BEHAVIOUR ARGUMENT
Many scientists are saying that it is genetic. So this argument is akin to saying “Allowing short people to get married would encourage other people to become short.”
(Note: This argument also rests on the [in my opinion, of course] fallacious idea that homosexuality is, in fact, immoral.)

I think that about sums up my argument on the points brought up. If not, just point it out to me.