You Only Live Once, This Is How I'm Doing It!

The argument against gay marriage

… and what is wrong with it.

Gay marriage is such a hot issue right now. Those that are for it scream for equality and justice. They want to be seen as equals in a society where they are expected to contribute equally in taxes and laws. Those that are against it fear for the end of civilization as we know it. I hear so many arguments against gay marriage. Here are my problems with some of them.

1. “It’s unnatural”– If you mean that there are no examples in nature then you should look at penguins, dolphins, albatross etc. Animals have all kinds of same sex relationships. In fact, over 450 species practice some sort of same sex activity. (NY Times)

If you mean they can’t reproduce then you are correct. However, we don’t outlaw marriage for the elderly and infertile. We also have not outlawed birth control. Natural procreation is only one of hundreds of  possible valid reasons to get married. There is nothing unnatural about desiring marriage for the sake of love, commitment and companionship.

2. “It goes against my religion” – That may very well be true. No one is asking you to change your religious beliefs. The beautiful thing about this country is that we have freedom to practice any belief system we see fit. We do not have a State church. Anyone, religious or non-religious, should be very appreciative of that. Christianity alone has so many denominations and there are extreme differences even between them. You are free to choose, not only your specific religion, but how when and where you practice it. The minute the government starts making laws based on one religion it puts all religious freedoms at risk.

3. “But… but… Sodom and Gomorrah!”– First of all, this is again, based on a specific religion and so shouldn’t have an influence on legislation. If however you’re afraid that our country will be destroyed in fire and brimstone or that you’ll be turned into a pillar of salt as a result then you’ll have to get in line. Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Portugal, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada and South Africa all have laws allowing gay marriage or domestic partnerships. If these countries start getting systematically destroyed by bizarre acts of nature we’ll have plenty of time to reevaluate our stance on things.

And if you really want to get theological about it, the perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape the angels that came to visit Lot.* Rape is a disgusting and abhorrent act. It could be argued that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not for being cities full of people in loving, monogamous, same sex relationships, but rather because they were cities full of murderers and rapists. Plus, when God wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah He said that if there were even 10 righteous men He would spare it. I certainly hope we could muster up that many righteous people in the event of imminent destruction. (Genesis 18 and 19)

4. “Marriage has always been this way.”- Marriage has actually changed drastically and often throughout history. Marriages used to be a simple property exchange. The man owned the women in order for her to produce heirs and do household tasks. Marriage used to involve one man and as many women as he could afford to keep. This was again to ensure he had as many heirs as physically possible. We have since changed the laws and marriage is now only recognized in most areas of the US as between two people.

Another very recent change to marriage is legalization of interracial marriage. As few as 45 years ago, interracial marriage was as illegal and feared as gay marriage is today. Opponents used the same arguments, that is was not biblical and that it was unnatural. They were afraid that it would produce mentally handicapped and damaged offspring. As a proud aunt of beautiful and brilliant interracial children the very idea that 50 years ago they wouldn’t have been allowed to see their mom and dad married sickens me. As a proud daughter-in-law of a highly intelligent and loving gay man I feel the same way for him. Sick.

Until relatively recently in history women and black people were seen as property. Should we go back to that because it’s the way it’s always been? Of course not! History is not the standard by which we set our values, attempting to mirror it as closely as possible. Instead, history is something we should examine carefully and learn from. We should be taking the good and rejecting the bad so that we can grow into a more ideal society.

I think it’s time to take a hard, honest look at the motivation behind these and any other arguments. They are all based on fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of loss of power. We have many examples of healthy, normal societies where gay marriage is nothing more than another normal relationship. These societies have yet to fall apart as a result.

Put yourself in their place. Would you not be devastated if your marriage was illegal? Would you not fight with every breath to see that changed? I know I would. I would also fight with every breath if my sister and brother-in-law could not be married just like I am fighting now for my father-in-law to be able to marry someone he loves.

Gay people aren’t looking to make your life harder. They’re not looking to affect your personal life at all.  All they want are the same rights and privileges that you enjoy. They don’t want any special treatment, they just want equal treatment. Isn’t that what the United States is all about?

*Yeah I know my Biblical characters. What?


A real boy


Favorite season not action


  1. Sing it, sistah.

  2. Tobi

    you just made my day ^_^ <3

  3. wonderfully put!!! sing it, lady!!! <3<3<3

  4. Steve

    If your father-in-law decided being gay was better 30 years, the guy you married wouldn’t exist. Your ‘personal life’ is affected because of the natural choice he made so long ago. On the other, if this is how you deal with your father-in-law’s coming out by bashing the other side and giving way to ignorant evolutionary reasoning (equating “It’s unnatural” to penguins), I understand, you have to deal somehow.

    • Anonymous


      I find it very interesting that you cite “choice.” For that is precisely what gay people don’t have. The straight population of our country have a choice whether to marry. Our country’s gay population, with actively opposed exception in some states, is not legally permitted to marry, robbing them of the choice whether to marry. Furthermore, gay couples are regularly denied the opportunity to adopt children and provide them a loving home. Again, denied the right of choice. Imagine a straight couple being denied the opportunity to adopt or even to marry because an outspoken pressure group disagreed with them being Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, NRA members, or living in a house with a tile roof. None of these factors has any relevance to their ability to love each other or their children nor to be contributing members of society. Neither does sexual orientation. Studies have shown that gay parents are just as qualified to raise children. Some studies even suggest that gay couples can even make better parents than straight parents because they can only enter into parenthood deliberately. Equal protection under the law cannot apply only to some people.

      It’s unfair to use respond with a reference to someone’s personal situation using the suggestion that her husband wouldn’t exist. You’re using a purely hypothetical and personal situation designed to appeal solely to the emotions rather than responding rationally to the issue based on its merits. It’s emotional extortion and it’s ineffective because it can be so easily countered with plenty of other emotional responses. If gay marriage were legal, thousands of people wouldn’t be committing suicide from the prejudice and hate they face. How many thousands of others would be married to the one they love if only they were allowed to? These are people who aren’t allowed to marry those they love because someone who doesn’t know them and have never met them thinks he should have a say in who they spend their lives with.

      If you have a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, then you’re entitled to express it. But to exploit someone’s personal situation and “personal life” is inappropriate.

      Next time you decide that you cannot tolerate the marriage of two people you don’t even know, ask yourself how you it affects you in any way that these two people who you may never see, or even know exist, live together and share a last name. You wouldn’t want government or perfect strangers telling you who you can and can’t marry, so it’s not fair for you to impose your will upon anyone else.

      • Steve

        I apologize if my statement came off harsh. My purpose wasn’t to promote an emotional response from the writer. It’s logical to infer what I did, however. IF he chose to live a gay lifestyle earlier, THEN he wouldn’t have produced the children he did. I was reacting to the writer’s post and asking her to consider another angle in concerning her personal vendetta against the argument against gay marriage. It’s a fair statement and if she’s willing to post personal information, I think she’s ready to ask the tough questions.

        Furthermore, I say ‘choice’ because her father-in-law ‘chose’ to marry and have children long before he chose to be gay. How can you differentiate and say that acting heterosexually was a choice but acting homosexually is not?

      • Thank you. This was very well said. I’m glad some people understand that the point was not about specific hypothetical scenarios but rather the big picture. The question of morality has no play here.

        Unless it harms someone else it’s up to each person to choose their morals and act on those choices. Gay marriage harms no one. Ever.

    • I think if you read my post with more of an open mind you would see that I wasn’t bashing anyone. Some of the people I love most in the world oppose gay marriage. It is because of discussions with them and others that I wrote this post. I have no negative feelings toward anyone who opposes gay marriage, I just respectfully disagree with their reasons. Thinking someone is incorrect or misguided isn’t bashing.

      My father-in-law came out ages ago and I brought him up only to illustrate one of many reasons this subject is close to my heart. I don’t feel comfortable telling his story for him but I know that he never chose to be gay.

      He chose to act straight for awhile for his own reasons. Good things (like my husband) can come out of bad situations.

  5. Mel a.k.a Lil bro ;)

    Valid points however it is very biased and not objective what so ever.

    Fact #1: We are human and not to be compared to that of animals that were made for the purpose of our servitude. There is no proof in the history of our planet to suggest otherwise. No doctrine has been changed in order for the elderly to be married nor the infertile. It goes against the nature of human beings. “Same-sex marriage” is redefining the meaning of marriage as we introduce doctrines which has increasing undermined the great scholars before us and the generations of philosophers that shaped our country/world. If the doctrines that our country was founded on were wrong then all inalienable rights we enjoy are man made and they will change from generation to generation.

    Fact#2: We are free to choose what we want to believe as we should be. This is an inalienable right granted to us by our (USA) constitution. “Same-sex marriage” being against a person’s religion is irrelevant if the two apposing sides’ religion is not shared among the opposing parties. Religion should be out the door in regards to this amazing debate because it is and should always be unlawful to force one’s religion on another. In my opinion, if a religion is truly legit then it should be a choice and not a coercion. Sodom and Gomorrah? Your right yet another specific religion being referenced. How would you define inalienable in your own words? I define it as irrefutable… inviolable… unchangeable… Are our inalienable rights from our selected government offficials or from something much greater and prominent than the individuals that “the people” put in office.

    Fact #3: Blacks were property in our country’s (USA) past. Beating for what they looked like. Shunned for who the were. Women to some extent were treated as property in our country’s (USA) past as well. Hurt for being a weaker sex. Disregarded because the were considered “not as smart as men”. Our country (USA) has come a long way from our hate filled past lives. Ask yourself why was interracial marriages banned. Blacks were killed for being black; no other reason besides the color of one’s skin. Women were the property of their father… their husband… their brother… etc. Interracial marriages were banned for the same reason crosses were burned on a black families’ lawns. Cocktail bombs were thrown in their churches. Their beautiful black young and older ladies were sexually assaulted. Fifty years ago there would have never been a president that had connected to the black community. That doctrine which existed in our past (USA) was purely based on the hatred, the disregard, and the property based assumptions that blacks and women were victims of. “Same-sex marriage” has such an uproar because for many it is not based on hatred, disregard nor property based assumptions. It is primarily based on the individuals’ religion and their personal/family values. All things considered; interracial marriage is not a comparable argument to “same-sex marriage”. Its a good argument on the surface but a lot is omitted when this comparison is typically made. Those that act out against gays (Homophobic individuals), are wrong and they should be dealt with accordingly. Men/women should never be allowed to hinder the civil rights of another. Harm an individual then pay the consequences. Gays should not be persecuted by anyone just because they feel or believe differently. Doctrines should not be changed based on a particular groups beliefs or feelings either. Amendments and statutes are being passed/have been passed that is appealing to feelings and beliefs. The purpose of amendments and new statutes is to correct or clearly define what our founding fathers set out to accomplish when they opposed England in order to form a more perfect union.

    Fact #4: There are many suicidal deaths attributed to bullying (non homophobia related). Passing laws to allow “same-sex marriage” is not going to change harassing completely. Integration of black and white public places didn’t stop the harassment from those who had their mind set on how they felt. People will be as ignorant as others will let them get away with. Making laws has never in the history of this country (USA) stopped anyone from showing their ignorance.

    Gays want their rights… Yes… As they should. However, based on the definition as well as the origin and institution of marriage: how are their rights being hindered because they are not being allowed to marry?

    • I appreciate you taking so much time and putting so much thought into your reply. Based on what you said I actually think you agree with me, even if your personal beliefs don’t allow you to realize it.

      In your third point all you have to do is replace the word black with the word gay. All of the horrible, unspeakable things that have been done to blacks have been done to gays, with the exception of slavery. They’ve been beaten, murdered, fired and had their civil rights withheld for no other reason then their sexual preference.

      Changing doctrine is not the question. No one asks you to think homosexuality is right. You think Muslims are wrong but you don’t shut down their mosques. As long as a belief causes no harm it should be allowed. Gay marriage harms no one and therefore should be allowed.

      I think your last question says it all. Perhaps you really don’t know the social benefits to being married. The right to marry affords tax benefits, insurance and job benefits, it allows them the right to visit their spouse in the hospital and make important medical decisions and many other things. All these things can be denied without a legal marriage certificate.

      If these things were denied to you would you not feel that your rights were being hindered?

  6. I see no reason for not allowing any one person to be married to another. People are people and should be treated as such no matter who they choose to love.

    • Anonymous

      I think the question you have to ask is this: what is marriage?
      Is it a spiritual union created by God or is it a legal document?

      If it’s is a legal document, who cares who gets married to who. If it’s a spiritual covenant, we have to ask the One who created it.

      • The marriage I am talking about is a legal document that comes with many legal rights and benefits.

        The spiritual union aspect of marriage is not being questioned here. That is up to each individual person and their respective spiritual leaders. It has no place in law making.

  7. Liz

    I like this post, you made a lot of good points, and it’s an interesting and complex issue. The one thing that I just don’t get is, if the definition of “marriage” is extended in this way, than why can’t I “marry” my sister? (there is no chance for reproduction after all, right?) Or marry ALL of my sisters? Or marry five men and ten women?

    If marriage simply means “who I love” or “who I want to spend my life with” or even “who I want to have long-term sexual relations with” than by that definition anyone should be free to “marry” multiple men and women, as well as relatives if we take away the from the equation the production of children (for example, if I had had a hysterectomy I should be able to marry my father or brother).

    The government doesn’t give us “certificates of friendship” or “certificates of love” – they don’t care who we love or who we want to spend our life with. What the government does care about is having a physically and mentally healthy future population.

    It is the government-imposed belief system that the future population is ideally raised by its biological parents, in a long-term relationship, and hence the government’s interest in “marriage” (as currently defined) is a purely economical one. The legal and social benefits attached to “marriage” are nothing more than a widespread incentive program to encourage and promote this national economical and social ideal.

    Marriage certainly isn’t exclusively about reproduction, but in terms of government policy, that is their sole interest in it. That is why we don’t allow family members to marry, and many states require blood compatibility tests. This is also they we don’t allow polygamist “marriages” – biologically, it only takes two.

    Opening up “marriage” to the new definition of “love” would be pointless in terms of government policy. Like I said, they don’t issue “certificates of love”, and there are no laws stopping anyone from loving anyone else they wish. If it is legal partnerships homosexuals desire, no one is stopping them from that either. Legal partnerships of all sorts can be written up without a marriage certificate. If it is adoption of children that they seek, then in all fairness, we would have to let any two people “marry” and therefore adopt, including relatives. It is not fair or equal to deny them, since marriage just means love and partnership, right? And in fact, not fair to limit the number to two people. If we’re not talking in terms of biology, two is a very arbitrary number. If we are going to talk about equality, we have to take the line of reasoning all the way.

    If it is the tax breaks and other special legal benefits currently reserved for married couples that homosexuals seek, then, well, the government has lost the purpose attached to those benefits (to encourage the physically and psychologically healthy reproduction of citizens) and in the long run, if anyone and everyone can “marry” and get these benefits, then everyone will and in the long run the benefits will cease to exist. The government will be running around trying to appease a politically correct ideal, issuing “certificates of love”, but in the end the certificates won’t mean a thing.

    • Sexual relationships between family members (even consensual) has been shown to have lasting psychological harm whereas homosexual relationships have not. It’s not possible to compare something that has the potential to harm, not only society (it would be impossible and unrealistic to force sterilization) but on each individual and the other which has no negative effects.

      As far as polygamy is concerned, if the government’s concern is really just to ensure healthy procreation then polygamy would be the most logical option. While I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with polygamy in particular I don’t think that it embodies the idea of the legal document of marriage.

      I think the legal document of marriage is not just a love certificate. It’s also not just a government incentive program to reproduce (otherwise they wouldn’t be handed out to infertile or sterile individuals). The legal document of marriage is about a contract between two individuals. It shows an intention to share a life and assets.

      It is different from a normal legal contract. A legal contract does not allow visitation in hospitals or the ability to make medical decisions. It does not allow the partner to be on the other’s work benefits. There are many other benefits that are closed to gay couples because they do not have the equal right to marry.

      You brought but a lot of good points and you really made me think. I still don’t think the slippery slope argument (if we allow one thing we have to allow everything) is a good enough one though.

      The definition of marriage isn’t changing much by allowing gay marriage. It is still a partnership between two people. It just doesn’t discriminate based on what skin color or sexual organs they have.

      Thanks for taking so much time and putting so much thought and effort into your comment. Love you, Sis!

      • Liz

        Love you too!

        You made me think too, hence my uber-long comment. This was a really good blog post you put together, and in my opinion religion and tradition-based arguments are irrelevant (at least when we’re talking in terms of government policy), as you have so eloquently pointed out.

        • Liz

          Although, in all honesty, in another life (should Naomi and I not have both ran off with the man of our respective dreams), I would have to say that we would have made great parents raising our kids together! Heck, we already were for the longest time anyway.

          And, in that shared apartment we always talked about, I don’t see why we couldn’t have had legal partnership benefits. I mean, no incest involved, we did make a great two-mommy family with our little brother-cousins as we always called them.

          Just another spin on things, I will stop harassing your blog now!

          • Very true. It’s too bad there can’t be a category for platonic partners. Ah well, fight one battle at a time I guess, haha.

            And you’re welcome to “harass” my blog as often as you like. I love it.

          • kaylamae

            I think its funny how you think gay couples should be allowed all the rights that a man and a woman have when they are married. God created man parts and girl parts for a reason! We were sent to the earth to replenish it and to have a family. Obviously if you’re a man and man couple, there’s no chance to fulfil our job here on earth. Same goes for women. Children need a positive roll model who does what they are supposed to do. Not get married to someone of the same sex. It’s unnatural and disgusting. A child needs a mother and a father. Without one or the other of those, a child will grow up with a skewed view on life and won’t grow up with a mother figure or a father figure.

  8. Anonymous

    Very sad to see you drift so far away from the Father’s heart, Abigail, but you’re never too far gone.

  9. Anonymous

    The comment was intended to be anonymous so that it wouldn’t be about me but about God, to not criticize a person for saying something but to hopefully move from the messenger to the message. I’m not ashamed to say what I said with my identity, but usually when any single person says something against the sacred homosexuality, the person becomes the focus of the conversation, demonized by someone supporting homosexuality, instead of keeping focus on the topic.

    The comment is also not negative, it is fact: To be in support of homosexuality is to not be for the Father’s heart. If you want to support it, great, but it’s something the God of the Bible equates with drunkards, extortion, thievery, fornication, adultery, and so on.

  10. Joseph

    Good stuff I used both sides of the arguments in my research paper. To the anonymous person above me, you are right. However, we all are called to love one another as Christ loved us. After all it is the second greatest commandment. It doesn’t mean that we have to support their actions but that we love them and accept them for the decision they made. We all are given free will. We love them, for as it says in The Bible, “ Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” (1 John 4:20-21 NIV) Actions speak louder then words.

  11. Niki (@strawbrykiwi)

    I have no idea how I missed this post… but this is so well written.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén