User blog comment:Mrdaimion/Why we Shouldn't Have Gay Marriage/@comment-1874924-20121220013745/@comment-1874924-20121220035616

My point is that bigotry in the name of tolerance is still bigotry, and the definition of bigotry includes intolerance of other opinions. Just as there are opponents of same-sex "marriage" (SSM) who actually believe some of the arguments noted in this blog, so too do all too many advocates insist that anyone who disagrees with them is bigoted and hateful. (A textbook case of "the pot calling the kettle black".) Yes, I get that this blog was supposed to be humorous, but the humor strikes me as extremely mean-spirited.

Since Dakotacoons asked for some of the nonreligious, fairminded reasons for opposing legal recognition of SSM (and if he goes to a public school in a U.S. city, then I'm not surprised that he's been kept in ignorance of them), here is a sample:


 * 1) The entire case for recognizing SSM rests on an unproven premise: the alleged equivalance of SSM to the traditional arrangement. If the premise is sound, then so is the conclusion, but--and this point is absolutely critical--that premise must be proved and not merely assumed, because it's the central question of the whole debate. Assuming a point that must be proved is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" (the question, in this case, being whether are really equivalent in the first place) which automatically taints any and all points based on that assumption.
 * 2) On a similar note, allowing a minority to radically alter basic social institutions for its own benefit--and it is a radical alteration unless and until SSM advocates prove otherwise--is not "live and let live"; it's minority rule.
 * 3) The faction wishing to change the status quo always bears the burden of proof. In this case, that's the faction demanding legal recognition of SSM.
 * 4) SSM advocates have not made a serious attempt to prove their case. Instead, they just cast aspersions on the character and motives of anyone who dares question. This is an intimidation tactic, and intimidation is the last refuge of a weak argument. If effect, SSM advocates who use these tactics are effectively confessing that they think their case too weak to stand on its merits--and if they don't believe in their own case, then why should anyone else?
 * 5) The legal benefits of civil marriage are not rights. They are incentives that our society grants to encourage behavior that it desires. Rights-based arguments for SSM are therefore inherently flawed because there is no "right" to be applauded, nor is there any "right" to get handouts from the state.
 * 6) Privacy-based arguments (e.g. Dra's plea to "let them do their own thing") are fundamentally flawed because nothing is inherently less private than the legal recognition of something.
 * 7) The common analogy between SSM and interracial marriage is invalid because there is no analogy between sexual orientation and race. (Most notably, interracial couples can produce children together, whereas same-sex couples cannot. Under the rules of logic, it only takes one difference to invalidate an analogy, which is what makes argument by analogy so difficult.) SSM advocates push that analogy for one reason and one reason alone: to smear their opponents by likening them to racists. That's an intimidation tactic--the last refuge of a weak argument. It is logically impossible for a competent person to have a benign reason for likening sexual orientation to race.
 * 8) The real issue is not marriage per se, but rather legal recognition. Anyone can claim to be married, just as anyone can claim to be a governent in exile, but claiming it doesn't make it true or even realistic.
 * 9) Most of the common arguments for recognizing SSM are actually stronger arguments for abolishing legal recognition of marriage altogether then they are for extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Most notably, the vast majority of marriage benefits are designed to support the model of a couple raising their biological children, with a single breadwinner and a full-time caregiver. If you think that model is obsolete (and many reasonable people do) then that's an argument for abolishing legal recognition of marriage, not for extending it to include same-sex couples. Attempts to dismiss children as being irrelevant to marriage face the same problem, among others.
 * 10) "One man and one woman" is the single most fundamental defining feature of marriage. Reject that, and all other characteristics of marriage--including the number "two"--become equally arbitrary.

I could go on, but I trust the point's been made. You'll notice that none of these arguments have anything at all to do with religious doctrine.