4 Arguments Against Gay Marriage That Fail Miserably

With the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex couples to marry in all 50 states, the issue is the at the forefront of public commentary like never before. While many people saw it as a landmark decision that allowed for the rights of many to be granted, others weren't so happy. Growing up in the conservative state of Texas, I'm no stranger to the common arguments against gay marriage. In the hope of putting some of them to rest, check out this list explaining some of the biggest flaws in logic of people that oppose same-sex marriage.

Argument 1: The Bible says same-sex marriage is wrong and so the government should ban it.

This argument is problematic in many ways. For one, the Bible was written a long time ago and should be read in the context of the time period. Many things are mentioned as being banned in the Bible that Christians would consider absurd today. These include tattoos, eating pork and wearing multi-fabric clothing. In addition, the Bible states that beating slaves is okay. Obviously, modern Christians don't follow these outdated rules. So why do they appeal to the Bible when the topic of same-sex marriage comes up? It is an easily identifiable hypocrisy.

However, if I were to concede the poorly constructed idea that gay marriage is an immoral act, the argument would still not be any stronger. The Bible does not decide what becomes law and what does not. That is the Constitution's job. Just because a certain religious document may be against something does not mean that ruling will pertain to people of other faiths. The Constitution serves to give everyone equal rights, no matter their religion or sexual preference, and the allowance of same-sex marriage does just that.

Argument 2: Gay marriage and homosexual activity "isn't natural."

Next time you go to a fast food restaurant or eat from a vending machine, look at the ingredients list. You will see many artificial ingredients that were made in laboratories. I don't see any conservatives lobbying to ban those ingredients because they aren't "natural." Just because something isn't made or found in nature doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.

Adding to this failed argument, homosexual activity is actually observed in nature all the time. Animals such as giraffes and dolphins have been frequently observed engaging in gay sex. It is simply false to say that homosexual activity "isn't natural."

Argument 3: The purpose of sex is to create offspring and gay couples can't do that.

Our society crossed the "sex is for procreation" threshold many years ago. With the continuing advancement of birth control and condoms, having children is no longer always the goal of having sex, even among conservatives.

Another issue with this viewpoint is that it leaves out infertile heterosexual couples. If one believes that only couples able to have kids should be allowed to get married, then wouldn't it follow that infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't get married? No one who holds argument 3 has come out against these opposite-sex couples who are unable to have children.

Argument 4: Gay couples are disgusting and I don't want to be exposed to them in public.

Peas are disgusting to me, but I know some people that love them. I have the freedom to not eat peas while others have the freedom to devour them. Just because I find something repulsive does not mean that others should not have the right to enjoy themselves and their life. Besides, we've all seen way too many heterosexual couples get a little too comfortable in public in disgusting ways (in my opinion, of course), but nobody seems to want to ban all of them on the action of a few.