My most successful argument against "gay marriage"

Me “what do you think of incest”

Ssm supporter “that’s gross”

Me " well why can’t two consenting adults do what they want in the privacy of thier own home and declare thier love for each other in marriage"

Ssm. “the children would have birth defect”

Me " using your logic they could use birth control, and if that didn’t work they could use the morning after pull and if that didn’t work they could get an abortion"

Ssm. “let’s stop talking about this, where are you going with this?”

Me. “can you please tell me what the difference between gay so called marriage, incest, and polygamy. And according to your logic what is wrong with 2 brothers marrying each other”

This usssaly ends the conversation but I’m pretty sure they go away with a hole punched in thier upside down logic

Good line of argument. Not all advocates of homosexual unions believe in birth control and abortion, though. I guess it can be tailored to the individual.

Actually it’s the definition of a straw man argument and thus logically it’s one of the worst type of arguments.

Incest is more than just the potential for birth defects. It’s also to do with the lack of freedom to consent - given the dynamics between siblings or generations it places an impossible block to consent between the parties, since the freedom to act and agree is not actually free given that people are naturally beholden to each other already in a familial relationship that cannot naturally permit a sexual expression. On the level of valid consent however, same sex partnering is free from that block to consent since there is no familial connection.

Likewise, polygamy cannot be an equal consent between parties since the dynamics of sexual orientation, intra-marriage pressure, loyalty, peer-pressure, etc make it impossible to identify full and valid consent. Again, same sex partnerings are not subject to these dynamics in the relationship. Furthermore, polygamy could not realistically be established in law, as there need to be clear lines of rights and financial responsibilities and it would be impossible to codify.

Whatever the arguments are about same sex ‘marriage’, either for or against, the proposition that approving of it will then allow for further ‘worse’ arrangements to be legalised are fallacious ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments’ that are as lacking in foundation as saying that same sex ‘marriage’ will inevitably lead to people being allowed to marry their furniture… These scare stories about impossible outcomes only serve to weaken the argument for ‘traditional marriage’ and do a disservice to the cause for which those making such fallacious arguments are clearly trying to support.

Yes, but it seems to a popular argument around here.

You’re treading on thin ice here. We all KNOW that gay marriage is just the first step towards marriage with multiple combinations of blood relatives, animals, and inanimate objects. The introduction of logic into the conversation is not well-tolerated around here.

Definition of a straw man argument is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. It isn’t enough to say that it is such an argument you need to explain why. It is speculation but what would anyone who supports homosexual marriage say to other types of marriage. It is already being speculated in another thread that father and son marry to avoid taxes. You really need to explain why it is a misrepresentation. Otherwise I see it as trying to undermine an uncomfortable argument by creating a false accusation.

It is irrational, unnatural and therefore immoral.

Homosexual behaviour itself has no rational justification. SSM isn’t even on the table.

Homosexuality necessarily requires a subordination of human reason to the passions, even contrary to nature and reason. If someone has a genetically based inclination to eat dirt, it would not make eating dirt rational or recommending it as a food substitute moral. It would, however, call for our sympathy insomuch as the person cannot help it. We should not hold them in, e.g., contempt; however, we must insist that they cannot eat dirt. Dirt is not food even if we are starving. Moreover, to try to, e.g., force the government to declare that dirt is a natural and even healthy meal would constitute a crime against humanity and a serious betrayal of duty and responsibility. Dirt is not equal to food and food is not dirt.

People afflicted with same-sex attraction are called like anyone else to control their passions as, e.g., people who are born with a genetic inclination to addiction (as many people are especially when their parents were addicts). Exactly because they are more liable to become addicted to certain substances, it is all the more reason for them not and never to consume them. Homosexuality is little different, except that unlike certain substances like, e.g., alcohol consumption, it is aways an abuse and contrary to nature. There is no modest indulgence in a homosexual act.

Like anything, culpability can be reduced by ignorance such as lying propaganda that wickedly and cruelly presents homosexual acts as somehow being natural. Notwithstanding, we all know thanks to the natural law and conscience that it is not natural. We learn fairly quickly what our body parts are for and what they are not for. We learn what is food and what is not food.

The sane and sober person says that eating with a fork is perfectly natural and rational; but to try to eat the fork would be insane and unnatural. Every pro-homosexualist argument would ultimately have us believe that eating with a fork is irrational and unnatural, and that eating the fork is perfectly rational and natural.

I don’t know but it’s been working for me.

And two adult siblings would be consenting and at this point sexual deviants are still against it for now

So by this reasoning, same sex partnering of brothers or cousins would not be allowed (because of the lack of freedom to consent), but same sex partnering of anyone else would be allowed?

The U.S. Supreme Court has already held that states are already allowed to regulate the institution of marriage by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. There are already age and close relationship restrictions on marriage, and people can have only one living spouse at a time. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, it took the ratification of the 14th Amendment to end the prohibition of interracial marriage. What valid reason can there be to end the prohibition of same sex “marriage” that could not be applied to other relationships?

Remember, U.S. courts have granted personhood to nonhuman entities that are the subject of legal rights and duties. A few examples of such recognized “legal persons” are corporations, ships, estates, and political parties. The law has also granted animals specific legal protections, like our criminal anti-cruelty laws – though these protections do not extend to “legal person” status for animals. So, people today can’t marry their furniture (at least in part because their furniture doesn’t have “legal person” status) – but if the Animal Legal Defense Fund folks have their way and animals eventually become another kind of “legal person”, then on what legal basis would one be able to continue to prohibit folks from marrying animals?

I was making the assumption that people understood what a straw man argument was that’s probably a poor assumption.

You are correct that a straw man argument is misrepresenting, distorting, and exaggerating the original argument but it does that by not addressing the argument but instead attacking a harder defensible position and assuming it equivelant.

It follows the form X is bad because Y is really bad. It has some similarities with the fallacy of the slippery slope.

In this argument it reads like this:

Person 1: I support SSM

Person 2: How can you support SSM? Incest is really bad we shouldn’t allow incestious marriage

The problem is Person 2 is not addressing the claim rather trying to assert that person 1 is making a different claim, which is inevitable harder to defend. Not to mention person 2 hasn’t logically proven that claim one leads to claim two.


You don’t have to prove the obvious. At least the argument has the effect of making the person realize that the logic supporting homosexual bahviour/SSM is no different than the one that would support incestuous marriage and many - indeed almost any - irrational, unnatural and immoral acts. There is no rationale for homosexual behaviour let alone SSM. I don’t think it’s a straw-man agument but more like an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, we can hardly expect the general population to be logicians. It is, notwithstanding, the duty of philosophers to expose with the best proofs and arguments the immorality of homosexualism and the massive social consequences it can and will have. There is something about homosexualism that contains within it the very seeds of lawlessness and anarchy. It utterly subordinates reason to passion and would have us believe that the natural thing to do is to be a slave to our passions. That is a recipe for economic breakdown, massive social unrest and disorder and even finally slavery.

Marriage has for its noble ends the propagation of the human race and the communication of life, goodness, truth and love. It propagates selfless love and shows forth that human happiness is most perfectly achieved when we live to serve others. Through it we are not only biologically continued but also culturally. Marriage is for starting and beginning a family and continuing the family of nations. It is a basic, vital and necessary institution for civilization. Homosexualism is deeply selfish and, exactly so, is directly contrary to marriage. Homosexualism says “I want to be happy”. Married love says “I want another to be happy, even if it means sacrificing my own”. Of course, the happiness of the other notwithstanding is a source of joy. There is the world in the difference between these two desires.

That is positively the most ridiculous proposition I have ever read - that same sex ‘marriage’ should somehow inevitably lead to legalising bestiality?! Honestly, do you really believe that???

Well they definitely all have the “ew” factor!

That is NOT a straw man. The rhetorical mistake is if you are willing to change the definition to someone you love, then you have to be willing to accept these other scenarios. Not saying it WIlL happen, but it CAN happen.

You only want marriage to change for your reality and nobody else’s reality. Now, how is that fair? If SSM is approved and is based on two people loving each other, why shouldn’t marriage be open to more subgroups? So, why can’t two sisters get married? Two cousins? A mother and daughter? A sister and brother? They all love each other! And that is the criterion, so why are you discriminating? Please explain. If they sign an agreement not to procreate, is that enough? Why exclude?

Please state your best argument.

Look I am not in this particular thread am not arguing for same-sex marriage. Yes I have done that in previous threads so lets not go down that path again.

What I am instead saying is that this argument indeed fails as a logically coherent argument. It suffers from numerous fallacies but the main one is the Straw Man. That simply is a fact.

Did you hear about the woman in Seattle who tried to marry an abandoned warehouse to save it from being torn down? And I owe you an apology that I did not read your reply in full when I posted mine.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit