Breaking Conservative Arguments against gay marriage

[RedQuarks]

I am fairly new, and unsure if this is appropriate here, but the conservative nonsense I continue to hear, especially following the recent US supreme court ruling legalizing gay marriage, is in need of an organized list of fallacies. I shall attack them here:

1. The "slippery slope" argument.
Conservatives often claim that allowing gay marriage will open up society to a number of other things they deem "immoral". They claim that it will lead to the horrid acts of condoning paedophiles and other monstrous sexual acts.
The primary fallacy is that marriage itself is simply a legal union between two people, it defies logic that legally granting two humans partnership is immoral. A homosexual relationship is no different than a straight one when any sort of "activity" is between two consenting adults -- this is where slippery slope completely fails. In terms of a paedophile, there is an adult abusing a minor that is incapable of making their own educated decision, as is the case in all other horrid acts described. Why then, should a relationship between two humans at the age of consent be forbidden? Nobody is harmed whatsoever, it is simple two humans that are old and hopefully educated enough to determine what they shall do with their own body.


2. Homosexuality is unnatural.
Your computer is unnatural, it was created by humans, yet conservatives have no problem. First of all, the cause of homosexuality is currently unknown, however scientific hypotheses with a reasonable amount of evidence do exist, the leading one is that it is caused by the failure of genes to be expressed normally and thus the genes of the same gender parent being expressed for sexuality. It also turns out that many other animals exhibit occasional homosexual behaviour, some is much greater number than humans. Check articles, cannot post links, plenty of information from reliable sources.

3. Homosexual Behaviour and culture is "bad"
I use "bad" because conservatives like to place a smorgasbord of adjectives there. I myself know a homosexual couple who both happen to be perfectly normal members of society, exploited by the bourgeoisie much in the same way everybody else is. Other than their sexual preferences, they are effectively the typical human being for their age, and are both adults. In fact, they are usually more intelligent than the average human. While only anecdotal evidence, asking enough homosexuals will reveal that sexual preference aside, most people generally act as capitalist society asks.

4. Granting full legal equality to homosexuals somehow "oppresses" conservatives and fundies.
Conservatives seem to have an odd obsession with playing victim and hypocrisy, throughout history they have always claimed that the liberation of slaves, the people in general, homosexuals, etc. will destroy society. Interestingly enough, every time true, non-bourgeois, non-pacifying reform occurs, society is pushed forward. Conservatives and fundies can live their lives in complete "peace" without even needing to come in contact with anybody that is different, but yet they still claim it will impact them, why? Because they are too simple minded and ignorant to accept a world any different than that which they grew up in.

Any other thoughts?

[RedWorker]

The primary fallacy is that marriage itself is simply a legal union between two people, it defies logic that legally granting two humans partnership is immoral. A homosexual relationship is no different than a straight one when any sort of "activity" is between two consenting adults -- this is where slippery slope completely fails. In terms of a paedophile, there is an adult abusing a minor that is incapable of making their own educated decision, as is the case in all other horrid acts described. Why then, should a relationship between two humans at the age of consent be forbidden? Nobody is harmed whatsoever, it is simple two humans that are old and hopefully educated enough to determine what they shall do with their own body.

A few notes:

Firstly, pedophilia only involves sexual attraction to children. It does not neccessarily involve any activities being carried out.

Pedophilia and age of consent are not linked in the way many people imagine. For example, Spain had a 13 years age of consent a few years ago. Then it was changed to 16. Most criteria defines pedophilia as attraction to 11 years old or less by people who are older than 16. Someone having sex with a 15 year old would definitely not be a pedophile.

The fact that when the age of consent was changed from 13 to 16 virtually nothing changed reveals the ridiculousness of the whole issue and hysteria about "age of consent", "pedophilia", etc. There are many who challenge this statement (often emotionally) but not one shred of evidence is ever given for something that may have changed.

Sex with people under the age of consent does not necessarily require exploitation or abuse. The addition of an age of consent law does not magically prevent young people from being abused. Such abuse would in any case fall under other laws which prevent sex based on exploitation. It may very well be true that young people may be easier to exploit, but this is no contradiction.

[Hatshepsut]

The brouhahas over marriage divert attention away from what’s really wrong with the entire way this institution has been conceived. Too much social status has been attached to it for a long time. In the USA important legal rights, including the parent-child relationship, access to family health insurance and Social Security, survivors benefits, and visitation of the sick all depend on being married, when these things should be universal or based on knowing the person concerned.

Communism believes in providing health care and old age security to everyone in the population, not just those who have a good job or the right domestic partner. Whom one chooses to love and live together with is hardly the state's business in a socialized society, much less in the stateless communism we hope to evolve toward.

Tolerance with respect to sexual orientations and gender identities other than the married male-female couple is historically recent worldwide—within my lifetime—and not addressed at length in 19th century formulations of socialism on family life that I’m aware of. Vice offenses including for homosexuality were removed from penal codes in Russia after 1917 but reinstated in the 1930s, perhaps for reasons of natalism, although it never seems to have put a damper on birth rates to begin with.

Science on gender and sexuality has increased; I don’t believe any variety of these is considered unnatural or pathological today with adult partners.

[RedQuarks]

I realize now that this post was incredibly vague in what I implied. I was simply attempting to point out the fallacies in arguments opposing homosexual marriage (which is simply a social construct) that had bothered me specifically. In doing so, as was pointed out, I did indeed fail to mention the one thing that would liberate all people and that this oppression was indeed merely the result of the capitalist's need for an enemy to consolidate their own power.