What are some good arguments against gay marriage?

Originally I thought that the government should have no say in the 'right' to marry at all, but then I realized that that opens the back door to certain undesirable churches having gay marriage ceremonies.

I understand that marriage is a religious bond between a man and a woman, for the express purpose of producing a wholesome nuclear family unit, but I'm having trouble coming up with an argument of how to justify the government banning gay marriage - it seems to violate the separation of church and state.

>pic not related

I can't help but be on the fence because I see people having legitimate motivations on both a secular and a religious level. I don't personally hold any truck with 'sacred marriage' but I understand others who do.

Well America is not a secular state for one

I'm of the opinion that including a religious bond like "marriage" under government law is already violating the separation of church and state. It's like adding the baptism under government law and saying it's discriminatory to not let atheists get baptised.

All mentions of marriage should be removed from government and given solely to churches, and call "legal unions" what they are "legal unions", not the institution of marriage.

That won't work against atheist liberals.

They will get the benefits (like tax bonuses) which were designed for people who can have babies. If you can separate the institution and the benefits then there is nothing wrong in letting them pretend their relationship is something normal.

The only involvement by the state in marriage should be the recording and enforcement of a special type of contract called a "domestic contract". A domestic contract can involve any number of men and/or women; however, to be valid, it must contain four basic provisions:

1. The contract must not have a sunset provision, or other external condition that renders the contract void, i.e., it cannot end without some action by a party to the contract;
2. All parties to the contract must cohabitate for the duration of the contract;
3. No party can be a blood relative to another party of the opposite sex, and any contract involving two or more parties that are blood relatives must include at least one party that is not a blood relative, e.g., a man can enter into a contract with two sisters, but those two sisters cannot alone enter into a contract, or that man cannot enter into a contract with his own sister; and
4. The contract must include provisions that detail division of assets, child custody, and other matters upon a party's breach of contract, i.e., a prenuptial agreement.

The primary benefits of the domestic contract are joint taxation and legal recognizance of next-of-kin in situations that require it. All parties to the domestic contract must file taxes as a single entity, and parties that are not biological parents can act as a guardian of children produced while the contract is active (subject to the provisions of the contract).

Note that this contract in no way refers to a "marriage", it is just an apparatus to provide the traditional benefits of marriage only insofar as they apply to matters that involve the state. Anyone can choose to get married subject to the conditions of the church or other private institution that sanctions it, with or without a corresponding domestic contract; similarly, marriage is not a prerequisite for a domestic contract.

Spike in pedophilia

there is no reason to approve gay marriage, it enables a mental sickness and is self-destructive to homosexual people.

The only genuine arguments against gay marriage I've heard are from mindless bible-thumpers.Frankly, I see no reason why gay marriage should be outlawed.

>but then I realized that that opens the back door to certain undesirable churches having gay marriage ceremonies.
>The state shouldn't meddle with religious freedoms, unless I don't agree with what they believe.
Faggots getting "married" doesn't effect nuclear families. They aren't going to stop being homos just because they can't marry.
Government interfering with the institution of marriage is one of the reasons why the nuclear family is being eroded away.

Its gay

I think issues like these should be pi to a popular vote rather than go to supreme Court. We could vote on the internet using blockchain technology.

Also, I think most people don't give a shit about gay marriage.

Marriage has always been a little gay.

Well, it basically means the government is saying "it's okay to be gay, it's great even".

When you consider the lack of sodomy laws and the gay workers' protection laws.....I guess banning gay marriage is the last way to keep homophobic people feeling as though their tax dollars say "fuck you" to gays.

If you think that's important for the government to preserve, then I guess it's a good reason.

Gays are gonna try and couple up even without "marriage" being official for them.

And without gay marriage bans, your government actually shows full approval of them. Sucks for you.

There are numerous studies and statistics showing that gay couples are more likely to sexually abuse their children.

The best argument against gay marriage is just taking a look at children raised from them. I can think of the incidents of those two fags who were caught pimping out their adopted son as a child sex slave, or those two dykes who were quite clearly forcing their adopted son to go through hormone therapy to become a """girl""".

Going off of this, children of single mothers have shown to be on average much less happy and productive than those raised in a traditional household. Same goes for single fathers but to a lesser degree.

Divorce culture has completely ruined marriage in this country, and marriage is what holds a nation and more importantly a people together.

It is scientifically proven that the best chance for a child is to be raised in a stable, loving household, with a mother and a father, and preferably at least one sibling.

That's what is wrong with this entire generation in a nutshell. It's an entire generation of spoiled brats raised by dysfunctional or single parent households.

Churches should have a right to say weather or not they can have a ceremony, Marriage isn't religious anymore but churches still are,

Besides being gay heresy to most if not all forms of religion, By being openly gay and practicing sexual acts with the same sex they are pretty much practicing atheism.

How does society benefit from gay marriage? If it doesn't, there's no real point to it.

It is impossible to have a good argument against gay marriage because only religioncucks give a shit. The best non-religious argument you could give would probably be that legalizing gay marriage would piss muslims off and cause them to bomb everyone.

Philisophical/2smart4u:
Sperm and the egg. If you think otherwise you do not deserve to have a brain.
Economic:
More children = larger labor force and motivated parents
To athiests:
All of God's commandments can be understood if only you reflected upon them. This includes the people who think jesus is God's son.

>statistics = facts
I'd be more than willing to bet that just as many straight marriages end up with child abuse.

Even so, if that's your SOLE reason why there shouldn't be gay marriage, why not just cut out the middle man and prevent gay people from raising children on their own? It's not like not being married would prevent a homosexual from adopting, regardless.

To be fair, most religions are fucking stupid and rely on laws made by people thousands of years ago.

Yeah, maybe just as many straight marriages end up in child abuse but the statistic you're looking for is "per capita," retard.

That wasn't my sole reason. I listed several.

And there is no "middle-man" to cut out. I said all adoptions by gay """families""" should simply be outlawed. I don't really give a shit if fags want to get married and fuck each other in the ass. I don't even think government has a right to involve itself in "marriage" since marriage is a religious institution, it's up to individual churches. If fags can find a heretical preacher to marry them, go for it.

However, government does have a right to step in and prevent child abuse, either directly (through things like molestation), or indirectly (going along with what I was saying about studies showing children of gays, divorcees, etc. being unhappy, less likely to achieve, etc.).

Most of us do NOT have a problem with gay marriage. I really do NOT care. Here was the problem in my state (Indiana). Gov Pence passed a bill to protect faith owned business from being FORCED to deal with gay weddings and what not. The left totally went ape shit. I think the bill was fair. I am NOT gay but I am an Atheist. I do NOT wish to FORCE people to do something against their beliefs although I feel religion=santa, the easter bunny, etc. I supported Gov Pence then and I voted for Trump. The LGBT is NOT being beaten down in the streets of Indiana. There is a bar by Notre Dame that will NOT allow you in if you display any tats. I respect the rules and wears a long sleeve shirt to go in. That business has a right to require a dress code and additional shit. That is why I have lost all respect for the lgbt movement. They do NOT want equality but an elite status profile or whatever. It's gone WAY past rights.....

>I'd be more than willing to bet that just as many straight marriages end up with child abuse.
but thats wrong
homosexuality perperprates (?) pedohilia, homosexuals, in comparison to normal people tend to have more pedophiliac tendencies. And adding something, some early homosexual activist groups were shut down because of minor abuse

Don't you have a wall to pay for Paco?

don't you have some nigger cocks to worship, you fucking faggot?

We need to get that wall up so I can keep them all to myself. Quit trying to slurp my nig-knobs you taco gremlin.

Since you decided to destroy your body for a shitty fad, you will probably kill yourself before the wall is finished

>before the wall is finished
So you ARE going to pay for it then right? Just to be clear Mr. Beans.

>don't
it's really not worth arguing over,
the conservitards managed to dig their own grave with shit like gays marrying and doctors snib snab and snab'a'lab'ing fetuses,
we've got cucks taking our guns to worry about,
it's more important than two faggots sucking eachother off.

you will end up paying for it from all the non-stop cocksucking you do everyday

what a gross pic

The government doesn't have the right to proclaim whether or not a marriage is legitimate in the first place unless it is a theocracy. The state has no right to legitimize marriage what so ever let alone atheist and fag """""marriage""""". If people want to share assets so badly just allow partners to enter a contract together that can be altered based on their circumstances, not only does this eliminate the marriage arguments but it also removes all the feminist kikeholdry that had infected marriage law over the past 100 years.