As any reader knows I spend quite a bit of time here making the case for full inclusion of homosexuals and others not only in society at large but in the church as well. I tend to focus on the theological and social cases for full legitimacy not only of same gender marriage, but of marriage equality in general. While most think that the assertions against marriage equality are wholly religious in nature, there are indeed non-religious assertions. If there were no non-religious assertions, the Defense of Marriage Act and all policies like it would have been stricken as unconstitutional a while ago. A few of these assertions have been brought to bear here under the comments for an unrelated post and so, I want to bring them out here in a more appropriate forum. My argument is that marriage laws that restrict gender are arbitrary and thus make no civic sense.
Legitimizing Same Gender Marriage Will Result in Population Decline
If a significant subset of a population does not reproduce children that population will thin. Basically people that do not reproduce will lead to a society's extinction. However, the suggestion that a non-reproductive, small sample that does not reproduce will lead to the entire population thinning out to the point of extinction seems absurd at best and maybe even a bit bizarre. It assumes an even distribution of reproductive cycles, lifecycles, and ratios between parents and children. Hear that octomom, John & Kate, and Duggar family? You are messing up the math (among other families)! Moreover, even if we accept this as true, to be fair we would have to sanction marriage only for the purpose of sexual reproduction. So no, this assertion does not make mathematical or civic sense. I guess we should all visit places like Canada and Denmark soon since they are apparently going to go off the grid some day. Man hockey is going to suck.
Legitimizing Same Gender Marriage Will Result in the Decline of Civilization
Name one civilization that has not persisted that has also legitimized homosexuality! Sure! But… what does it mean to persist? For how long? I need some help then. Name one civilization that has persisted forever as it began. I'll wait… tick tock tick tock…
Gosh darnit… no civilization has persisted forever. This assertion is as ambiguous as strange. Let's get more precise then…
Let's use the word "conquering empire" or "superpower." The USSR was a superpower and did not persist, but not because of the scourge of homosexuality (those pesky gays and their communist regimes). The conquering Nazis did not persist and they killed homosexuals! The Romans had a serious barbarian problem (guess all the barbarians were gay?). Conan, you go girl! What about Greece? Are we talking about Hellenic or Hellenistic Greek civilization? Was it really homosexuality that lead to the decline or diffusion through trade among many other factors like, I don't know, the Persian Wars? Silly me, it was the gymnasium with all that hot manhood on display. Guess I need to reinterpret all of those Greek tradgedies that illustrate pride as the fall of human civilization because they clearly meant homosexuality. Basically this entire assertion is as absurd as it is ignorant of history. This is a good strawman. "If I only had a brain…" Bathhouse anyone? 
Legitimizing Same Gender Marriage Goes Against 5000 Years of Humanity
I miss them 1600's don't you? Everyone was white, people prayed all the time to baby Jesus, no one got into wars, religion was pure, you could have slaves legally, women were in the kitchen, and… ta da no gays! Well except for some of those Popes and kings. (Hey where's King James going with all those hot guys? Didn't he authorize a bible translation or something?) Like a big hot tub of pure white, manly freedom it was awesome! Right. If legitimizing marriage equality is a bit counter-cultural today, so does making slavery illegal and this thing called civil rights. Still trying to find the US emperor or king and his flock of men. No matter what you think of Mr. Obama, he's not the same thing as an emperor or king because they were not voted in by an electorate. So this is a painfully weak assertion.
Well, If We Legitimate Same Gender Marriage, Polygamy is Next!
Strap on your skis for this slippery slope! (Stop it, I said nothing of "strap-ons" ladies. How rude.) That's all it is. I should stick to my eight glasses of water a day. But I have to watch how much I drink after that lest I turn into a puddle. Wonder Twin Powers….Activate!
But let's say, cool… polygamy is next. So what? I am not convinced it's the best way to go, but still so what? Well then we will all be having orgies in church and invite the farm animals while slicing their necks open with a Rabbi to make some kosher lamb for the post orgy church potluck! And that is why this is a slippery slope. Fun, but painfully irrational.
That's Not What the Bible Says
Crap! I did it. This is the entire foundation for this bizarre set of assertions. They have no evidence other than feisty rhetoric. No matter what lipstick you want to put on this pig, it's still tasty over a barbeque! None of it's right, none of it is really constitutional, and it's high time we learned what fairness was by legitimating same gender relationships under marriage laws…
Better…
Get rid of "marriage" in all civil documents, replace it with "civil union" for every one, change the tax code to reflect this, and let religious authorities decide if they accept or reject this or that civil union. Problem solved. We can then be constitutional again! Yeah America!
Related posts:
