In Just 100 Words, I Can Dismantle the Entire Argument Against Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

1558614_10152147180642489_443465346_nI’ve had it with this unconstitutional same-sex marriage debate.

This debate is simple — there is no debate.  

Procreation is not a requirement to get married, nor are people who procreate required to get married.

The belief that “homosexuality is a sin” comes from religion.

The stereotypical definition of “traditional marriage” comes from religious text.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. 

Meaning if Congress passes laws based on religion (which then establishes religious rule over Americans) those laws are then unconstitutional.

Therefore your “arguments” are invalid.

The End.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Kaity

    Thank you, Sir!! 🙂 I wish people would understand that! It’s not right to make laws off of a religion that not everyone follows. I’ll never understand why people care so much when it’s not affecting their life in anyway. It’s just cruel and that’s why I thank God for giving us kind souls like yours, Mr.Clifton, who stand up for our beautiful homosexual brothers and sisters. Honestly I think God is looking down shaking His head disappointed at those judging and bullying them. That’s a sin. Not loving a man when you are a man or loving a woman when you are a woman. Since when is loving someone a sin?! I pray everyone would stop arguing over these PEOPLE…These HUMAN BEINGS and GOOD SOULS and start loving them for who they are like I believe God does. God bless you, Mr.Clifton. You are honestly my hero. <3

  • Jim Bean

    “The belief that “homosexuality is a sin” comes from religion.” That is true. Also true: “The belief that ‘homosexuality is abnormal’ comes from an appraisal of human anatomy.” Ambivalence towards homosexuality exists out side the realm of religion and existed long before Christianity did. (I’m agnostic and neither anti or pro gay. I AM however, anti Christians and gays being intolerant of each other and making disingenuous arguments to support their intolerance.)

    • Why5ks

      @Jim your argument, though honest and I agree with for the most part is, if not disingenuous, flawed. You make a basic mistake in your initial assertion that “homosexuality is a sin” comes from religion. This is a mistake made by just about everyone that uses any of the books from the Old Testament in any argument. The books in that Testament reflect more on cultural history than religious history. Most of the books relate folklore and cultural dogma that has been written into religious text. An example is the prohibition of eating pork, I personally find it hard to believe that an omnipotent being would waste any worry on whether someone ate bacon. However, there was a cultural need to avoid eating pork in ancient times. Pork can have many parasites and if not cooked to a proper temperature can be deadly if eaten. Prior to society gaining the knowledge of proper food prepping it was easier to convince people God forbid the eating of pork rather than explaining how to cook it without a thermometer. The animal kingdom does have a complete ambivalence toward the concept of homosexuality, considering there are over 1500 species that have been identified that engage in homosexual practices.

  • BodyMassage

    Marriage itself stems from religion. As such, the best way to solve this issue while still respecting religious freedoms is to no longer recognize marriage- only civil unions. Let the religious cling to their creepy rituals, and afford the rest of us- straight, gay or anything inbetween- the opportunity to be in recognized relationships without the Lord’s oversight.

    • Stephen F. Duncan

      In many places this is the way it is done already – people got married in the eyes of the law and if they wanted it blessed by their church, they did so later. Simple enough – it maintains personal freedom and keeps the state from interfering with religion and religion from interfering with the state.

    • Why5ks

      Marriage is not a religious institution, it has always been a civil institution. Yes, many people seek to sanction their marriage through their religion, but that would be the same thing as saying eating is a religious function because some people say grace before eating. A simple way to prove my point, try getting a divorce in a church. Even in the Catholic Church, once granted an annulment, you can’t get remarried until you go to court to have a divorce granted. You apply for a license from a government agency (state or local), your ceremony must be officiated by a government approved official, and once completed the official must file a legal document with the original government agency before your marriage is official. The original concept of marriage evolved shortly after humans discovered how births occurred. It was a way of confirming and enforcing “primogeniture” which is the passing of rights, property and titles to the first born. Once men knew they had a role in procreation, they created ways to control their family and women. Prior to that women were thought to be sacred and any child born while you were mated (but not exclusive sexually) was considered your child.

    • David Landry

      I’m ‘straight’ married. In a civil marriage. Why should I have to give up the word ‘marriage’ just because some religious knobs are all up tight about the use of the word by some other group of people?

      What about gays who belong to a church that does believe in marriage equality? Do they get to use the term marriage but I don’t? Or do we ‘respect’ the constitutional protections of religion by disrespecting religions that don’t conform to one particular doctrine of conservative religious belief?

      Screw that, if the term ‘marriage’ has enough “meaning” for the conservative religious and socially backward to be all up in arms in order to try and keep it from others, then it must have enough meaning for the ‘others’ to have a legitimate reason to fight to have it apply to them as well.

      But, If the religious right want to claim the term ‘marriage’ has no meaning, then let the religious right start calling their institution of joining couples ‘civil unions’.

  • Tony Bartlett

    Ok then what IS marriage?? The legal union of two people who care for each other? Why two? Why not three or four? …and does that mean I can marry my father or my son, my niece and my grandfather? Why not? I care about them, I want the legal advantages the law provides and marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? It’s all about love, right? What exactly is the legal definition of marriage?? What is this push to normalize gay marriage really all about?

    • PRIME79

      Its about letting 2 consenting adults that love each other be granted the same rights and protections as guaranteed them in the constitution of our nation as all the other married couples. Whats the deal with your kind going extreme and talking about inbreeding and polygamy and bestiality and all types of irrational shit? Why is it that yall feel that if you dont get your way society is going to collapse? Im so sick of you naturally born cowards trying to dictate the lives of others based on what you are scared of. If you dont agree with gay marriage then dont participate in one, its really that simple. The same people that are so terrified by gay marriage are the same idiots that thought desegregation and interracial marriage would destroy the world and make a magical sky fairy come down and start harassing people….how’d that turn out? Stop being so terrified of things you don’t agree with and leave people alone. Gay marriage has no factual impact on your life what so ever, it may hurt your feelings but your feelings(opinions) dont dictate other peoples lives. Get over yourself and grow the fuck up.

      • Tony Bartlett

        Thanks for revealing to all your intellectual aptitude or lack thereof . Your response discloses that you are just not very articulate intelligent or smart. You didn’t answer the question. You just call me names and use profanity in an attempt to mask your ignorance. Laws don’t allow people to love or not love each. The laws related to marriage create a legal status for those who choose to marry. I asked a logical question and you couldn’t answer it. I love visiting this site and getting you folks all worked up. Thanks!

      • Deacon24x

        The reasons behind not being able to marry your father, sister, grandmother et cetera have little to do with politics, and more to do with genetic mutations from systemic incestual relationships. Allowing homosexual marriages does not alter the acknowledged fact that incestuous relationships as you cite do cause genetic abnormalities, thus threatening the genetic pool.
        The push to “normalize”, as you so state, gay marriage is about equality under the law where there is none. In many ways, this hearkens back to the civil rights movement of every major culture: A set majority enjoys freedoms a minority do not; the minority rightly takes issue, managing to persuade members of the majority to their way of thought through logical equality debate; the majority then either embraces the change, or civil war amongst the majority breaks out. Historically speaking, this has happened a number of times in societies other than the United States (Russia under the Czars, England prior to the Magna Carta, just to name a few).

    • Pipercat

      Freedom, minus the slippery slope fallacy, of course.

    • GL

      “Why two? Why not three or four?” Two people is a much easier number to track in terms of who gets benefits for what instead of three or four. At that point you get into “Are all three dependent on one another or is there a central ‘hub person’ without whom this legal mess would devolve?” Two is a nice simple number, and subtracting one from it leaves a lone person. If you want polygamy, there are some countries elsewhere in the world that have legalized it, although you may have to become a Muslim to live in them.

      “Does that mean I can marry my father or my son, my niece, and my grandfather?” No. “Why not?” Three reasons. First off, it would still be illegal. Just changing one law does not prompt all other laws to change. Secondly, most human societies have cultural taboos against marrying members of one’s immediate family, and those that don’t are viewed by those that do as being horribly perverse, so if you’re actually arguing that you should be allowed to marry one of those relatives you’ve mentioned above, good luck staying “not a pariah”. Third, that whole argument is a logical fallacy known as a “slippery slope”.

      “It’s all about love, right?” It’s all about two consenting, non-related (beyond a certain degree; depending on state, first cousins can marry, and second cousins are usually fair game) adults who love one another and wish to enjoy certain legal benefits.

      I am, however, glad to see that you at least kept your specious argument limited to incest and polygamy, and didn’t try to drag bestiality or pedophilia into it.

    • David Landry

      Okay, when you get into issues of numbers and marrying close relatives now you get into the realm of religion … but hey, if your religion allows (or requires) you to marry more than one person, or your close relative, then why should I care? As long as it’s all done between consenting adults of good mind, then knock yourself out.

      Strange though, how the only institutions that I am aware of that actually practiced such forms of multiple/incestuous marriage have been religions.

    • Jo Clark

      First off, marriage is a man made convention. Secondly, it hasn’t been around as long as people think it has. Not too many hundreds of years ago, all you had to do was give your word to another that you wanted to be bound together and that was it. There was no ceremony and all the foofaw.

      Then the concept of marriage came about because of property rights. It’s really that simple.

      The ridiculous notion it is today has been carefully crafted by none other than religion, while in fact, it still is just a legal binding regarding property. It has absolutely ZERO to do with any church ceremony. That is something religion has added to the whole deal. In case you had forgotten, when you get married in a church, you must go to a …. wait for it …county office and pick up your legally binding document called a marriage license.

    • Amber

      Why not polygamy? If 2 consenting adults want to get married why not 3 or 4? And it shouldn’t have to be the traditional view of polygamy a man and multiple wives. Why can’t I have multiple husbands or 2 husbands and 2 wives if we all agree to be contractually and finacially tied to each other? If we are all legal consenting adults who can enter or leave this legal contract at anytime why not?
      As for not marrying your father, son etc. The law grants lots of legal protection and perks for family members. Providing healthcare with insurance being one of them. Making your medical decisions in times of crisis, getting your belongings after death with no will favor family members. And you can make it even more legal by entering into other contracts trusts power of attorneys etc. with family members.
      As for the push? It is simply about equality. The idea you can tell one set of legal adults yes you can enter into this legal contract, and telling another they can not is not equal. Making a person different or less because of the color of their skin, their genitals, their religon, or who they have sex with is wrong.
      The beastiality argument usually comes up and I don’t get why except as a scare tactic. Animals have no legal standing under the law. They can’t sign their names or make consentual decisions, let alone enter into a legally binding contract with a consenting adult. Most beastilaity cases comes under animal cruelty satutes.

    • regressive whitetrash GOP scum

      the ‘push’ to normalize gay marriage is all about equality
      equality…………… I THEEEENK that’s a tenet this country was based upon

  • PRIME79


  • Kathy Stuart

    There’s also that pesky equal protection clause in the Fifth.

    • Pipercat

      That has to do with criminal cases. You should refer to the 14th for equal protection.

  • Randy Patton

    “Marriage” is just the word, anyway. It is NOT a religious sacrament unless you plan it that way. “Marriage” is the word that has to be used, however, to keep laws from being written to play against it….in order to be “equal” the same word must be used.

  • drs_n0w

    Fking stupid. Go jump off a cliff. Fag’s can swear to love each other forever and leave each other in their wills. They don’t need marriage to protect any of that.

    • regressive white trash reli

      ^^^^^^^ imbecile^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      • dr_sn0w

        I see that your arrows are pointing to your own pic. You shouldn’t degrade youraelf like that.

      • regressive white trash reli

        seems U just showed what ” grade” you are by misspelling a VERY easy word such as ” yourself”
        keep crying,,,,

      • dr_sn0w

        The keyboard is larger than your brain, making it significantly hard to type. Doctorate. NEXT!

      • regressive white trash reli

        hey tesla,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        that’s your “comeback”????

      • dr_sn0w

        No. My comeback is reporting you to the moderator. I hate you. Go away, hypocritical troll.

      • regressive whitetrash GOP scum

        TROLL?? really?? with over 2700 upvotes and nearly 2400 posts??
        (I like how U up vote YOURSELF!!! BRILLIANT)

        awwww,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, did U faw down an’ go BOOM again?

        it will be intriguing 2 see the moderator looking at my posts….. those (posts) are so autodidactic!!!

      • dr_sn0w

        You are a fkn psycho, you know that?? 2400 posts proves you are a troll. So many “up-ticks” proves nothing but that you might change pcs and use other troll acounts to uptick yourself and/or logout and uptick yourself as a guest. Does anybody know how I can permanently block him from replying to my posts?

      • regressive whitetrash GOP scum

        you can cry louder and threaten me again,,,,,,,,,
        la fitness ne 38 st FT.L florida,,,,,,,,,,im there every night around 9pm; lifting weights and playing basketball with the “BRO’s”………………cmon down and re-arrange my teeth. U cannot miss me,……heres my photo– from vacation last aug in AZ,,,,,im holding my 12 month old pet TEGU……. im living in sunny se florida,,,,,,,,,cmon and play dentist with me

      • dr_sn0w

        whatever, meathead. only a musclebound jarhead would make such a post. i would never make such a post. even if it were remotely true.

      • regressive whitetrash GOP scum

        hey stoooopid— 19 days ago ( see above posts) U actually DID make a threat:
        “why don’t U be a man and give me your real name or fight me with your bare fists in person…..”
        now? u not only cower as a true white trash regressive crybaby; U ..D..E..N..Y.. making such a threat!!
        classic shitbag regressive white trash ,,,,,,,,,
        ” I would never make such a post………..”
        —- do drink a lot of alcohol?

      • dr_sn0w

        Why dont you be a man and give me your real name or fight me with your bare fists in person, u fkn coward that hides behind your screen and nickname/pseudonym.

      • regressive whitetrash GOP scum

        hey crybaby,,see my below post for “info”

      • Frank DiFemme

        Says the moron who has yet to write a legible, complete sentence.

      • Is that so?

      • regressive white trash reli

        he is yet another NEW loser profile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he makes new profiles as republicans try 2 lower taxes on wealthy “job creators”

      • regressive white trash reli

        ^^^^ another brand new TROLL profile^^^^
        ,,,,,,,,,,formerly OY HUMID and many other low IQ loser profiles,,,,,,,,,,,,,this one– as all the rest—soooooon 2 be banished by mods

      • Frank DiFemme

        You need a haircut, girlie boy.

      • regressive white trash reli

        oh so TOTALLY!!!!
        ,,,,,,,,and soon U will need a nice new loser TROLL profile because we have seen U donnnnnt last 2 long on here- eh?

  • Jo Clark

    Bingo. You have such a way with words.

  • Ernst_Breithaupt

    So if procreation has nothing to do with marriage how much lower does that place the homosexual?

    The point is that heterosexuality is higher than homosexuality since it has the ingredients to create people, take a hint. Up until now that was so blindingly obvious that zero words were enough. No one thought such a depraved proposition could even enter public discourse. An honest, thinking person reaching to justify gay equality would at least substitute the word sinful for the word unproductive, because that is what a gay marriage is and you don’t need divine revelation to know that.

    So yes there is no debate, that much you have right. There was no debate until you brought it up.