There ARE reasonable arguments against same-sex marriage, right?

http://ask.metafilter.com/205531/There-ARE-reasonable-arguments-against-samesex-marriage-right#2962382: [I] have heard the argument that people who are not gay will use legalized same sex marriage to scam for benefits And this very same scam could be perpetrated in a man+woman marriage. http://ask.metafilter.com/205531/There-ARE-reasonable-arguments-against-samesex-marriage-right#2962418: Mankind has respected the institution of marriage between a man and a woman for many thousands of years, in every society and every civilization. In some societies where plural marriage is permitted, it still involves men and women. It is only in the last couple of decades that this issue has arisen. http://www.colorq.org/articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage: Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa. Many indigenous societies in the Americas supported alternative gender roles for both biological men and women. These identities have been termed 3rd and 4th genders (though some cultures recognized up to 6 genders). Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong": Within the Golden Orchid women's societies, if two women "have intentions" towards each other, one of them would prepare peanut candy, dates and other goods as a formal gift to show her intent. And then there's the fact that women were the "property" of their husbands. That's the thing: there is nothing that stands up. Sexual orientation conveys no magic abilities or terrible traits to a person. Marriage for reproduction-purposes only? Then what about couples who cannot bear children, or choose not to? Should the government get into the business of enforcing reproduction? Should we try to harken back to "the old ways"? Pick and chose a thin ideal or two, and make your peace with supporting a bigoted, dying ideal. I am not saying that you are a bad person, but you are trying to argue for something that has no logical case. Or argue for something Swiftian, into the realms of near-parody.

Be brave, be Stephen Colbert (from the White House correspondents dinner speech) for an hour. Take the regular anti-marriage equality talking points verbatim and repeat them in such a way as to reveal how absurd they are.

I'm unclear on both the context for why you are making this speech and also what your personal beliefs on it are. The most compelling argument against same sex marriage that I know of is that the state giving benefits to married couples--while there is a long and illustrious history about marriage being about property rights the world around--is just a bad game for the state to be in. In fact many American-style Libertarians argue against same sex marriage not because they are anti-gay [though many also are] but because they believe in small government so much that they think the state should not be involved in people's private lives at all, especially by conferring any sort of benefits to married couples. I believe that if you are a religious person you can make a strong argument that you do not feel that your religion sanctions same sex marriages and may not be okay with it because of "well the bible says..." reasons. However, the continued confusion between religious-marriage and civil marriage seems to be the problem here. I can not think of a single reason that civil same sex marriages should be problematic for non-religious people. So, in answer to your question, no I don't think there are reasonable arguments against same sex marriage, at least not in the US. The only arguments come from a position of prejudice or a sort of status quo situation ["well if we have to teach children about this in school, that will be confusing to kids who have parents who religiously object"] and aren't logically sound. If you do not like same sex marriages you are welcome not to get one.

This question came up at Crooked Timber a few years ago. http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/25/against-gay-marriage/ The comment thread provides a good collection of links, including one I particularly recommend, Megan McArdle's http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html. McArdle's argument is intellectually formidable even if you don't happen to agree with it.

The only argument I'd make is that the state shouldn't be regulating marriage at all because doing so, among other things, privileges some classes of people above others for arbitrary reasons.

1. Mankind has respected the institution of marriage between a man and a woman for many thousands of years, in every society and every civilization. In some societies where plural marriage is permitted, it still involves men and women. It is only in the last couple of decades that this issue has arisen. Just for the record, this is false. There were gay marriages in ancient China and http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp, as well as in http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp.

In any case, why would you argue against same-sex marriage if you don't believe the argument? Are you a sociopath? Arguing a position you don't agree with is a good mental workout with a long history. You really don't have to be a sociopath to want to explore a point from all sides. OP, I can think of a couple of arguments -- none of them airtight. I will state them as succinctly as I can: 1) marriage is a pretty old and fundamental social institution, and we make changes to such institutions slowly and at our peril. 2) marriage is a sacrament of the church, and the civil authority has no business making changes to what is ultimately a religious matter. I should note that these arguments are certainly subject to valid attack on a number of fronts.

Weirdly missing the point is your only hope here. One way you can do that is to make an argument like Scalia made in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent: laws making gay marriage illegal aren't discriminatory (don't violate the equal protection clause), since they apply equally to everyone. What marriage rights do straight people have? To get married to someone of the opposite sex! What marriage rights do gay people have? To get married to someone of the opposite sex! He (rightly) goes on to say this might have worked in Loving v. Virginia too (What marriage rights do white/black people have? To marry someone of the same color!) but he says this is different because that law was obviously meant to maintain white supremacy. So like I said, you have to be able to weirdly miss the point, and keep a straight (sorry) face.

Assuming the attorneys arguing in favor of Proposition 8 were competent, their arguments in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger should contain just about every argument one could possibly come up with that pertain only to same-sex marriage (as opposed to marriage as a civic institution) without resorting to religious arguments. Of course, they lost (pending appeal).