In matters of science and human rights, the religious have no claim to speak to the rest of us with authority. Tippett Quarter — Egham, Surrey More events. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can change again. Besides being prohibitively expensive, it would also be an egregious invasion of privacy, all to detect an extremely small minority of couples. The tiny victories were despite record-breaking funding advantages, sitting governors campaigning for same-sex marriage and strong support among the media. What on earth is stopping us enacting it now?
Third, this article only refutes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity. No harm has ever been identified arising from a same-sex marriage law. Legalizing same-sex marriage is truly an idea whose time has come. But beneath all the fiery passion and rhetoric, there are real arguments to evaluate. The argument that it somehow damages heterosexual marriage is specious; no man's marriage is damaged by someone else's, and the validity of one man's right to matrimony does not depend on anyone else being denied that right.
When a policy is humane and fits in with the milieu of the time, it creates a healthier and more productive society and makes all citizens equal before the law, and has no identifiable bad effects. For indeed same-sex marriage harms no one. But this would be outrageous. Some promoted arranged marriages. Some suggest forcing every engaged couple to undergo mandatory fertility testing before marriage. Others tied marriage to dowries. But is that true?