I have yet to see an argument against which is not rooted in bigotry.
I can give you one.
The state should have no involvement in the institution of marriage, and instead the latter should be privatized and handled by non-governmental organizations. The terms of a marriage contract should be outlined solely by the individuals (or the service/organization providing the contract for individuals), which can then be optionally arbitrated by courts and/or registered with a state entity so as to work out issues like visitation rights.
Only then will marriage equality be achieved.
That said, this is more of an "anti-marriage" (at least in its current conception) argument than a specifically anti-gay marriage one, but it naturally intersects with gay and all other forms of marriage.
The anti-gay marriage part comes into play when you say that legal recognition of same-sex marriages serves as a feel-good quick patch solution that will only slow down or even diminish support for more profound solutions to the problem of marriage equality.
"Anti-marriage" is a completely different, basically unrelated position than "anti-gay marriage," just as, say, "anti-gun ownership" is a completely different position than "only white people should be allowed to own guns." You've presented a coherent, non-bigoted argument for the anti-marriage position; it does nothing to legitimize the anti-gay marriage position.
> You've presented a coherent, non-bigoted argument for the anti-marriage position; it does nothing to legitimize the anti-gay marriage position.
That was already covered. The argument is that allowing gay marriage will reduce support for the anti-marriage position. If gay marriage is denied then supporters of gay marriage will prefer to support the anti-marriage position rather than supporting marriage when they can't participate in it, which is preferred if you're anti-marriage.
Ironically the corollary to this argument is that allowing gay marriage preserves the institution of marriage.
That's a fascinating argument that feels a bit too clever. Do many people actually hold this position, or is it more of an interesting train of thought?
When you replace all the social functions of the state with a collection of privatised NGOs, those NGOs just become the state and you are back to square one, only with even less representation.
I can give you one.
The state should have no involvement in the institution of marriage, and instead the latter should be privatized and handled by non-governmental organizations. The terms of a marriage contract should be outlined solely by the individuals (or the service/organization providing the contract for individuals), which can then be optionally arbitrated by courts and/or registered with a state entity so as to work out issues like visitation rights.
Only then will marriage equality be achieved.
That said, this is more of an "anti-marriage" (at least in its current conception) argument than a specifically anti-gay marriage one, but it naturally intersects with gay and all other forms of marriage.
The anti-gay marriage part comes into play when you say that legal recognition of same-sex marriages serves as a feel-good quick patch solution that will only slow down or even diminish support for more profound solutions to the problem of marriage equality.