The Ruth Institute: Anti-Gay Public Policy Institute Stepping Out of the Shadows

In response to your actual questions there are several legitimate reasons to limit marriages, but being homosexual is not one of these.

Polygamy is only really illegal in the United States because modern religions overpowered it as an institute.  Historically Polygamy, especially polygyny was huge.  Men historically had multiple wives in many countries and religions, it is documented in several religious texts.  Currently in our country it is not in essence illegal.  I may be able to only marry one person, but I can sign all the legal contracts I wish.  It is possible, indeed I know of people that have done it, to set up a polygamous family in our legal system to a fair extent.  The reason is that you cannot be prosecuted for adultery except by your spouse, and since in a poly relationship your "spouse" will not care, all you need do is legally endow other people with the same rights via contract.  As an example:  A Lesbian couple is married in Massachusetts and is into D/s play.  For those who may not know D/s means Domination/submission.  We will say lesbian A is the domme and lesbian B is the sub.  Lesbian A wishes for her wife to spend more time serving her and pampering her and less time doing household chores, she also wishes for her wife to get pregnant and have their children.  So they find a guy who is into the same power play, and they sign a contract.  Per the terms of the contract he is given several privileges similar to marriage such as medical decisions and inheritance and he is responsible for the household chores and fathering of children.  In effect the contract treats him as an employee of the couple and pays him in spousal benefits and his job is being the husband.

Polygamy is not necessarily bad, but it could very easily lead to some very bad situations if violent or possessive individuals enter into it without thinking it through, it is not an easy form of relationship.

Beastiality will never be acceptable or legal and one will never be able to marry an animal.  This is simply because regardless of how much you enjoy sex with that horse or love that horse the horse is incapable of giving informed consent in the way a human can and thus is not eligible for that sort of agreement. 

The same argument for beastiality applies to pedophilia.  One cannot enter into a marriage with a child because the child's mind is underdeveloped and they are incapable of consenting to an adult relationship.

Incest: Incest would be illegal because you might like screwing your brother or sister but there are large genetic consequences of reproducing in this manner.  To have such a child is irresponsible and forces undue suffering on an entity, the child.  This could be argued further but it gets into existentialism and that makes it hard to argue law.

Digital characters or robots have no free will or desires currently.  They are incapable of wanting anything other than what we tell them to want.  So a robot that is nothing more than a big computer is no more able to marry than a vibrator.   Now if you want to discuss artificial intelligence in the way that the character Data on star trek has or like Cortana in the Halo series, they would be capable of marriage if one wanted because they are unique, reasoning, intelligent entities.

In regard your first article I submit that the individual is highly intelligent and logical and has produced a reasonable, yet flawed argument.  The writer states that marriage is primarily about encouraging procreation.  S/he sites several examples of how marriage is currently regulated.  This is quite true, marriage is heavily regulated.  He is incorrect in his assertion that the US constitution does not provide for the right for one to marry.  Allow me to show you.

In the declaration of independence we all know that it is said that among the inalienable rights of men are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  This document is the very foundation of our country and it is quite obvious that the word "men" is in reference to all of humanity.  The 9th amendment to the Constitution states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Thus just because the constitution does not explicitly say, we all have the right to marriage, the creation of the family of  your choice and marriage to your spouse is quite obviously included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and thus it is protected based upon these two documents.

The justifications presented all focus on children and procreation.  It is inconsistent.  Infertile couples are not prohibited from marrying.  Elderly are not prohibited from marrying.  The author suggests that these two groups are relatively small, this is incorrect.  The average age at which people have children is trending upward, especially in more educated groups.  The market for treatment of infertility is getting larger and is expanding.  If marriage is intended to promote procreation then it would be logical to include a stipulation that the couple reproduce within 5 years or they lose their benefits, this would not be hard or costly to enforce.  The author also argues that homosexual couples have no place or do not contribute to procreation.  It is a legitimate view that homosexuals could be seen as the ultimate form of altruism.  They cannot reproduce alone, but there are vast quantities of foster children and orphans that are up for adoption that need loving parents.  In general heteros do not want them because they want to have their own.  These are backup plans for the poor heteros that cannot have their own.  If same-sex parents were given legal status and allowed adoption rights there would be a HUGE decrease in the amount of money the government would be spending on providing for these children that are wards of the state which provides huge incentive to give those couples the same legal recognition.  The final major argument is that children need a mother AND father to grow up and be well adjusted.  This is inaccurate and there is at least one recent study that shows this.  There are two issues here, if children need both Mother and Father, then divorce should not be legal and the parents should be forced to tough it out for the children as the author is suggesting the children are the primary reason for the marriage anyway.  The second issue is that hetero parents often end up parents unexpectedly and are not prepared to be parents and thus do a poor job of it.  Homosexual parents, by nature of having to more intricately plan their path to parenthood, have given the issue much more though and preparation than have many hetero parents and are thus better equipped to be parents regardless of their genders.  

As an example, I am a male to female transsexual.  I am also a lesbian.  My parents forced me to attend church until I was 16, and never once spoke to be about sexuality or gender identity.  I figured it out all on my own.  But it was hell for me, had they known more in that area I could have been saved 10 years of pain and three attempted suicides.  I know that my children, biologic or adopted, will have it easier in that sense because I know how to handle that if it becomes an issue.  I do not plan to have children for at least 10 years or so as I am only 24.  But I am already planning and preparing because of the inherent issues with my reproductive ability.  How many hetero couples plan for children 10 years out?  If the argument is for protecting children, and if the institution of marriage is only about the children, then gay marriage opponents are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing so many children to go uncared for and unloved.  The issue is not about helping children or caring for children but about protecting them from "The Gay."  Two loving parents that REALLY want you, is better than living in an orphanage.  Or being abused by parents who didn't want you to begin with.

In response to your second article.

Firstly I would like to say that in my opinion the author has never known or talked to a gay person in their life.  They posit three arguments that could support homosexual marriage and then shoot them down, mostly by insisting that there is not a need for gay marriage because there never has been gay marriage and homosexuals have "the same rights" as heteros.  Here are his three reasons:

Ok lets look at this from my perspective as a gay woman.  The author states that s/he does not see how rights change once one defines themselves as a homosexual.  This is because the author is looking at everything from the perspective of a single individual.  As a gay woman yes I could marry a man, technically in some states I can't because my transsexual status precludes me from marrying anything but women which I will argue later.  The issue is not that I cannot marry a man, the issue is that I cannot marry the person I love.  This argument is inherently heterosexist in nature because it assumes that all people love in the same way and all people love the opposite sex.  The argument is based on the idea that marriage is for procreation and social duty only and not the happiness of the two people being married.  No one says "Oh boy Im getting married here is my chance to fulfill my social responsibility!"  Especially not women, we're thinking about how we have been practicing that day in our heads since we were 5 and how good it is going to feel to be with the person we love and have our wedding day and how special it will be.  It is inherently an adult centered activity, that adults enjoy engaging in because it bonds them with their loved one and not because it gives them a chance to do their civic duty.  Thus it is an issue that I cannot marry the person I love, not that I cannot marry.  

Because I cannot marry the person I love, I am not entitle to inheritance, I cannot make medical decisions, I can collect social security or pensions.  I personally know of a girl that is transsexual like myself, and had a wife and children before she transitioned.  They never divorced and when her wife died she gained full custody of their children.  She was sued by the wife's parents and lost her children for 6 years fighting in court.  Her children were taken away because the grandparents accused her of being an incompetent parent because she is transsexual and was in a relationship with another woman.  I have heard of another case of a gay couple who spent 28 years living together and loving each other in a committed monogamous relationship.  Because they could not marry when one man died his parents had more legal rights to his will and last wishes than his partner did.  The man lived on the east coast and wished to be buried there where he had matching plots with his husband.  His parents came and took his body back to their home state which I believe was Alabama or Arkansas, had him cremated, had a service and funeral for him.  All of which his partner was not permitted to attend because the parents barred him from the events.   These are the inequities that are forced upon homosexual people.  They are real, they are tragic, and they are horribly painful.

The second argument, that gay couples perform the same role in society, is true.  Gay men and women perform the same social roles, and are equally able to parent.  There is no legitimate reason to exclude gay couples from these roles other than bigotry.  Allowing gay men and women to perform these roles will not in any way affect the stability of heterosexual marriages.

The third argument is also true.  In my case, I enjoy sex with men very much.  But I do not and cannot connect with a man emotionally.  When I see the statement His & Hers in the traditional fashion, it makes me feel uncomfortable like I need to fix it because it doesn't feel right to me.  I cannot be happy married to a man, I cannot enjoy my life that way.  I cannot be a productive citizen that way.

Overall there are many arguments people make against homosexual marriage.  My favorite is this one.  A guy once told me that homosexual marriage was bad and illegal because we all know that men and women are not paid equally for the same work in our country.  If homosexual marriages were legal then traditional marriages would be a thing of the past because no one would want to marry a woman when they could marry a man and have more income.   I couldn't believe someone would actually acknowledge discrimination in the pay gap, and then use it to justify more discrimination.  All in all, it doesn't matter what you think the purpose of marriage is, and it doesn't matter whether you are gay or straight.  All that should matter, is that the rights and experiences that heterosexuals enjoy, value, and take for granted are being categorically denied to homosexuals and it is painful, and wrong.  How would a hetero man feel if his wife died and her parents just usurped his control over her last wishes and completely ignored what she wanted and did what they wanted and then barred him from her funeral?  No one should be subjected to that.  And that is the bottom line, regardless of what you think about gay people, or whether you personally think they should be allowed to raise a family, the bottom line is no one deserves that sort of treatment and no one deserves to be denied their rights to a family.   We need more compassion in this world and less hatred, its time to stop the demonization of the faceless "other."

Edited in - 

I forgot to comment about the laws as they relate to me as a transsexual woman.  Texas is of great interest.  In Texas they have limited, via state constitutional amendment, marriage to only heterosexual couples.  At the same time, they have passed legislation that prevents anyone who is transsexual such as myself from altering sex markers on legal records, and they have limited us to eligibility for marriage based solely on our birth sex.  So because of what to me can only be understood as their intentional discrimination, they have in effect quasi-legalized homosexual marriage for me.  Let me clarify.

In Texas I am legally considered to be male for all intents and purposes of the law regardless of what is shown on my birth certificate or drivers license because I am a male to female transsexual.  This means I am only eligible to marry females.  Thus, once I have completed my surgery, I am both sterile and in possession of female genitals.  Even in this condition I am only eligible to marry females.  Thus it would seem to me that they have absolutely no problem with people with the same genitals being married.  They have an issue with "homosexuals" the inherently evil "them" party marrying.  They would argue that I am still male and have only mutilated myself into a facsimile of female.  Anyone that knows me however would tell you that I am more feminine and more female in nature than my girlfriend is and she is natal.  My girlfriend even says I have more maternal instinct than she does.  So it is quite obviously not an issue of inability to reproduce, or of people of the same physical sex being married.  It all comes down to someone's perception of the group of people and categorical discrimination based on fear of the unknown and slandering of a group of people you do not have any working knowledge of.