BRAINSTORM: Refute some arguments against marriage equality

[Athelwulf]

Let's have a brainstorm.

I'd like some thoughts on a couple arguments against same-sex marriage that I think are a little tough to refute.

I'll cover the tougher one which I don't have any ideas on first, one I came across a couple times: "Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so legalizing gay marriage would be special treatment towards gay people."

I know this argument is stupid, but I'd like to get to know exactly how it's stupid, so I can take the argument apart the next time I see it. The more ideas you got, the better!

The second argument is one my dad has given me: "It would be too difficult to legalize gay marrage even if we wanted to, because gays are physically unable to consummate a marriage. And to change consummation laws in order to make it easier for gay people would be too much work, and would upset people who would complain that the government is getting into the bedroom where it doesn't belong."

I already have some thoughts on this, but I'd like some help in refining them.

My dad's argument relies on a few premises: that sex is prohibitively hard to define for gay people; that consummation laws must remain, lest people start marrying for tax reasons or for the hell of it; and that people would surely complain that the government is intruding in the bedroom if consummation laws are reformed.

As for the first premise, I don't see how gays are physically unable to consummate a marriage, unless coitus in particular is the only sexual intercourse you can have in order to do so. But even if this is true, there must already be a working definition of sexual intercourse between members of the same sex somewhere in the law. An example I can think of is rape: It's physically possible for a male to rape another male, or a female to rape another female.

The second premise looks like a manifestation of "teh gheis will destroi marriage omg!" except with a twist. It assumes the only options we have are to change consummation laws or to repeal them, and repealing them would demean marriage in such a way that it would be very easy for people to marry, and many more meaningless marriages would take place. Any thoughts here that can explain why this is stupid are appreciated.

The third premise is just absurd. Not very many people are gonna complain about something such as the government "intruding in the bedroom" when same-sex marriage is getting legalized, unless they're going about it the wrong way. Plus, it makes me wonder exactly how this intrudes in people's bedrooms. It's intruding when you legislate what people can and cannot do in their bedrooms, but not when you say what consummation is. Exactly how is it possible to make such a stupid case? Can people help me out here?

Have at it, people. And remember, this is a brainstorm. Any and all ideas are helpful!