I know this topic has been covered by several people in this blog already, but, as it's my last post, I couldn't think of anything worthier of my time. This is an issue most people feel strongly about, and I count myself among them. I am extremely pro-gay marriage, and I don't use the word "extremely" very often. (In fact, I don't think I use it in relation to any other topic or situation.) So, that being said, consider this your last warning. My position on the subject is clear.
First, I'm not even personally in favor of marriage at all. I have no desire to ever marry anyone, but that's my choice, and I think it should be a choice for every American, not just those who are heterosexual.
Opponents of gay marriage bring up legal reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be accepted. Some say that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to other things, such as the legalization of pedophilia and polygamy. And the weakest legal argument says that same-sex marriage would be granting gays a "special" right.
Neither of these makes sense.
The "slippery-slope" argument is perhaps the trickiest to argue against, but there is still evidence demonstrating the reverse of this "slip" to be true. But, first, I suggest the opposition examine the current regulations on marriage a little more closely. As it stands, rapists, convicts, and even child molesters are allowed to marry, so, by not letting gays marry because it will supposedly lead to worse things, we as a country are saying that being gay is worse than being a rapist, murderer, or child molester. Needless to say, I strongly disagree.
But, let's examine that evidence disproving the slippery slope theory. Gay marriage has been legalized in 6 Scandinavian countries, some (like Denmark) for over 20 years, and so far there's been no legalization of polygamy or bestiality, contrary to what opponents had predicted. And, also contrary to what many people who oppose gay marriage might say, gay marriage actually seems to have strengthened the bonds of traditional marriage, at least statistically speaking. Since the legalization of gay marriage, marriage rates in those same Scandinavian countries have increased significantly, while divorce rates remain basically unchanged.
The argument against the legalization of gay marriage that says granting marriage licenses to a gay couple would be granting them a "special privilege" is especially nonsensical. Exactly what about making homosexual couples equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law is declaring them "special"? If gay marriage is allowed, then discrimination would be less prevalent. By saying that gay marriage is not allowed, we are discriminating against that particular sexual orientation, thus making heterosexual couples the ones who are in fact "special."
Although these arguments against gay marriage seem ridiculous and biased, they're nevertheless still widely accepted as legitimate. But, those are just the two main legal arguments. I haven't gotten to the moral ones yet.
These moral arguments are used more often in debates on gay marriage than their legal counterparts, though they're also easier to disprove, so it about evens out.
One argument is that gay marriage is just morally unjustifiable, that it's simply wrong. But, why would that be the case? Well, people attempting this position generally come from a religious background and assume most people share their belief system, as if it were a universal Truth recognized by everyone. Such an assumption is ludicrous and, to me, personally offensive. A line used (and abused) that I hear often is "the separation of Church and State." But, as I understand it, and I'm by no means an expert, this phrase is mainly used to ensure that the State is not governed by the Church, that there will be a freedom of and from religion, as one moral standard may not necessarily be appropriate for the entire diverse population of this country. I repeat, freedom of religion also means freedom from it, and forcing a specific religious view (i.e. gay marriage is somehow inherently wrong) on the general population is an infringement on the freedom and rights of that selfsame population. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing "wrong" with gay marriage. It's religion that's muddying the issue.
Another argument is that heterosexual marriage is traditionally the sacred institution between a man and a woman. This argument is weak at best. The idea that "that's the way it's always been done, so that's the way we have to keep doing it," doesn't fly in a logical debate. If we always stuck to tradition, there would never be any progress or reform. Ask any woman or any person who's not white if he or she wants to stick with the "traditional" way of doing things in this country, and you'll get a loud, resounding "NO!" Just because it's been done in the past does not mean it's the correct way to behave now.
These are the two main moral arguments against homosexual marriage, but there are some arguments against gay marriage that don't fit in with either the legal or moral ones. Here, I mean the popular positions that gay marriage would make a mockery of the institution, or that it would destroy heterosexual marriage, or even that it's a bad environment in which to raise a child.
So it's been said that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. People who oppose gay marriage use this as the base of their argument, and with this as a premise it would indeed be hard to argue in favor of gay marriage. Supposing this were true, logically, by expanding the definition of marriage to include a union of two members of the same sex where before it was two (or further back, more than two) members of different sexes, you change the very institution of marriage. But, the premise is unsound. It is not entirely factual to say that marriage is but a sacred union because if that were the case, it would imply a strictly religious or spiritual contract (going by the use of the word "sacred"), and the State would not be involved at all. But, states issue marriage licenses. Therefore, marriage is also the domain of the State. It is in fact both, and the issue of gay marriage is not truly to do with the religious ceremony at all—as that pesky freedom of religion clause sees to—but is in fact concerned with the State institution of marriage, the civil marriage (which is why it would be a law or amendment and not a religious creed or commandment—because it's got nothing to do with the Church). Non-religious heterosexual couples have the same marriage rights as their religious heterosexual counterparts. What gay marriage advocates are struggling for is the same rights extended to homosexual couples. The State is not the Church, and it's not up to the Church to decide what happens in the State, or whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Let the State dictate what happens in the State.
Also, I feel the need to point out that marriage wasn't always, and in some places still isn't, a case of two people courting and agreeing to wed. Arranged marriages used to be the norm, and they were essentially business contracts. The goal was to solidify the line of succession, so that a man was assured his estate would, upon his death, go to his legitimate children. Historically, love matches were rare and didn't seem to end well. Marriage, up until the modern era—late 19th to early 20th Centuries—was a union, all right, but generally one of families, estates, loyalties, money, and the like, not love. So, just keep in mind that what we Americans think of today as marriage is actually nontraditional within the context of the history of the institution.
Another argument says that a homosexual marriage is bad for children and that when two parents of the same sex are raising kids there is the potential for psychological damage. Fortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. There is no evidence that gay marriage impacts children in any other way but positive. Any negatives (such as an increased likelihood to be bullied) occur as a result of the actions of people outside the immediate family—that is, people other than the parents and children.
Another argument I've heard quite often is one declaring marriage's sole purpose as procreation. If that were the case, straight people who are infertile would not be allowed to marry, and I can't imagine the government intervening in the marriage of two such people without a whole lot of debate. That would be an infringement on the couple's privacy. Also, there are married couples who choose not to have children. Should they not be allowed that choice? Why, of course not. That would be absurd. Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to have kids. One is not contingent upon the other, not anymore, not for awhile now.
The last argument I'll cover is the most ridiculous. It suggests that gay marriage is impossible because people who are homosexual are somehow incapable of maintaining lasting relationships. This may sound preposterous, but I swear I've actually heard someone legitimately argue this. It seems there are actually people out there who genuinely believe gay couples can't sustain long-term relationships and are geared solely towards wild one night stands and other brief kinds of intimacy. This claim is proven unfounded by the divorce rates in Norway and Denmark for people who are homosexual, showing the numbers are neither significantly higher nor lower than those of couples in heterosexual marriages.
So far, the data shows no difference between the two.
Those are the arguments and my own assessment of them. In short, gay marriage makes sense no matter how you look at it—unless you're covering your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment