6.17.2008

Ten Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriages (And How Stupid They Are)

So, California has joined Massachusetts in granting marriage licenses for same sex couples.

Surely, this is the end of the world as we straight folks know it. And thank God, because I’m really getting tired of the one we’ve been living in.

It makes NO SENSE to me - a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual female - why two people of any gender who decide they trust one another enough to share assets and benefits can’t form a legal union in order to do so. But wait, the bible says... And what about the kids... And, if we allow this, won’t men be marrying their dogs in five years...

Come on. This is nonsense.

Recently, I’ve been getting a TON of emails marked with the tell-tale “FW:” from right-wing acquaintances and family members that quote wholesale the Ten Arguments Against Gay Marriage website. I’ve been deluged by these zealots who, rather than discuss things intelligently, find it easier to just forward via email the concepts and ideas of people who think just like them... That is, not at all.

It is my intention to rip asunder these ridiculous arguments.

Note: this article doesn’t cover the arguments against homosexuality, because frankly, no one’s going to change someone’s mind regarding love and monogamy if they can’t already see that two people loving one another is two people loving one another, regardless of the number of penises involved. Zero, one, or two, it’s just love.

So here you go, my dissection of those ridiculous ten arguments:

* * *

Argument #1: The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound.

Oh you are so right. Two men raising a child in a home where rules are obeyed and respect for all people is taught is SO MUCH WORSE for the structure of family-based society than a husband who cheats on his wife, or who beats the kids, or who simply doesn’t care about them. 

Saying that the “family” is a cohesive unit solely on the merit that the union of a man and a woman resulted in offspring is somewhat akin to saying that a baseball team is solid based on the fact that there’s nine guys on the field.

It’s not the structure that counts... It’s the contents of the framework. If there were a woman batting .400 against fast-pitching males, don’t even pretend that the Yankees wouldn’t pay her 22 million over five years to wear the pinstripes - regardless of the all-male history and composition of Major League Baseball.

If two men or two women can provide a stable, loving home for a child, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to forbid them from being able to do so? You’d rather the child languish in the hellhole that most orphanages and shelters have become? You’d rather they work their way through the hit-or-miss foster system in this country, only to become unstable, distrustful adults who are far more likely to commit crimes involving violence against another person?

Just ask yourself one question - if you knew a child was being battered by a mother and father, and you knew a same-sex couple who would be willing to take that child in and raise it and give it a loving home, would you rather it stay with the “family” based on the fact that it’s a union between a man and a woman?

If the answer is anything other than “hell no,” you honestly need to reevaluate your faith and why you proclaim to have it.



Argument #2: The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

Boy, this sounds familiar... What do they call this? You know, in Philosophy 101 in college, they have this list of logical fallacies... This one is, like, a greased incline or---

No wait - slippery slope. That’s it.

I cannot think of a more ridiculous argument against allowing two people to share the benefits and title of marriage than this. If we amend the current state of thinking to include the union between to people to be simply that - a union between TWO PEOPLE - then the next thing you know, we’re gong to amend it to be between THREE people, and then FOUR, and then a goat might enter the picture...

Come on. Wake up. Just because a concept evolves to the societal standards does not mean that suddenly the standards will change to force the concept to adhere to the new standard. It doesn’t work that way - in fact, it works the OTHER way. The second you open the door for a group of people to finally enjoy the benefits they’re rightfully entitled to, they tend to become quite guarded and protective of those benefits. They actually become defenders of that which they have earned.


Argument #3: An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.

Is that so... There’s an objective of the homosexual movement to earn a right to benefits and tax incentives by forming a union between consenting adults, and then they’re going to just about-face on the whole concept altogether and get rid of it?

Is that how that works?

I bet they don’t even love each other. All those videos and pictures of two women or two men standing hand-in-hand on the courtyard steps of the counties and states which now allow same-sex unions, crying their eyes out with joy that they now get to have a legally-recognized union... Those are actors. Gay actors. They’re just fucking with us.

Why would anyone do this? I mean, honestly... If you want to get right down to it, marriage as a legal (not religious, LEGAL) union is designed to incorporate tax breaks and asset protection to encourage procreation.

That’s right. God and the government want to save you money so you can have some babies.

From AmericanCatholic.org:

The very purpose of marriage is to develop union between husband and wife and to bear and raise children. In more technical language, we call those two purposes unitive and procreative.

God does not will that all married couples have children, as we know, and we don’t understand why. But our tradition of listening to God, revealed in Scripture, in the experience of the Church and all creation, tells us that married couples need to be open to bearing and raising children.

But somehow, childless couples are getting the same protection and rights as couples WITH children! THIS IS BLASPHEMY! HOLY FUCKING SHIT!


SO why the hell aren’t Christians everywhere going apeshit over childless man/woman marriages? Could it be... Like... Uh...

Seriously. I have no snarky comment for this one. No joke, no witticism. I just don’t get it.


Argument #4: With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.


It IS the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, because morals enter into marriage about the same amount as they enter into making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

There is no moral reason for marriage in the eyes of the LAW. There is only a contractual business agreement between two consenting adults (who, currently, have to be male and female equally).

Same as speeding tickets, copyright law, and curfews. No morals. Just bounds and requirements. Like it or not, Christians, when a justice of the peace can perform a ceremony that results in the same contractual bounds as a priest, it’s no longer a religious ceremony. It’s just your preference that a man (or woman, for you more progressive types) of the cloth say the words.

And, rather than compel schools across the nation to teach morality, how about we just ask them to knock off the moral lessons altogether and stick to science, maths and humanities? Don’t morals start in the home?

If they don’t for you, you’re part of the reason most teachers hate their jobs.


Argument #5: From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.

Good.

From my response to #1, repeated here for the lazy:

Just ask yourself one question - if you knew a child was being battered by a mother and father, and you knew a same-sex couple who would be willing to take that child in and raise it and give it a loving home, would you rather it stay with the “family” based on the fact that it’s a union between a man and a woman?

And again, If the answer is anything other than “hell no,” you honestly need to reevaluate your faith in this Jesus guy and why you proclaim to have it.


Argument #6: Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Right, just like they have to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of racial or gender bias, and have to affirm equality on both counts in children they take in.

You’ve obviously not run into many foster-care parents. It just so happens, however, that my wife and I have done all the groundwork to become foster-care parents (because we never intend to procreate - which makes us blasphemers per argument #3). We feel that procreation in light of the fact that there’s a ton of children at the pound waiting for someone to just take a damn interest in them is pretty fucking selfish.

There, my hat’s been thrown into that little ring.

Anyway, at no point during the application process were we required to undergo any sort of sensitivity training whatsoever. At no point were we required to prove that we don’t harbor any sort of gender or racial bias. At no point were my college credentials (or lack thereof) called into question. All they really cared about was criminal record and salary. Did we seem stable? Yup.

That’s all it took.

So, supposing my little ruse works, all I need now is for the state to give me a little black kid so I can burn him with cigarettes. Or, a little girl, so I can constantly scream at her and remind her how inferior she is to the superior male gender. I can now totally fuck up any kids under my care and unleash them onto society, because my wife and I are a male/female couple and SEEM stable.

Guess what folks? That shit happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. And I know it does, first hand. I won’t go into how or why, but what you need to take from this is that the foster care system in America is fundamentally broken - the very last thing we should give a shit about is the concept of same-gender unions and how they impact the psyche of a foster kid.


Argument #7: How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits?

Ah, there it is... The first “G” in the three tenets of Christianity - Gold (the other two are God and Glory).

“What’s going to happen to MY MONEY when them faggots is allowed to marry?” Well, you yokel, how about you take a good look at what’s happening to it RIGHT NOW?

This is precisely the kind of argument that cripples America, and as a consequence, our progress toward getting off this planet and out into the solar system so we can fly cool starships. It’s not the interest-free loans that the past four administrations (including Clinton’s, so don’t go thinking I’m picking on Republicans) have given themselves based on the Social Security reserves. It’s not the complete mismanagement of the actual fund itself, with payouts going to undeserving early pullers who are drawing more than they put in.

No. It’s the gays.

Gay people are going to be the death of Social Security when they’re allowed the same rights as us straights! Just you watch!

Actually, Social Security is doomed, regardless of who we allow to get married.


Argument #8: Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.

“The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage.”

You’re right, there’ll be a worldwide epidemic of governments opening the concept of marriage to include same-sex marriages. Gee... How horrible.

So what would fix this one? If America allowed same-sex marriage, but no other country on earth did? Would that fix it? Of course not... All this argument is doing is saying “one will lead to another!” And it’s entirely right - if America can open its’ collective mind to allow for two consenting adults who intend to remain monogamous, regardless of gender, then why shouldn’t Britain, or France, or any other nation? Why would this be a bad thing in and of itself?

Simply the number of marriages on record worldwide? Is 2 million gay marriages worse than one million? It’s not like the fact that homosexuals can now form a legal union is going to go turning otherwise straight people gay... It’s just going to allow individuals of the same sex who want to enter into that agreement to be able to do so. Nothing more.

Don’t worry, it’s not a gay virus. It’s just a new idea entering a closed mind. I know it feels the same to you, but give it a chance.


Argument #9: "Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning."

This is basically saying “My belief system doesn’t allow for homosexual marriage, and if homosexual marriage is allowed, then my belief system loses a foothold in societal control.” 

If your belief system doesn’t allow for the possibility that a) two people of the same gender can’t have an unyielding love for one another and b) that they want to form a union based on that love such that one can provide for the other, share health benefits, and have their property and assets protected under the same laws that protect male/female unions... Well, your belief system isn’t really based on love and logic, now is it? And if it lacks those two cornerstones of the human condition, it’s not much of a belief system.

Additionally, I challenge you to find one - JUST ONE - verse in the bible (or any religious text) where Jesus Christ speaks out against the union or bond between people of the same gender.

Just one.

I’ll save you the trouble: you won’t find it. What you will find are overly general sentiments advocating and supporting the existing laws of God, which - previous to the New Testament - included human-interpreted (or human-invented-with-God’s-name-attached) laws which spoke against homosexuals.

Borrowing from ReligiousTolerance.org (which is a fantastic site, by the way):

In Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12, Jesus supports the concept that God made a man and a woman so that they could marry. He is quoted as saying in both Gospels: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Also, in Matthew 5:17-18, after the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

That’s pretty much it - Jesus supported and advocated the laws of God. But in this, Jesus would then be advocating that no man partake of swine (read: no bacon! OH THE HORROR) or other dirty animals; that we humans only eat fish on Friday; and that a man who steals from another man should have his hand cut off (yep, the Old Testament put God’s seal of approval on Hammurabi’s Code).

But wait, didn’t Jesus cleanse the animals? And didn’t Jesus advocate a code of morality into the code of laws (love thy neighbor and all that yakkity-yak)? In fact, didn’t Jesus Christ FUNDAMENTALLY alter the core of theological law as professed by scribes recording the word of God?

As good a question as that might be, the real question is: if your lord and savior, Jesus Christ - the son of God - were here on this Earth today, would he speak out against homosexual unions? Would he even have an opinion on the sanctity of court-approved business relationships between consenting adults for tax and insurance benefit?

Probably not.


Argument #10: "The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become 'as it was in the days of Noah' (Matthew 24:37, NIV)."

I don’t get this argument. Not just this one line, but the whole damn thing. I think it was put here just to round the list out to ten and serve the author’s selfish need to proclaim just how into God he and his wife are. Honestly, this whole notion of a "culture war" between Christians and non-Christians bothers me. Why is it that the majority of non-religious culture are content to just be themselves and let others be themselves, while the Christian side insist on "winning" this "culture war" by inflicting themselves upon those who are not them?

And moreso, why do they think they - regardless of denomination - are going to win any points with a non-Christian when they can't even settle some of the most basic arguments of Christianity amongst themselves? Methodists arguing with Baptists, Lutherans yelling at Presbyterians, Catholics yelling at... Well, everyone... Why would I want to actively join an internal war amongst Christians? Can't I just let you guys bicker about it amongst yourselves while I sit at home and watch some football on Sunday?

At the very least, if you're going to insist on interrupting me with your religious marketing, do so respectfully. Here's a helpful guide on how to actually do this.

* * *

Let’s just be honest here - people are against same-sex marriage for the same reasons they were against the right for women to vote, or for black men to own land, or for colonists to exercise their rights to bear arms and free themselves from unjust taxation... It upsets the status quo. It doesn’t jive with the way they know the world. It forces logic into a head full of belief.

Basically, it forces them to look directly into the bright light of social progress... And when your eyes have been shut for so long, it’s uncomfortable.

I have my own personal predilections that some would call closed-minded - and they are. I’m not perfect. None of us are. And that’s precisely why we’re not qualified to go passing judgement on and imposing our will upon the lives of others.

What’s it to you that two dudes or two chicks want to make sure their partners are covered under the healthcare benefits they work hard to keep? You get to put your wife or husband on your policies... Can’t they?

Or is your love for one another somehow more valid than theirs?

All I know is that I know several homosexual couples who have told me they plan to make the trek to California this summer to get hitched, and I've read quite a few articles on the subject. Not once have I heard statements like "she rooked me into getting hitched" or "I guess I'll marry her because I knocked her up and, like, it's just right, you know?" These people I see on TV lining up - LINING UP!!!! - to get married after five, ten, twenty years of being together... They're crying with joy. They're so damn happy that, finally, all the years of knowing what they know about one another - that they love one another - are finally going to be legally sanctioned.

Meanwhile, you've got men going out for one last hot night filled with strippers and booze before they "latch on the ol' ball and chain." You've got women acting like complete whores the night before a wedding, throwing themselves all over men at bars at bachelorette parties because "This is their last night of freedom." You've got married governors hiring sex workers on the taxpayer's dime to fufill dirty fantasies, or tapping their foot in restroom stalls for a little man-on-man play. I personally know fourteen married men - FOURTEEN - who go to strip clubs on Saturdays and then to church on Sunday to repent.

And that's the much-charished sanctitiy of marriage that gets bandied about in the halls of state congress?

The day every single Christian on this planet begins honoring and cherishing their mate, I might listen to ill-founded belief-based arguments against legal unions for same-sex couples.

Mind you, I said "might." I can't promise anything... It's not like I can just turn off logic.